Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

[kero89]

Looking good

Btw, does the front barrel extents or retracts when zooming?

Was wondering why that was happening to the 24-70 :sweat:

 

[Kit]

Length of the lens does not change with zooming.

 

[ZeroDivine]

physical length does not change. it's internal zooming.

 

[Numnumball]

The point I am making is, a D700 is hardly useful for testing a lens' sharpness or lack thereof. It is less demanding on sensors than, say, a camera that was introduced way back in 2002.

You can draw conclusions about geometric distortion, light falloff, and things along those lines, but to really test sharpness you need a relatively high resolution camera.

Either that, or the lens really doesn't resolve well at all.

And on the contrary to what you've just stated above, the D3x should yield worse results not better as it is more taxing on a lens' resolving power than the D700 is.

Can see where u r coming from..

But just kind intentions and trying to do most guys (who on the majority owns D700) a favor, who are in a dilemma on whch UWA to get..

 

[Numnumball]

I don't think there is impoliteness here. And I believe that opinion can be express as long as there is no malice. No point saying all the good things and listening to all good things that is pleasing to the ears, cos we will never move forward.

Even for Jed comments, he is going on a more technical point, ie, To let forum members know that sharpness is not just measured as what Num has stated. Cos it may not be as sharp when couple with a higher MP camera in this case there is only one the D3x. Hence, looking at it from another angle, it is a good learning point. I don't think he trying to be personal nor thumb down Numnumball.

No worries Uncle PE.. Agreed to a extent for a technical standpoint.. Tks for pointing out.

 

[Jed]

JED is right coz u need high MP to truely shows the potential of the lens, but currently 99% user using 12MP and below and since we are discussing it NOW, i think a review using 12MP should be enough.

Hi David,

I would appreciate if you stopped capitalising my name, it looks kind of threatening

You are maybe correct that 99% of the users are using 12mp and below. However you have to realise that the D700 is the one of the least taxing cameras for resolution, even by current, non-professional standards. Specifically, the following cameras should on paper outresolve it:

D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D70s, D80, D90, D100, D200, D300, D300s, D3000, D5000, D3x

Numnumball,

I have no problem with your posting, as I stated you can gather other information from your pictures - geometric distortion, light fall off, chromatic aberrations, possibly amongst others.

I do try and point out things that don't quite square, and I just feel drawing conclusions on resolution, on one of the least taxing sensors for resolving power, is less helpful than any conclusions about geometric distortion etc.

 

[fevernova]

So in a nutshell, Jed, is this a good lens for D700? Looks ok to me....I can't seem to spot the distortions...maybe its because I'm new and I'm not too sure how to look for distortions unless you point the cam at a brick wall with grids...I thought UWA's supposed to give funny perspectives due to the design of the lens? Correct me if I'm wrong...

I'm pretty much damn sold over this lens and can't wait to get my hands on one...

 

[Jed]

So in a nutshell, Jed, is this a good lens for D700?

I have no experience with the lens so I can't say. Looking at jpgs 800-1000 pixels across, you can't really tell certain things. But essentially I would hope any lens Nikon releases now (or Canon, or whoever else) should really be plenty good enough for most users on CS.

Looks ok to me....I can't seem to spot the distortions...maybe its because I'm new and I'm not too sure how to look for distortions unless you point the cam at a brick wall with grids...I thought UWA's supposed to give funny perspectives due to the design of the lens? Correct me if I'm wrong...

Your last statement is indeed confused. You need to distinguish between perspective distortion (which is normal and unavoidable from the use of wide angle lenses with exaggerated perspective), and geometric distortion (all lenses are essentially fisheye in nature with drastic barrel distortion, but non-fisheye, rectilinear lenses correct to reduce this distortion to minimal levels).

Perspective distortion is unavoidable due to the focal length. So slight tilts will result in verticals getting very slanted towards the edges of the frame. Near objects will look bigger than objects in the distance and this can cause things to look distorted - for example a nose will appear bigger than normal simply because it's nearer than the other parts of the face, if shot up close with a particularly wide angle lens.

When people talk about lens distortion and whether it's good or bad, usually they are talking about geometric distortion as perspective distortion is essentially uniform for lenses of a given focal length; that's physics at work. Most wide angle lenses suffer from varying amounts of barrel distortion - the brick wall type picture you're thinking of, with lines on the outside bowing outwards to resemble a barrel. On the other hand telephotos tend to suffer the reverse, with the lines caving inwards and this is termed pincushion distortion.

Most lenses are corrected well enough that the distortion will not be evident in everyday use (which is why you need brick walls to see it), or if you place straight lines very close to the edge of the frame (walls, ceiling edges, etc).

 

[fevernova]

I have no experience with the lens so I can't say. Looking at jpgs 800-1000 pixels across, you can't really tell certain things. But essentially I would hope any lens Nikon releases now (or Canon, or whoever else) should really be plenty good enough for most users on CS.



Your last statement is indeed confused. You need to distinguish between perspective distortion (which is normal and unavoidable from the use of wide angle lenses with exaggerated perspective), and geometric distortion (all lenses are essentially fisheye in nature with drastic barrel distortion, but non-fisheye, rectilinear lenses correct to reduce this distortion to minimal levels).

Perspective distortion is unavoidable due to the focal length. So slight tilts will result in verticals getting very slanted towards the edges of the frame. Near objects will look bigger than objects in the distance and this can cause things to look distorted - for example a nose will appear bigger than normal simply because it's nearer than the other parts of the face, if shot up close with a particularly wide angle lens.

When people talk about lens distortion and whether it's good or bad, usually they are talking about geometric distortion as perspective distortion is essentially uniform for lenses of a given focal length; that's physics at work. Most wide angle lenses suffer from varying amounts of barrel distortion - the brick wall type picture you're thinking of, with lines on the outside bowing outwards to resemble a barrel. On the other hand telephotos tend to suffer the reverse, with the lines caving inwards and this is termed pincushion distortion.

Most lenses are corrected well enough that the distortion will not be evident in everyday use (which is why you need brick walls to see it), or if you place straight lines very close to the edge of the frame (walls, ceiling edges, etc).

Oh, thanks for the clarification! Got a little confused over there...:sweat:

 

[David Lee]

Hi David,

I would appreciate if you stopped capitalising my name, it looks kind of threatening

OOOps Sorry, For that i apologise as i must have over look that.

 

[postman]

A smiley face never fails to help us to "decode" our meaning in a positive manner.

(Sorry just feel like adding this after reading the posts above. )

Ok back to discussion on this lens.

 

[David Lee]

can i :bsmilie: instead of

 

[kero89]

Length of the lens does not change with zooming.

physical length does not change. it's internal zooming.

Thanks :thumbsup:

 

[Vulpix0r]

Any place with stock right now? Most of the major stores are sold out of it... Also, I found the design of the lens very interesting. The rear element actually moves in and out of the lens, which usually one would not notice become the rear would be sealed up.. I haven't seen this design on my current lenses or on Canon lenses.

 

[David Lee]

Had placed order with MS, waiting for stock

 

[marios_pittas]

The point I am making is, a D700 is hardly useful for testing a lens' sharpness or lack thereof. It is less demanding on sensors than, say, a camera that was introduced way back in 2002.

You can draw conclusions about geometric distortion, light falloff, and things along those lines, but to really test sharpness you need a relatively high resolution camera.

Either that, or the lens really doesn't resolve well at all.

And on the contrary to what you've just stated above, the D3x should yield worse results not better as it is more taxing on a lens' resolving power than the D700 is.

Hi Jed

I agree with your comments, yet I would like to see what is meant in real terms when people state "the lens really doesn't resolve well at all"... In this time and age it is hard to imagine real lemons (didn't Ansel wrote something similar to this?)...

I am glad that D3x is more taxing on the lenses.. in fact, if you match the D3x with old lenses, at least for what I do, I find the results to be more pleasing than those ultra modern, ultra sharp lenses.

-- marios

 

[chanjyj]

I am taken aback as well.. To frank, Before FF (nt 35mm firm) was introduced way few years bk with D3, 17-35 f2.8 excel really in Digital bodies like D2H, D2XS ETC.. But on FF it's good but nth more (14-24 spoil market u see :bsmilie It amaze me first when i used it on my D700 but not the way its does when i mount the 16-35 on the same cam. Now i really believe its time for it to move aside(retire) and make way for this new sensation in UWA standards in nikon class (that take filters)

But thats the thing abt digital stuff isn't it~!? New is always better and cheaper :bsmilie:

I don't know. The sample I tried from Nikon WAS sharper than the 17-35mm I have. But it was not THAT shocking to me.

Either I possess a superb 17-35mm, or the sample Nikon passed to me was not that great. OR both. OR maybe my camera. Golly :think:

 

[chanjyj]

Shot by the 16-35mm on a D3X at f/4, ISO 400.

FULL-RES, 16MB

 

[fevernova]

I don't know....to the untrained eye, the shot above looks acceptable to me...

 

[marios_pittas]

Shot by the 16-35mm on a D3X at f/4, ISO 400.

FULL-RES, 16MB

Looks sharp to me, though there is nothing at the corners to make reference to .... You still shoot film? (Nikon FA?)

-- marios