D600 User Thread II

[Zaknafein]

Yeah, i admit i got confused. I was talking about WA/UWA perspective, the one that makes wide-angle photography so different from other types of photography. Wad I want to get out of a lens of this focal length range is the curvature to add perspective to my shots. Else i would definitely stick to my 50mm f1.8, which is an excellent all-rounder lens for portraits. Actually wad i hoped to get out of this is for someone to really take the same pic using UWA DX lens and WA FX lens and show them side-by-side for comparison, since there have been quite a number of pple claiming UWA DX and WA FX are very similar, cant tell the difference. My current opinion is that UWA on DX cannot match the curvature of the shot compared to WA on FX, but i just cant google out such results for comparison. Also, I was hoping that someone would be able to show me comparisons of the same shot at different focal lengths (12mm, 18mm, 24mm), since everyone has their take on how wide is wide and i cant really get opinion on this. Hopefully someone can help me out here. Thx.

From my understanding, if one compares a pic taken using fx and dx using the same EQUIVALENT focal length, both the image should look very similar. Tat is not taking into account the technicles such as distortion from different lens, colors, dynamic range, etc... Just refering to the perspective

I dun have any pics to compare between dx and fx, so i cant pose any pics for comparison

 

[Luminare]

I do not know of anything lesser than 14mm on FX but here are 14mm FX photos

Yeah, i admit i got confused. I was talking about WA/UWA perspective, the one that makes wide-angle photography so different from other types of photography. Wad I want to get out of a lens of this focal length range is the curvature to add perspective to my shots. Else i would definitely stick to my 50mm f1.8, which is an excellent all-rounder lens for portraits. Actually wad i hoped to get out of this is for someone to really take the same pic using UWA DX lens and WA FX lens and show them side-by-side for comparison, since there have been quite a number of pple claiming UWA DX and WA FX are very similar, cant tell the difference. My current opinion is that UWA on DX cannot match the curvature of the shot compared to WA on FX, but i just cant google out such results for comparison. Also, I was hoping that someone would be able to show me comparisons of the same shot at different focal lengths (12mm, 18mm, 24mm), since everyone has their take on how wide is wide and i cant really get opinion on this. Hopefully someone can help me out here. Thx.

 

[enenyi]

I do not know of anything lesser than 14mm on FX but here are 14mm FX photos

Thanks a lot, bro! That was wad I was gunning for in a wide-angle lens. Taking reference from your 2 pics above, u can obeserve the obvious convergence of the sky at a single point, and the curvature of the horizon in the second photo. This is absent in the DX lenses I'm currently using in attempts to shoot landscapes, and when I try to artifically impose this lens effect using photoshop, it just looks horrible.

Now i got another question: the new Nikkor 18-35mm or the slightly more expensive Sigma (NikonMount) 12-24 DG HSM II? Is the 18-35mm FX WA lens at 35mm the same effect as a 50mm f1.8 (in other words, at 35mm, is the wide angle perspective lost, effectively turning the 18-35mm into a 'portrait lens' at 35mm? Coz i dun wan 2 lenses to overlap each other in terms of perspective or functionality, else it would be a waste of money buying 2 lenses that can do the same things.

 

[Zaknafein]

Thanks a lot, bro! That was wad I was gunning for in a wide-angle lens. Taking reference from your 2 pics above, u can obeserve the obvious convergence of the sky at a single point, and the curvature of the horizon in the second photo. This is absent in the DX lenses I'm currently using in attempts to shoot landscapes, and when I try to artifically impose this lens effect using photoshop, it just looks horrible.

Now i got another question: the new Nikkor 18-35mm or the slightly more expensive Sigma (NikonMount) 12-24 DG HSM II? Is the 18-35mm FX WA lens at 35mm the same effect as a 50mm f1.8 (in other words, at 35mm, is the wide angle perspective lost, effectively turning the 18-35mm into a 'portrait lens' at 35mm? Coz i dun wan 2 lenses to overlap each other in terms of perspective or functionality, else it would be a waste of money buying 2 lenses that can do the same things.

The wide angle perspective has nothing to do with dx or fx. It has only got to do with how wide a lens u are using.

To clarify ur 2nd qn:

A fx 18-35 on dx body will become effectively 27-52.5mm
On a fx body, it will remain at 18-35mm

Ur fx 50 1.8 lens on dx body will become 75mm
And in fx it remains 50mm

18mm at on dx will not give u the UWA perspective. A 12mm on dx will. So if ultra wide angle is what u are looking for, dun get the 18-35.

