Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 106

Thread: Wide Angel Lens

  1. #41

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    DX lenses are meant for DX cameras, like the D90 you own.
    Because they create a smaller image circle, the glass elements need not be so large, so they are generally smaller, lighter, cheaper.

    If you do not plan to upgrade to an FX camera (eg. D700, D3) in the near future, this is a good type of lens to own. Why pay more?

    Nikon 12-24 quite expensive leh... not worth the price, in my humble opinion.
    Tokina's 12-24 f/4 and 11-16 f/2.8 are much better value for money, and that's even before considering others like Tamron 10-24, Sigma 10-20, etc etc etc...
    Thanks for the info..
    Wondering you have any rough idea how much this lenses cost atm?
    Tokina's 12-24 f/4 and 11-16 f/2.8
    Tamron 10-24, Sigma 10-20

  2. #42
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kopred View Post
    Seriously I can't really figure out from the 2 photo, as where is the distortions.
    Distortions mean out of proportion/shape right?
    Maybe my eyes not sharp enough.. but the 2 picture look very sharp and nice to me.
    Dun see any flaw.. from my newbie eye.
    If you look at the 1st photo again. Pay attention to the floor tiles at the edges. You realise that they were stretched to a diamond shape? Compare to the tiles closer to the middle of the photo, which are less elongated like a square. This stretching effect is perspective distortion associated with wide angle lenses. It cannot be corrected.

    2nd photo, look at the vertical lines on the left side of the photo. You'd realise that instead of being straight, they are slightly curved outwards. This curve is more pronounced towards the edges of the photo. That's called barrel distortion, which is a type of curvilinear distortion. The opposite of this is pin cushion distortion, which is associated with lenses with longer reach. These can be corrected to a certain extend with software.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    With the Nikkor 12-24, you get an angle of view of 18-36. With the 10-24, you get 15-36. Both are considered wide angle and will work with the D90.
    Hmm.. crop factor of 1.5 for D90.
    Thanks for the info.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kopred View Post
    Hmm.. crop factor of 1.5 for D90.
    Thanks for the info.
    Hence I multiplied the focal lengths accordingly.

  5. #45
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,565

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by ZerocoolAstra View Post
    Just curious.... what is this 12-24 lens that everyone in this thread is talking about (for FF)?
    Is there such a lens?
    From the description (no filter yet), it sounds like the AF-S Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.... is that the one you're referring to?

    As to the shooting at widest focal length... the distortion exists at just about every focal length, so if you avoid the widest and narrowest because of distortion, then what focal length are you gonna shoot at?
    At the wide end, every mm makes a lot of difference. Seems like a waste to pay good $$ for an ultra-wide, then restrict oneself to shooting at a slightly narrower view.

    Ultra-wides capture a lot of things, and so composing a scene is more challenging. If one doesn't want to think about so many things when composing, it's best not to get a UWA lens...
    Woot?! Where were you when we're debating about the FOV / Angle of View regarding UWA about a week ago? You managed to calculate the CF/FF differences, remember? Then Raskae pointed out the Sigma's 12-24 for full frame DSLRs, a whopping 122 degrees!! Whereas Nikon's 14-24, only 114 degrees!

    Btw, I think (if I'm not wrong that is), Cokin has a solution for Nikon's 14-24 filter problem... using their X series with some "screw-inwards" fastener / adaptor...

    Sigma's 12-24 uses soft gelatin filters (rear attacheable I think)... Kit, you got experience with soft gelatin filters?
    Last edited by kriegsketten; 17th August 2010 at 05:34 PM.
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  6. #46
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,269

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    With the Nikkor 12-24, you get an angle of view of 18-36. With the 10-24, you get 15-36. Both are considered wide angle and will work with the D90.
    And I would pay less to get a wider coverage. Erhm.. is there a reason to get the 12-24? Back then when I was choosing my UWA, it would appear that 12-24 was the earlier lens released by Nikon but 10-24 supposed to be better. However after so many years, I am finding it a bit weird that 12-24 is still selling more expensive than 10-24 (by quite a bit).

    Oh. Everyone in here are Nikon users huh?

  7. #47
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by kriegsketten View Post
    Woot?! Where were you when we're debating about the FOV / Angle of View regarding UWA about a week ago? You managed to calculate the CF/FF differences, remember? Then Raskae pointed out the Sigma's 12-24 for full frame DSLRs, a whopping 122 degrees!! Whereas Nikon's 14-24, only 114 degrees!

    Btw, I think (if I'm not wrong that is), Cokin has a solution for Nikon's 14-24 filter problem... using their X series with some "screw-inwards" fastener / adaptor...

    Sigma's 12-24 uses soft gelatin filters (rear attacheable I think)... Kit, you got experience with soft gelatin filters?
    I didn't know the X series was big enough for the 14-24mm. LEE did make a dedicated filter holder for thie lens though.

    No experience with gelatin filters though but I know Cathay sells the ones from LEE.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    And I would pay less to get a wider coverage. Erhm.. is there a reason to get the 12-24? Back then when I was choosing my UWA, it would appear that 12-24 was the earlier lens released by Nikon but 10-24 supposed to be better. However after so many years, I am finding it a bit weird that 12-24 is still selling more expensive than 10-24 (by quite a bit).

