yeah, those last 2 shots make me think it's not worth returning honestly. But it's not that it's not hard to fix, it's that it's time consuming and annoying. For two reasons, you can't easily batch it because it's a different amount each time. Cropping once it's done is also a PITA. Sure, for a shot here or there it's workable, but if I shoot a house for a client and have to PP ~25 shots and they all need an adjustment? That's a massive PITA. But the other big issue is you lose width when you do it. My 14mm end of the 14-24mm was only 15ish once it was fixed. This lens is already starting at 16mm, but if it needs 50% more correction you're losing quite a bit unfortunately.
It's a shame though, because everything else about the lens is pretty amazing. CA, Sharpness stopped down, the size, weight and price, the VR, it's a very nice lens, I just wish this distortion issue wasn't quite so bad.
jacobsen1 wrote:
the s90 w/o software correction has it beat.
can it shoot at f4 , can it really focus fast enough for any sporting or impromptu shots? will it fit on my nikon body? can it shoot at iso6400 and take useable images? man talk about apples and oranges sheesh
The distortion in these shots doesn't bother me, I'm not really an architecture shooter. Currently I'm wracking my brain trying to decide if I can live with an f/4 lens for weddings and events. The 16-35VR, 50AF-S, & tele sounds damn tempting.
Jammy Straub wrote:
The distortion in these shots doesn't bother me, I'm not really an architecture shooter. Currently I'm wracking my brain trying to decide if I can live with an f/4 lens for weddings and events. The 16-35VR, 50AF-S, & tele sounds damn tempting.
I would stick with 2.8 for events. F4 & VR really doesn't make sense to me. Plus, the difference between a new 16-35mm and a used 14-24 is pretty close.
Great thread, people, thank you all for helping me convince myself to keep my 14-24! And not everyone's convinced-- great deals on 14-24's to be had on B&S
Jammy Straub wrote:
The distortion in these shots doesn't bother me, I'm not really an architecture shooter. Currently I'm wracking my brain trying to decide if I can live with an f/4 lens for weddings and events. The 16-35VR, 50AF-S, & tele sounds damn tempting.
I have a feeling f4 might just cut it for weddings. My boss has the 5D MKII and uses the 17-40 F4, and his wife shoots his 16-35 f2.8 on a 5D classic.
jmcfadden wrote:
can it shoot at f4 , can it really focus fast enough for any sporting or impromptu shots? will it fit on my nikon body? can it shoot at iso6400 and take useable images? man talk about apples and oranges sheesh
you missed what I was responding to!!! Check the post before mine, I was saying the s90 has it beat in terms of DISTORTION meaning it's WORSE! If you've ever seen an s90 in LR before the profile came out, it was pretty interesting.
Jammy Straub wrote:
The distortion in these shots doesn't bother me, I'm not really an architecture shooter. Currently I'm wracking my brain trying to decide if I can live with an f/4 lens for weddings and events. The 16-35VR, 50AF-S, & tele sounds damn tempting.
no way would I consider that. Maybe if you're a flash person, but unless you're shooting a D3s and have super high, super clean ISOs f/4 doesn't work inside. Sure it works in good light, but how often is that at a wedding? I shoot available light all the time. I've come from a 1Dii to a 5D to a 5Dii to a D700. Each time I've stepped up in terms of clean ISOs I always wonder the same thing, can a f/4 zoom work? Then I try it and realize it just can't. Then I use my f/2.8 zooms for a bit before I realize just how much better the images are with a fast prime. Even if there's enough light, you're either getting less noise from your ISOs or you're getting faster shutters or both.
Simply put, for people pictures f/4 with or without VR just doesn't work as well as we'd all like to think. Every time I try it I end up going back to primes. For example, with my setup at my house with Auto ISO set to 1/125th, with a 2.8 zoom I'm at 6400 almost all the time and the shutter is between 1/125th and 1/30th. With a prime I'm 2 stops faster so I'm at 1600 to 6400 but the shutter stays at 1/125th the entire time.
The VR on this lens is great, don't get me wrong, but it's meant for being used when a tripod should but isn't allowed or the person is too lazy. Basically, it's meant to help get you DOF in low light, not stop any motion.
jacobsen1 wrote:
yeah, those last 2 shots make me think it's not worth returning honestly. But it's not that it's not hard to fix, it's that it's time consuming and annoying. For two reasons, you can't easily batch it because it's a different amount each time. Cropping once it's done is also a PITA. Sure, for a shot here or there it's workable, but if I shoot a house for a client and have to PP ~25 shots and they all need an adjustment? That's a massive PITA. But the other big issue is you lose width when you do it. My 14mm end of the 14-24mm was only 15ish once it was fixed. This lens is already starting at 16mm, but if it needs 50% more correction you're losing quite a bit unfortunately.
It's a shame though, because everything else about the lens is pretty amazing. CA, Sharpness stopped down, the size, weight and price, the VR, it's a very nice lens, I just wish this distortion issue wasn't quite so bad....Show more →
You can batch it with PT Lens once the lens gets added to the database.
jacobsen1 wrote:
^ is PT lens free? I'd bet I could actually batch it with PS's filter too right, with a set amount of correction?
A bargain at $25 with profiles for most lenses and looking at some reviews it's more effective than PS and worth every penny for the convenience alone.
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
I have a feeling f4 might just cut it for weddings. My boss has the 5D MKII and uses the 17-40 F4, and his wife shoots his 16-35 f2.8 on a 5D classic.
Yeah, I've ran into a lot of folks using the 24-105 f/4L IS for weddings, it's an odd choice, but it does seem to work for them. The problem is definitely that 'might just cut it' part
jacobsen1 wrote:
no way would I consider that. Maybe if you're a flash person, but unless you're shooting a D3s and have super high, super clean ISOs f/4 doesn't work inside. Sure it works in good light, but how often is that at a wedding?
The only reason I'm even considering it is the D3s Or at least the D3s's sensor and the possibility of a D700s or like. I've shot with Canon f/4 zooms and 20Ds and MkIIs, the f/4 zooms only sort of worked then, there was lots of flash bouncing required. They only really come into their own if you have a fast prime in the middle of the range like the 24mm f/1.4.
I've done lots of looking through my archives and basically decided despite the 16-35 f/4VR's temptation is just doesn't make financial sense for an event shooter once you figure in needing something like the 24 f/1.4 and the reduced capability of the 16-35. It looks like the 14-24 would be a better solution for me. I am always running into walls trying to shoot in elevators
The 16-35 looks like it has mustache or complex distortion from that window/wall photo. It seems to bend in at the center slightly. I've been considering moving from DX to FX and this would make the transition, but it looks like I might as well just stick with my trusty nikkor 12-24.
Darren555 wrote:
A bargain at $25 with profiles for most lenses and looking at some reviews it's more effective than PS and worth every penny for the convenience alone.
PT lens contains lens profiles in a database. These profiles are written for the correct correction for a specified lens at various focal lengths. So even if your lens has some crazy distortion PT Lens will work better than something like Photoshop. It reads the EXIF data from your shot to get the lens information, camera model (to determine if you are using a crop factor or full frame) and focal length to do it's correction. If you are unhappy with lens distortion, PT Lens will be the best $25 you ever spent. If you want the 16-35 VR added quickly to the lens database, there are instructions on the PT Lens website on providing sample images so he can calibrate the lens correction needed into the software.
kipkeston wrote:
The 16-35 looks like it has mustache or complex distortion from that window/wall photo. It seems to bend in at the center slightly.
I noticed that too, but then the 17-35mm and 14-24mm do the same in that setup if you look at the other photos. It's ever so slightly more pronounced on the 16-35 shot. I think it might be some sort of optical illusion *scratches head*
This thread has lots of great info... I am waiting on my 17-35 to come back from Nikon and I was considering selling it for this... I think I still may do it because of the added sharpness.
Someone who's bored and owns the 14-24 and 16-35 should check the t-stop of the new lens. I've read the 14-24 has an effective t-stop of ~f/3.7 I wonder if the 16-35 is close to a true f/4. (t-stop is light transmission, you can check it by comparing histograms against something like an f/1.4 50mm and using all manual settings.)
OK have the 16-35 in the hand, here are a couple quick observations
size and appearance are inviting as a lighter, more consumer grade lens, the image quality however is contrary.
VR technology has gotten whisper quiet!! I had to hold my ear to the barrel to hear it come on, Im coming from a 70-200 VR I for reference.
I see no significant signs of CA anywhere, at any aperture in any frame thus far. I thought for a second there was some but after reviewing the actual scene with my own eye, the cream white paint next to the black cherry stain in the test photo actually has some lightgreen paint underneath it. SOO, if a lens contributes to tonal range, this lens pulls its' weight.
SHARP, at f4 its sharp, acceptably sharp for most all applications, by f11 its a winner but at f22 diffraction sets in quite noticeably....
the corners, my friends, are sharp. Because of its wide angles however, make sure in your own comaprisons that any suspected soft focus or muddy corners arent a factor of limited DOF. The first area I examined was the corners and when i saw one was muddy i became alarmed, but then looked at the scene... the couch coushon in question was only 18" away DOH!! the other corners were highly resolved.
I do see some barrel distortion at 16mm, I suspect that at 16mm there should be some, especially when the distance to subject is only 4'. I dont know what the fuss is about. Its a wide angle lens. I havent looked at the long end yet.
.