The pic shown above at 14mm is about 9mm in dx terms, so 27mm is way less wide than that

 

[ageha]

Thanks a lot, bro! That was wad I was gunning for in a wide-angle lens. Taking reference from your 2 pics above, u can obeserve the obvious convergence of the sky at a single point, and the curvature of the horizon in the second photo. This is absent in the DX lenses I'm currently using in attempts to shoot landscapes, and when I try to artifically impose this lens effect using photoshop, it just looks horrible.

E.g. use a 7mm lens on m43 and it will look the same. Actually I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[enenyi]

The wide angle perspective has nothing to do with dx or fx. It has only got to do with how wide a lens u are using.

To clarify ur 2nd qn:

A fx 18-35 on dx body will become effectively 27-52.5mm
On a fx body, it will remain at 18-35mm

Ur fx 50 1.8 lens on dx body will become 75mm
And in fx it remains 50mm

18mm at on dx will not give u the UWA perspective. A 12mm on dx will. So if ultra wide angle is what u are looking for, dun get the 18-35.

The pic shown above at 14mm is about 9mm in dx terms, so 27mm is way less wide than that

Erm sorry, maybe u got me wrong.

Sigma 12-24 DG HSM II is an FX UWA (DG is for FX, DC for DX according to Sigma's naming conventions). Wad I'm asking is not DX UWA or FX WA better, but rather can the 18-35mm at 18mm get the same kind of perspective as I see on the 12-24mm at 12mm (see sample photos by cs members under "Sigma 12-24 EX DG and 2nd version" thread). So my thinking is that if 18-35mm on FX ends up losing this 'wide-angle perspective' at 35mm range (end up as though shooting portrait with a 50mm), i'd rather go for the more expensive 12-24 that retains this 'perspective' through the entire zoom range. Maybe the 18-35mm too new locally, but i believe the 18-35mm performs same as 17-35mm or 16-35mm at 35mm focal length...any reviews or thoughts from users of these lenses?

 

[enenyi]

E.g. use a 7mm lens on m43 and it will look the same. Actually I have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay i shall try my best to explain:

Using the DX lenses i have: the widest angle i can go causes the curvature to be outward radially, with my camera as the pivot. So the horizon forms a semi-circle around my camera. All horizontal lines seem to point to my camera.

Yet in these pics: the center point of this curvature is somewhere in the photo. My camera (point-of-view of the viewer) is at the circumference of this curvature. All horizontal lines seem to point to this center point in the photo.

I dun have enough post count to post images of wad i'm trying to say. So this is the best i can describe. Sorry abt that.

 

[Zaknafein]

Erm sorry, maybe u got me wrong.

Sigma 12-24 DG HSM II is an FX UWA (DG is for FX, DC for DX according to Sigma's naming conventions). Wad I'm asking is not DX UWA or FX WA better, but rather can the 18-35mm at 18mm get the same kind of perspective as I see on the 12-24mm at 12mm (see sample photos by cs members under "Sigma 12-24 EX DG and 2nd version" thread). So my thinking is that if 18-35mm on FX ends up losing this 'wide-angle perspective' at 35mm range (end up as though shooting portrait with a 50mm), i'd rather go for the more expensive 12-24 that retains this 'perspective' through the entire zoom range. Maybe the 18-35mm too new locally, but i believe the 18-35mm performs same as 17-35mm or 16-35mm at 35mm focal length...any reviews or thoughts from users of these lenses?

How can a 35mm have a ultra-wide perspective when its ny even ultra wide? Neither is 24mm ultra wide. These 2 focal lengths are just wide at best.

Ops sorry i didnt know the 12-24 sigma is an fx lens. But again, if its 12mm at fx, it is FREAKING wide. How can u compare 12mm and 18mm? It is world of a difference. Ur not comparing apples to apples. So Of cos the perspective is going to be very different on 12 and 18mm

I would consider 18mm on fx ultra wide. With tat said, i doubt the 12-24mm is for fx. i can google but im too lazy lol

 

[Luminare]

Every lens have their little unique "character" when it comes to UWA lens. Not all will give an identical feel even at the same focal length. I have used the 16-35mm f/4 VR at 16mm and the 14-24mm f/2.8 at 16mm, the photos don't come out with the same feel ...... I find it hard to express in words but it feels that the 14-24mm is able to replicate the original conditions and feel of the place while giving some "punch" to it.

