Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: Other Interesting http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/42007630
This site isnt a reliable sorce of information , They tend to get things wrong on several occasions, The problem is that majority of Amateurs become convinced by what this site have written and what they have read and keeps that information embedded up top, professionals laugh at some of the stuff the site has written and wrightfully so, Even people like yourself are now reading the things they put on there and advertising it on here as true and accurate information.
Let me tell you something FACT the Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR is a Breathtaking lens optically and marginally better than the 14-24 , And far far superior to the older heavier and clunkier Nikkor 17-35 I used the older Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 on my D3 for over a year , Replaced it with the Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR better sharpness, better contrast , The build isnt as good as the 14-24 and the distortion at its widest isnt as good as the 14-24 but thats a minor issue which can be corrected,
Incidently why dont you look for the positive reviews on the lens like i did theres loads out there instead of reading the negatives which is the minority
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: At ƒ/11 diffraction limiting has set in and there is a slight softening to 1.5 blur units across the frame. It's two blur units across the frame at ƒ/16, and a very uneven four blur units at ƒ/22..
Issues with diffraction should be put in correct perspective.
Although lenses have a theoretically maximum diffraction resolution, this resolution is never reached when combined with a digital sensor or film.
If you increase sensor resolution, which is what D800 is primarily about, you get more resolution even at diffraction limited apertures.
Lenses have resolution limits wider than about f8 because of other lens aberrations.
What matters is do you get more resolution at f11, and f16 and even f22 than at the widest packages on lens.
The 20-47 is rightly regarded as an outstanding lens but has more corner resolution at f22 than at f2.8.
This is an interesting Recent blog on the effects of diffraction on different sensor sizes.
On full frame cameras like the D800 there are technical tests which show diffraction having a marked effect by f11, with f5.6 to f8 being the optimal point for best image quality on most lenses. I've got a D800 myself and am trying to keep to f8 or F10 for most landscape images only going smaller than that with macro images, where you will find much less depth of field than a DX camera would give. When I had a Pentax 67II I used f11 most of the time and that was the sweet spot for that format. Larger formats than that need smaller apertures still but full frame/ 35mm format usually won't need very small apertures, honestly in most cases a smaller aperture than f8 isn't going to be beneficial, be very sparing of f22 unless you really need every last bit of depth of field.
Quote: On full frame cameras like the D800 there are technical tests which show diffraction having a marked effect by f11, with f5.6 to f8 being the optimal point for best image quality on most lenses. I've got a D800 myself and am trying to keep to f8 or F10 for most landscape images only going smaller than that with macro images, where you will find much less depth of field than a DX camera would give.
Let's agree to disagree on what the technical tests you are relying on mean by "a marked effect".
I also own a D800 and am satisfied that with 10 of my 12 pro lenses I get better corner quality at the smallest aperture then at the widest aperture wide open.
ephotozine site appears to concur with me with their lens tested, the most recent example being http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-2-8g-ed-vrii-review-...
a surprising nikon 17-35/2.8 review by photozone
Oct 14, 2011
Was a bit surprised no one brought this up:
I was always under the impression the 17-35 does worst than the 16-35 using the D3X 24MP sensor. Photozone seem to dis-prove such notion. Other than the known issues of needing to stop down beyond f/5.6 at 17mm for corners to be sharp and that f/2.8 at most FL are not really all that sharp, the lens seems pretty good at f/4 and beyond. the performance at 35mm seem to be a lot better than 16-35 does.
What's more surprisng is the conculsion:
"All three currently available pro-grade wide-angle Nikkor zooms have their advantages and disadvantages. However, unless someone really needs one of the unique features of the other two lenses (like the extra wide angle of the AF-S 14-24 or the VR feature in the AF-S 16-35 VR) the AF-S 17-35/2.8 probably combines most advantages into a single product."
If this lens can maintain the resolving power for a (still rumored) 36MP D800, it might out-resolve the 16-35 f/4 which apparently has less resolution at 16 and 35mm FL.
David My Nikor 16-35 F4 VR ED N Lens is lovely and sharp on Print Rodney .
Tell me who looks at the corners of an image , Because if you take an image and your eyes are drawn straight to the corners then the image must be **** anyway compositionaly , Go back and learn the art of composition then perhaps your eyes wont be drawn to the corners they will stay focused on the beautifull sharp image thats in the centre lol
Or perhaps your reading too much bull ??????
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Are you a Nikon owner? Check out Nikon Nation to find the latest Nikon news, reviews, discussion and photos on ePHOTOzine.
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar