chanjyj
New Member
I never said it was not acceptable? :dunno:
Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)
- Thread starter Benedict
- Start date
I never said it was not acceptable? :dunno:
And I didn't mention anything about it being non-acceptable as well...
I was referring to previous posts of people mentioning about the bad distortion of this lens when it looks perfectly alright to me....Quote post #121...
chanjyj
New Member
Looks sharp to me, though there is nothing at the corners to make reference to ....You still shoot film? (Nikon FA?)
-- marios
Haha. Not a FA. A FM2. I use it to teach my employees shutter speed, aperture and ISO ;p
If you download the full res file, you will see that the film box is blurred, and the hotshoes of the SB900 and SB800s. No need to even go to the extreme corners.
Also note that there is a slight DOF issue, but even then, you can tell the blurring is not due to DOF (different blur characteristic). Btw, don't have time to do 100% crops, so sorry about that
Haha. Not a FA. A FM2. I use it to teach my employees shutter speed, aperture and ISO ;p
If you download the full res file, you will see that the film box is blurred, and the hotshoes of the SB900 and SB800s. No need to even go to the extreme corners.
Also note that there is a slight DOF issue, but even then, you can tell the blurring is not due to DOF (different blur characteristic). Btw, don't have time to do 100% crops, so sorry about that
Now that you mentioned it, I noticed that too...So the blurriness is due to the lens??
chanjyj
New Member
And I didn't mention anything about it being non-acceptable as well...
Quote post #121...
Ah ok.
I doubt you can tell from this photos - as it is, the lines in my bag are not straight to begin with :bsmilie:
chanjyj
New Member
Yes. As I mentioned before in my previous previous previous post, this lens didn't "stun" me. Sharper than my 17-35mm? Debatable to me.
A lemon? I don't know - it's sharp in the centre. Real sharp.
If you ask me to choose between this and the 17-35mm I'd take my 17-35mm. But my 17-35mm MAY BE an extremely sharp copy, I haven't played with enough 17-35mms to make a judgement call.
Btw, do you have with you the 14-24? Is it sharper than the 16-35? The fact that the 14-24 can't take filters is a little worrisome for me....:sweat:
chanjyj
New Member
No I don't. In my line of work I need the 35mm part of the 17-35mm so 14-24mm is out for me. But 14-24 is sharper. And do not forget the 17-35mm is f/2.8 - what will happen if you stop it down to f/4? (Interesting question, cause I have never actually done a comparison before).
Anyway for the record, I think sharpness is overrated - there are plenty more things to worry about like build of the body, lack of aperture ring..
What's the worry about filters? Nowadays with digital you can replicate almost anything on the computer with the exception of a CPL filter. I'd even say you can replicate a GND to some extent.
Below casual comparison shots between my 17-35mm (on D3) and 16-35mm (on D3x). Both shot at their widest aperture, f/2.8 and f/4 respectively. (Click on the links to download the full-res images).
Last edited:
No I don't. In my line of work I need the 35mm part of the 17-35mm so 14-24mm is out for me. But 14-24 is sharper. And do not forget the 17-35mm is f/2.8 - what will happen if you stop it down to f/4? (Interesting question, cause I have never actually done a comparison before).
Anyway for the record, I think sharpness is overrated - there are plenty more things to worry about like build of the body, lack of aperture ring..
What's the worry about filters? Nowadays with digital you can replicate almost anything on the computer with the exception of a CPL filter. I'd even say you can replicate a GND to some extent.
Below casual comparison shots between my 17-35mm (on D3) and 16-35mm (on D3x). Both shot at their widest aperture, f/2.8 and f/4 respectively. (Click on the links to download the full-res images).
I'm not good with photoshop....:sweat:
Kit
Senior Member
Who told you so? Lee filters makes a dedicated filter holder for the 14-24. A price to pay though.
ZeroDivine
Senior Member
wonder wad cokin holder will be suitable for 16-35
my P wide angle adapter still vignette a little bit @ 16mm
thinking maybe z-pro, or even x-pro.
any idea?
my P wide angle adapter still vignette a little bit @ 16mm
thinking maybe z-pro, or even x-pro.
any idea?
marios_pittas
Senior Member
Haha. Not a FA. A FM2. I use it to teach my employees shutter speed, aperture and ISO ;p
If you download the full res file, you will see that the film box is blurred, and the hotshoes of the SB900 and SB800s. No need to even go to the extreme corners.
Also note that there is a slight DOF issue, but even then, you can tell the blurring is not due to DOF (different blur characteristic). Btw, don't have time to do 100% crops, so sorry about that
LOL, I have to agree about sharpness being over rated.
Overly sharp lenses make things appear plasticky. BTW, the bag photo was taken at f/5.6 at 35mm, oddly enough, the camera engraved "D3" is in focus, same as the D3 on the neck-strap but not the flash hot shoes (like you stated), or the 80(?)-???mm f/2.8 aperture engravings, which I would have expected at 5.6 and 35mm....
chanjyj
New Member
LOL, I have to agree about sharpness being over rated.
Overly sharp lenses make things appear plasticky. BTW, the bag photo was taken at f/5.6 at 35mm, oddly enough, the camera engraved "D3" is in focus, same as the D3 on the neck-strap but not the flash hot shoes (like you stated), or the 80(?)-???mm f/2.8 aperture engravings, which I would have expected at 5.6 and 35mm....
Oh?! I shot it at f/5.6? Paiseh! :embrass:
Well then... if at f/5.6 it's like that I nothing to say. Either a real lemon, or the lens is just not that much of an improvement :dunno:
Then maybe my 17-35mm is also not at f/2.8. Might have messed up a series of pictures - yesterday was my "off" day. Back to work again.
Numnumball
Senior Member
Bro, Z pro works with no vignetting on my former 17-35 f2.8, using it before i made a switch to Lee's
Think should be fine on 16-35mm f4
The CPL results in a lost of about 1.5 stops depending on how much polarising you are doing. So not a good idea in a good number of situations, including your view through the viewfinder.
Numnumball
Senior Member
Bro, not recommended for use in dim/low light conditions as it doubles up as a ND (loss up to 2 stops) when polarizing at work.
Similar threads