But anyways, this is not a lens tread but a D600 tread.

With regards to a D600 vs a D90, it is after all a world of difference when they are of a totally different generation and more significantly, one is FX and one is DX. For landscape, FX offers more capabilities and a wider spectrum to exercise one's creativity when it comes down to shooting ultra wide and with a greater Dynamic Range, reproduction of colors is more consistent and there are more post processing options. If that is the case, D600 is the way to go. As for a UWA lens for Nikon FX, there are quite a few to chose from and don't restrict yourself to AF lens only. MF lens are great lens for landscape. It allows one to pay attention to composure when you manual focus. Here are a few other UWA lens options. I don't know their price though.

1) Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (Manual focus)
2) Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 (Manual focus)
3) Zeiss 18mm f/4 (Manual focus)
4) Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (Manual focus)

Erm sorry, maybe u got me wrong.

Sigma 12-24 DG HSM II is an FX UWA (DG is for FX, DC for DX according to Sigma's naming conventions). Wad I'm asking is not DX UWA or FX WA better, but rather can the 18-35mm at 18mm get the same kind of perspective as I see on the 12-24mm at 12mm (see sample photos by cs members under "Sigma 12-24 EX DG and 2nd version" thread). So my thinking is that if 18-35mm on FX ends up losing this 'wide-angle perspective' at 35mm range (end up as though shooting portrait with a 50mm), i'd rather go for the more expensive 12-24 that retains this 'perspective' through the entire zoom range. Maybe the 18-35mm too new locally, but i believe the 18-35mm performs same as 17-35mm or 16-35mm at 35mm focal length...any reviews or thoughts from users of these lenses?

 

[Luminare]

Some info for D600 (or FX users) with regards to the Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II (It is a FX lens)

Sigma 12-24 Mk II and the Full-Frame Generation

12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II - Wide Angle Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

 

[Supersimon27]

I think I know what bro eneny is looking for . I think he is checking

8mm at dx camera is it having a same perspective as 12mm in fx
Or dx 12mm having same perspective as fx 18mm

Am I right ?

 

[enenyi]

I think I know what bro eneny is looking for . I think he is checking

8mm at dx camera is it having a same perspective as 12mm in fx
Or dx 12mm having same perspective as fx 18mm

Am I right ?

Not really.

Okay, forget the DX part, i'm not gonna spend money on DX UWA if i intend to upgrade the body from D90 to D600. My question is more of: which lens better fits the D600 (FX) in shooting wide-angle shots? I'm looking at 18-35mm coz it is cheaper, but I also looking at consistent curvature of the wide-angle perspective throughout the lens. My only concern is that i lose the wide-angle perspective at 35mm on an 18-35mm, so whether spending more to buy Sigma 12-24mm can be justified on these technical grounds or not.

All lenses discussed will be FX lenses: no point mounting a DX UWA on an FX body.

 

[Luminare]

If I understand you correctly, the effect you are looking at gets lesser as the FoV narrows on a lens. What you are looking for is more profound at focal lens 20mm and below. In this context, 18-35mm may not be what you want. I find the "very effect" you talked about more profound between 14 to 16mm.

Hence, I would say the 18-35mm may not be what you are looking for when you switch to a D600.

Not really.

Okay, forget the DX part, i'm not gonna spend money on DX UWA if i intend to upgrade the body from D90 to D600. My question is more of: which lens better fits the D600 (FX) in shooting wide-angle shots? I'm looking at 18-35mm coz it is cheaper, but I also looking at consistent curvature of the wide-angle perspective throughout the lens. My only concern is that i lose the wide-angle perspective at 35mm on an 18-35mm, so whether spending more to buy Sigma 12-24mm can be justified on these technical grounds or not.

All lenses discussed will be FX lenses: no point mounting a DX UWA on an FX body.

 

[GReddyZC76]

cutted

 

[lenslust]

Not really.

Okay, forget the DX part, i'm not gonna spend money on DX UWA if i intend to upgrade the body from D90 to D600. My question is more of: which lens better fits the D600 (FX) in shooting wide-angle shots? I'm looking at 18-35mm coz it is cheaper, but I also looking at consistent curvature of the wide-angle perspective throughout the lens. My only concern is that i lose the wide-angle perspective at 35mm on an 18-35mm, so whether spending more to buy Sigma 12-24mm can be justified on these technical grounds or not.

