Kitehog wrote:
Am I the only one keeping this lens? The returned thread is full of complaints and comparisons with the 14-24 and 17-35 while this thread keeps sinking to the bottom.
Just wondering if Im the only on happy with this lens
I'm gonna keep mine. People are too finicky when it comes to UWA lenses. This lens beats out my 16-35 II I currently own and 17-40 that I used to have. The 14-24 isn't perfect either but, it's the best performer to date.
Nice samples here. I cant wait until pittsburgh gets some blue skies so I can get some nice outside shots! That normally happens for about a week or so in June
Wil are your brick wall shots corrected? im not picking on the barrel distortion but my copy wouldnt be able to handle that shot without post work, and i know how you feel about post work
Hey Justin, no...all shots SOOC. The distortion is obvious from 16-22 right around 23, 24 it's just about gone.
The 1st wall shot was 23mm @ f4 and I think it's pretty darned good. That was ~ a 26' wide section. Just screwin'
around, getting a feel for what it'll do. You'll note at 21mm the 2nd wall shot far right side shows some effects.
Chris Dees wrote:
The people that don't like the lens produce the most noise.
Most time it's only 1 (regrets) out of 10 (praises).
I shot only a few images with it and I like it.
I'll wait for the price to come down and then I'll buy one. Probably takes a few months.
I don't know... This lens is very enticing, but Nikon is charging $1,200 for it and it is as big as a 14-24 size wise. I think people expect a lot more. This is a lens that I really wished more for to have a lighter alternative to the 14-24 and when you see prices like that, you tend to think that distortion and fuzzy corners won't be all that bad. I just hope there is some kind of revision in the future!
Steezus wrote:
I don't know... This lens is very enticing, but Nikon is charging $1,200 for it and it is as big as a 14-24 size wise. I think people expect a lot more. This is a lens that I really wished more for to have a lighter alternative to the 14-24 and when you see prices like that, you tend to think that distortion and fuzzy corners won't be all that bad. I just hope there is some kind of revision in the future!
People expect a lot more for $1200? Really? How about people expect too much. It is a Nano coated 16-35 that has better optics than the $1800 Nikkor 17-35 (sharpness, color, resolution, etc.) and also hase 4 stops of VR 2.Oh, and it takes standard 77mm filters, unlike the Nikon 14-24 or Sigma 12-24. If you want a little tiny light lens to carry around, go look at some primes or get a crop camera and some DX lenses.
Steezus wrote:
I don't know... This lens is very enticing, but Nikon is charging $1,200 for it and it is as big as a 14-24 size wise. I think people expect a lot more. This is a lens that I really wished more for to have a lighter alternative to the 14-24 and when you see prices like that, you tend to think that distortion and fuzzy corners won't be all that bad. I just hope there is some kind of revision in the future!
It's almost 1/3 lighter; 1kg against 680gram. It's big but it balances quite well (on my D3S), better than the 14-24
The distortion is easy to correct in PP.
The fuzzy corners is between the 17-35 and 14-24; not too bad.
I guess DXO will come with a correction module.
In 6 months the price will be around $1000, not cheap but IMHO a fair price.
A thing a don't understand is about 6 months ago everybody was quite happy with the 17-35. Now it's successor is out which is better in almost every aspect (lighter, cheaper, has VR) everybody is disappointed.
Chris Dees wrote:
A thing a don't understand is about 6 months ago everybody was quite happy with the 17-35. Now it's successor is out which is better in almost every aspect (lighter, cheaper, has VR) everybody is disappointed.
I'm not disappointed. I really like my 16-35 F/4 VR.
