PeterGlaso wrote:
D700. ZF 100/2. f2.
The combination of you posting this and one of these lenses for sale in the B&S has the logical, frugal part of my brain at war with the lustful, reckless part.
Would love to see more from that combo.
The combination of you posting this and one of these lenses for sale in the B&S has the logical, frugal part of my brain at war with the lustful, reckless part.
Would love to see more from that combo.
BluePixel wrote:
Raymond, do you like this lens, or still hope for 14-24 sometime in the future ?
Sergey.
no 14-24 for me... i've sold all my DX stuff to get FX glass. i've looked at the 14-24, but 14mm isn't quite the same as 12mm and this 12-24 seems very nice. i love it. This is going to be fun on my next trip, i can't wait to really try it out. I have no need for the nikkor. The way i use my UWA isn't wide open, so the max aperture of F2.8 isn't something i need. I want the widest i could get and that's not 14mm.
I had the same on DX. 12mm from the nikkor or tokina was just not the same as 10mm from the sigma 10-20.
Now with the 12-24 on FX i'm very happy. my copy seems to be very nice. It's plenty sharp even in the corners (have you seen my test shot with corner crops?). I've yet to see the real flare issues people are talking about too. i've got the sun in my pictures here, but the flare is minimal. I have to try it at another time with the sun higher up in the sky, or maybe another lightsource. But so far i'm very pleased. Distortions seem to be handled very well too. Lines appear amazingly straight. Way better than on my old 10-20.
Together with my new 24-70 i have no complaints!
I had this idea to sell my 70-200vr and to buy 14-24, but after seeing your pictures i might try to go with nikon 85mm 1.4 and Sigma 12-24.
Just want to try some different lenses and do not want to spend any money.
BluePixel wrote:
I had this idea to sell my 70-200vr and to buy 14-24, but after seeing your pictures i might try to go with nikon 85mm 1.4 and Sigma 12-24.
Just want to try some different lenses and do not want to spend any money.
We'll see what happens.
Sergey.
Ok... well be aware of sample variations. There's a lot of talk about that on the internet, lots of people have copies that arent that sharp in the corners. and i bet the nikkor is way better. Better contrast (maybe), better color (maybe). The F2.8 aperture is something you can't neglect, even if i don't really need it it is a big pro on the nikkor. While the sigma is nicely built i think the nikkor is even better.
On thing the nikkor stinks at, is the 12mm setting, it's just not gonna happen and that's why i prefer the sigma above the nikkor. And for my type of shooting the sigma is nice enough. You might like to read this review. At least there's a nice image with overlays of 16mm, 14mm and 12mm. Quite big steps if you'd ask me. http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_12-24_review.htm
Shot this in front of the mirror with live view on so I basically just watched the focus live view feed reflected in the mirror, focused where the central point was on the screen, and voila. A photo of me, fresh out of the shower. It's times like these that that weather sealing really comes in handy.
Oh and yeah my nose probably does look bigger than it really is in this shot, as I shot this with my oh so wide 35mm F2D, at about 40 cm away from my face, but hey this aint no cover shot for vogue :-D To reitterate, my nose really isn't that big, it's all the lens's fault
