Is the first one an electron generator or the inside of a power plant.
That second shot sure has some resolution to it - I can see people who make a living with photography actually needing such a fine camera/lens. But for most 35mm format users... is that high a resolution with that nice a setup really needed ?
That would be the Nikon 14-24G. I must have I got it confused with the Sigma 12-24
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Paul, you mention the Nikon 12–24 G, and you say that it is sharp wide open at ƒ2.8. Which lens are you referring to, exactly?
Googling, I got this hit, on DPReview:
Are you referring to this lens, or the 14–24/2.8 that I have—which definitely is sharp wide open? Did I miss something?
I tested the 12–24/4 Nikkor against the Tokina 12–24 in DX-sensor-only days, and the latter blew it away, frankly. Probably a copy variation problem (poor Nikkor; great Tokina), but I was surprised at the difference. Cheers, KL
The fact that the Zuiko 18/3.5 has such low distortion is something that I forgot to mention. It was low enough I never corrected for it in post processing. It's the only SWA that's performs so well for distortion.
Simon Kennedy wrote:
Personally I am not sure about that Tamron lens based on these examples. I don't normally get involved in testing and so on, but here is a few crops from a shot from my Zuiko 18mm. It looks to me like it is substantially sharper than the tamron, with much lower distortion. But then it costs much more so I suppose you would expect that. Perhaps I am missing something here...
Thanks Paul; you are usually so precise in what you write that I didn't seriously consider a typo—I assumed a lens I didn't know, but wanted to! And the 14–28/2.8 IS a great lens. In informal consideration of images taken with both lenses, I feel it compares favourably with the now-fabled Distagon 21, and I had one of those for quite a while—except the 14–24 zooms and does not have the 'moustache' distortion (which never troubled me, actually).
Sorry for dragging this thread back from the dead, but does anyone have any information on the Sigma 18mm f3.5? I was going through the information at http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/lenses and saw 2 references to it. One reference ranked it above the Tamron 17/3.5, which piqued my curiosity.
pascal03 wrote:
Is the first one an electron generator or the inside of a power plant.
That second shot sure has some resolution to it - I can see people who make a living with photography actually needing such a fine camera/lens. But for most 35mm format users... is that high a resolution with that nice a setup really needed ?
First one is the large hadron collider at CERN in Geneva.