All lenses discussed will be FX lenses: no point mounting a DX UWA on an FX body.

The D version was sweet on a DX body. I pretty much liked the output when I was using it on a DX body. The G edition, should have been improved even further. Alas, now I'm using the 17-35 on a D600 and obviously, I love it down to pixels.

35mm is wide, just how wide you want it? When my 17-35 is mounted, I'm mostly using it at 17mm instead of 35mm.

 

[ageha]

Not really.

Okay, forget the DX part, i'm not gonna spend money on DX UWA if i intend to upgrade the body from D90 to D600. My question is more of: which lens better fits the D600 (FX) in shooting wide-angle shots? I'm looking at 18-35mm coz it is cheaper, but I also looking at consistent curvature of the wide-angle perspective throughout the lens. My only concern is that i lose the wide-angle perspective at 35mm on an 18-35mm, so whether spending more to buy Sigma 12-24mm can be justified on these technical grounds or not.

All lenses discussed will be FX lenses: no point mounting a DX UWA on an FX body.

You sound like you never used used any of those focal lengths. Of course you loose that character at 35mm. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

 

[enenyi]

You sound like you never used used any of those focal lengths. Of course you loose that character at 35mm. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Dude, if i knew the answer to the question I posted, i wouldn't waste time typing all these out...or rather, maybe I am phrasing my questions too loosely for them to be interpreted differently...ok my question was that is the wide-angle curvature still retained at 35mm on the 18-55, or does it end up being a portrait lens at 35mm? Apparently bro Luminare answered my query by saying that wad I am looking for only occurs at focal lengths 20mm and below. So from there I can imply that the 35mm does work as a portrait lens at 35mm, and that would mean that 18-35mm is not really useful to me, since I already have my 50mm as a portrait lens, no need to get a lens that shoots wide-angle at 18mm and loses that wide-angle after 2mm.

Wad i really hoped to hear were opinions from these lens users themselves, not a standard, technical answer. So yes, I know wad I am looking for after typing for so long.

 

[or1onz]

Dude, if i knew the answer to the question I posted, i wouldn't waste time typing all these out...or rather, maybe I am phrasing my questions too loosely for them to be interpreted differently...ok my question was that is the wide-angle curvature still retained at 35mm on the 18-55, or does it end up being a portrait lens at 35mm? Apparently bro Luminare answered my query by saying that wad I am looking for only occurs at focal lengths 20mm and below. So from there I can imply that the 35mm does work as a portrait lens at 35mm, and that would mean that 18-35mm is not really useful to me, since I already have my 50mm as a portrait lens, no need to get a lens that shoots wide-angle at 18mm and loses that wide-angle after 2mm.
Wad i really hoped to hear were opinions from these lens users themselves, not a standard, technical answer. So yes, I know wad I am looking for after typing for so long.

Portrait lens doesn't really need to be 50mm. I can use my 35mm, or 50mm, 85mm or even 70-200mm as a portrait lens.
What's I would say is that if you are really hoping for opinions, just make a trip down to NSC.
Request to test D600 together with 12-24, 16-35 and 18-35. Shoot some indoor photos and walk to the window and shoot the scenery outside. You will realize what you want. They will let you test any combination of body and lens displayed on the shelves and give you opinions too. Just ignore the price part.
Pure paper/internet wording won't get you what you want. You have to test it yourself.

 

[enenyi]

Portrait lens doesn't really need to be 50mm. I can use my 35mm, or 50mm, 85mm or even 70-200mm as a portrait lens.
What's I would say is that if you are really hoping for opinions, just make a trip down to NSC.
Request to test D600 together with 12-24, 16-35 and 18-35. Shoot some indoor photos and walk to the window and shoot the scenery outside. You will realize what you want. They will let you test any combination of body and lens displayed on the shelves and give you opinions too. Just ignore the price part.
Pure paper/internet wording won't get you what you want. You have to test it yourself.

Ok thanks. But what is NSC?
I googled, and National Skin Centre came out...

 

[lxxlim]

Ok thanks. But what is NSC?
I googled, and National Skin Centre came out...

😊It's nikon service centre.