    Oh. Everyone in here are Nikon users huh?
    Nikkor 12-24 f/4

    To many, that's a big deal I'd imagine.

  9. #49
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,565

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    And I would pay less to get a wider coverage. Erhm.. is there a reason to get the 12-24? Back then when I was choosing my UWA, it would appear that 12-24 was the earlier lens released by Nikon but 10-24 supposed to be better. However after so many years, I am finding it a bit weird that 12-24 is still selling more expensive than 10-24 (by quite a bit).

    Oh. Everyone in here are Nikon users huh?
    Same here, the pricier 12-24 apart from constant f/4 aperture does not serve any big purpose when compared to the newer lens 10-24 f/3.5-4.5. The latter being more affordable, MUCH MUCH wider (10 deg difference), and lighter too!
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  10. #50
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,565

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Nikkor 12-24 f/4

    To many, that's a big deal I'd imagine.
    Not to me it isn't, plus 10-24 is f/3.5 at the widest - a tad faster...
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  11. #51
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,269

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Nikkor 12-24 f/4

    To many, that's a big deal I'd imagine.
    Hmm.. okay, that's an interesting perspective.

    Nikkor 10-24 f/3.5-4.5
    vs
    Nikkor 12-24 f/4

    I still don't geddit. Help?

  12. #52
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Hmm.. okay, that's an interesting perspective.

    Nikkor 10-24 f/3.5-4.5
    vs
    Nikkor 12-24 f/4

    I still don't geddit. Help?
    Why think so much? You got the 10-24 already what.....

  13. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    406

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Oh ok. Sorry 2 hijack again. So 4 efs lens i also need 2 times 1.6 as well? (I read n read till i become blur already) how abt tamrom 17-50mm, do i also need 2 times 1.6?

  14. #54
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    You need to multiply all focal lengths by the crop factor of whichever camera you are using, regardsless of manufacturer.

  15. #55
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,269

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Why think so much? You got the 10-24 already what.....
    Heh. Okay, anyway I went back to Google again and found out that:

    12-24mm is better built, semi-pro quality.
    10-24mm is the most filmsy (even worse than Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 10-20mm, supposedly)

    However in all other things, it would appear to be superior.

    No lah, I just find it very curious (need to have things answered and cannot just accept things without reasoning) especially after so many years that prices have settled and yet the 12-24mm is still more expensive.

  16. #56
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,269

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by sachokphantom View Post
    Oh ok. Sorry 2 hijack again. So 4 efs lens i also need 2 times 1.6 as well? (I read n read till i become blur already) how abt tamrom 17-50mm, do i also need 2 times 1.6?
    I wish people wouldn't put 2 times 1.6 in a sentence that is supposed to mean "to times 1.6" rather than "two times 1.6"

    Okay, I'm being anal today. Which isn't unusual.

    I suppose still not anal enough to correct that it's supposed to be "to multiply by 1.6"...
    Last edited by wildcat; 17th August 2010 at 05:51 PM.

  17. #57
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Heh. Okay, anyway I went back to Google again and found out that:

    12-24mm is better built, semi-pro quality.
    10-24mm is the most filmsy (even worse than Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 10-20mm, supposedly)

    However in all other things, it would appear to be superior.

    No lah, I just find it very curious (need to have things answered and cannot just accept things without reasoning) especially after so many years that prices have settled and yet the 12-24mm is still more expensive.
    I've not handled the 10-24 before so I can't say for sure about the built. CK did mentioned about the ridiculous barrel distortion the 12-24 has but probably not as bad as the 16-35 f/4.

  18. #58
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,565

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Heh. Okay, anyway I went back to Google again and found out that:

    12-24mm is better built, semi-pro quality.
    10-24mm is the most filmsy (even worse than Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 10-20mm, supposedly)

    However in all other things, it would appear to be superior.

    No lah, I just find it very curious (need to have things answered and cannot just accept things without reasoning) especially after so many years that prices have settled and yet the 12-24mm is still more expensive.
    Don't believe everything that's been said ... have you been to NSC - I have - to compare between the two? I'd say external body quality wise - can't tell the difference... Sure, it can't beat Tokina 11-16mm body quality... but angle wise - wins hands down!
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

  19. #59
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,442

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    I wish people wouldn't put 2 times 1.6 in a sentence that is supposed to mean "to times 1.6" rather than "two times 1.6"

    Okay, I'm being anal today. Which isn't unusual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    You need to multiply all focal lengths by the crop factor of whichever camera you are using, regardsless of manufacturer.
    Safe answer.....

  20. #60
    New Member kriegsketten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern Enclave
    Posts
    2,565

    Default Re: Wide Angel Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    I didn't know the X series was big enough for the 14-24mm. LEE did make a dedicated filter holder for thie lens though.

    No experience with gelatin filters though but I know Cathay sells the ones from LEE.
    Cokin's X-pro solution is something along the line like this:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Cokin-X-Pro-filt...nsesFilters_JN

    Not sure if it would be stable... There is a universal adaptor for lenses with weird sizes also - very costly... using the same screw-in method as the above...

    That said, how much does Lee's solution cost? And it uses 100X150mm filter sizes right?
    Last edited by kriegsketten; 17th August 2010 at 05:54 PM.
    Myflickr | Zoom in for the KILL!

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •