BenV wrote:
shoulda been posted in the Canon forum if its a Canon mount. :-D
Actually it should be posted in both forums. For Nikon users who are anxiously awaiting it's release, this at least gives a rough indication of it's performance although I'm sure the results on a Nikon body will vary as they did with the Tokina 12-24.
eos-m42guy wrote:
Actually it should be posted in both forums. For Nikon users who are anxiously awaiting it's release, this at least gives a rough indication of it's performance although I'm sure the results on a Nikon body will vary as they did with the Tokina 12-24.
stompyq wrote:
I'am confused. Why should they be different?
There were a few strange differences between the 12-24 for Canon and the one for Nikon. I'd bet there are a few factors. 1.5x vs 1.6x crop and perhaps a different film plane to rear element distance.
The Nikon version also had slightly more vignetting (due to slightly larger sensor I'd imagine). Here's the kicker though the tested Nikon sample had significantly better edge and extreme corner performance than the Canon sample. It could just be sample variation or it could be a side effect the different sensor designs and camera setups.
I'm considering either a 17-55 or a 24-70 for my D300, and I already have the Nikon 12-24. Selling the 12-24 and getting this along with the 17-55 would be PERFECT...
Thanks for posting this - too bad it didn't come out 6 months ago, or I'd have been seriously tempted. As it is I like my Sigma 10-20, but those MTFs certainly do make one stop and rub one's eyes...
Klaus does state that results aren't cross-system comparable, but there's rarely a significant difference.
My wife was in Japan last week and bought me one of these. Kind of a nice gift. It doesn't have a lot of zoom -- maybe about 2 steps. But if you have a wall behind you and you can't take two steps....
These are with a D300, converted in ACR CS3 and not sharpened at all.
I don't understand why this is a zoom. It has such a short zoom range, why not put the effort into a fixed focal 11mm at 2.8 that has even better optics, and probably smaller too...
It looks nice, though, I just question the decision for this to be a zoom. I mean, If you're going to go wide....wouldn't you just use it at 11mm and keep it there?
Sorry for the rant, but this has been on my mind sine they announced this lens.
MagicNikon wrote:
I don't understand why this is a zoom. It has such a short zoom range, why not put the effort into a fixed focal 11mm at 2.8 that has even better optics, and probably smaller too...
It looks nice, though, I just question the decision for this to be a zoom. I mean, If you're going to go wide....wouldn't you just use it at 11mm and keep it there?
Sorry for the rant, but this has been on my mind sine they announced this lens.
Flexibility pure and simple. Same reason people use the 17-55 f/2.8 instead of the 35mm f/2 on a DX body.
Despite the example posted above the difference between 11 and 16mm can be significant in certain situations, sometimes there is no way to back up those extra 6 feet and vise versa. In 35mm terms the lens is equivalent to a 16-25mm lens with is a very useful PJ range for close quarters work and groups. It also makes it possible to cary the 11-16mm lens, a 30-50mm prime lens, and a 70-200mm lens and keep as much range as possible with as few lenses as possible.
The lens certainly doesn't seem to be an optical compromise and if it was a prime it's doubtful it'd be much cheaper than it is now. (The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is $400)
Jammy Straub wrote:
Photozone has their Canon mount review up, who cares what mount it's in look at those MTFs! The only downer is the typical Tokina CA
- thanks for the link. Do we know when this will be available here in the states?