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!
There are only two I would look at. The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or the Nikon 16-35 f4.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: There are only two I would look at. The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or the Nikon 16-35 f4.
Yep - for reasons I have already explained, I started with the 16-35mm and then sold it to buy the 14-24mm.
Hi Have a look my album gallery which I took by 17-35 F2.8 all hand held no VR on this model. cheers
Tbh I wouldn't be too happy with that level of sharpness, they look a little soft to me. There's also quite an ugly colour caste, is this peculiar to the lens in question, or do you see it on all images. There's also a lot of posterisation in the sky, something I would normally expect if you recovered the highlight details, but as its a lens review I'm assuming you haven't altered the image in RAW, as this would not give an inaccurate reflection in a lens review.
What is wrong with your eyes?
I concur with Nick_w. most of the images are so heavily processed so its hard to tell how the lens performs, but all the yellow rail ones show colours blocking in the sky. The tonality is not smooth, so again, hard to tell how much processing has been done. I don't think there's much wrong with his eyes there
Ha, its HDR did you know that ?
Quote: Ha, its HDR did you know that ?
For someone who is a "Proffesional" photographer I'm surprised you expect people to assess a lens with a HDR image.
If it is HDR then you should correct the EXIF information (1/100 sec at F2.8) - HDR requires the bracketing of 2 or more images to extend the dynamic range of what the camera is able to produce, please tell me as a pro your not confussing tone mapping with HDR.
If you are expert you should understanding as its personal tastes, perhaps its over processing but I like it as its fun images not selling or justice !!, its HDR but these images are not suitable eg for getty images, but in my opinion these images have been seen in my breezerbrowser sideshow, all images are very sharp, rich colours and test print of 30 x 24 shown very sharp, colourful and its hand held only, I may have shaken hand?
Images for selling I use lightroom 4 and neat processing. And I use tripod. A friend of mine have 16-35 VR and not happy with it. Edges always soft and colours are too much rich., said my 17-35 F2.8 is better. But I dont know anyone have problem with 17-35, let me know who have the problem? I think 16-35 VR is very good and 17-35 is very good but I dont know why people tells difference stories. I am happy with my 17-35 and I have sold images worldwide. Thank you
I'm no expert David, nor do I profess to be. However I still maintain when you post numerous links in the forums to your images reviewing the 17-35, the images should be unadulterated, on a tripod to allow others to assess the true quality. (The images I refer to are the first half dozen in your PF - not the tone mapped ones later on).
I do not refer to images that are edited for creative merit, as that yours and everyones perogative (and for what its worth I do edit my images from time to rime).
Nick, Yes I know all about HDR, you can use three brackets exposures in JPG create HDR by Photomix, tone mapped, however my images were created HDR direct from RAW by oloneo photoengine software. Have you heard? www.oloneo.com.
I have use Photomix and sometimes comes out good but results is not what I want with this software. However oloneo is best software but not all raw obtain perfect reaults, its depends on subject and exposure etc etc..... sometimes I like nature HDR called pseudo HDR, by photoshop. Oloneo is fastest HDR. I like Topaz Adjust,...........its brilliant better then photomix, oloneo, etc etc. Once on review that Topaz adjust comes top!!!
Bear the mind lots of people knows that VR are not necessary up to 85mm but worth have VR 100mm above. I have images by tripod will be upload later. Again I think my images are satisfed and happy.
I read it four times.......nope, still not with it.
HDR? I heard that phrase before, and I'm sure the first letter stands for "horrible"....
Why would you have a lens review where you heavily process the images, as your yellow rail pictures, which are obviously intended as comparisons withe the addition of the text?
I also have read the last couple of posts a few times and I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'm glad your images are satisfied....
I can't work out if this is all a wind up or not.
If you don'tmind manual focusing, and at UWA it's pretty simple really - Look at the Zeiss 21mm Distagon - wonderful lens, highly rated, will be sharper than any of the Nikons.
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
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar