Quick test of the new Nikkor 10-24mm DX

<p>Today I recieved my Nikkor AF-S 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 DX IF ED lens and have spent the afternoon doing various tests. For those of you that are interested I have published a quick and dirty test <a href="http://hamish1975.wordpress.com/quick-and-dirty-test-of-af-s-nikkor-10-24-f3-5-4-5-dx-if-ed/">here </a> (please be patient as the wordpress server seems to be a little slow at times)< /p><br>

I expect there will be a more detailed test soon on photozone but for those that cant wait I hope you find my tests helpful.<br>

Hamish </p>

<P>

<p><a href="http://hamish1975.wordpress.com/quick-and-dirty-test-of-af-s-nikkor-10-24-f3-5-4-5-dx-if-ed/">http://hamish1975.wordpress.com/quick-and-dirty-test-of-af-s-nikkor-10-24-f3-5-4-5-dx-if-ed/</a></p>

<p>Great Hamish. In particular, could you show corner performance at 10mm? That is my main concern about this lens.</p>

<p>Shun, yes I have posted several shots at 10mm at varying apertures, each with corner sharpness in a picture under.</p>

<p>Thansk Hamish. That looks pretty good; it may be better than the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S, but only a side-by-side A/B test can really show the difference.</p>

<p>Yes you are right. Unfortunately I swapped my 12-24 for this one so I am unable to do a side-by-side test. But from my personal experience I can honestly say that I notice more corner sharpness in the 10-24. Of course it may just be sample variation...</p>

<p>Thanks Hamish. When the 10-24 was announced, my immediate thought had been to trade up from my current 12-24. A closer look revealed the variable aperture and the change in length when zooming - wonder why Nikon couldn't just keep the old design and added the 2mm on the lower end? Your test now swayed me from "against" back to "undecided" - will have to wait for the photozone test I suppose.</p>

<p>Thanks Hamish for the update, I was nearly going to ask in the forum again. I'm really excited to buy this lens (possibly this summer if I have the funds). What a great focal length range it offers! I don't mind the variable aperture at all, it's a little faster than f4 at the top end, and a little slower at the long end. I suppose to make it a straight f4 could have added a few hundred dollars to the lens. I say they made the right decision. Certainly an improvement over the Sigma 10-20 with a very slow 20mm at f5.6!!</p>

<p>Hamish.... Have I met you somewhere else? Your name sounds familiar! :)<br>

Sorry but I am lost? Where are the samples? I look at your portfolio but couldn't find them! </p>

<p>Never mind! </p>

I updated the original post so that the link becomes more obvious. Initially I missed it also.

<p>thanks for this, hamish.</p>

<p>KR points out another difference between the 12-24 and 10-24 besides the extra 2mm is the loss of IF. he seems to think the build is more plasticy but that could be hogwash.</p>

<p>Eric, without IF the front of the lens would spin. I highly doubt the lens has a turning front element.</p>

<p>Sorry the link was a little unobvious at first. Thanks Shun for correcting that. <br />René, yes I believe we have met somewhere... aren't you that famous bird photographer from Japan ;-) <br />Erik, the lens is still IF as the physical length does not change while focusing. It does however change a little while zooming, as I pointed out in my test. Zooming from 10-13mm it shortens by about 5mm and from 14-24mm it extends again by approximately 10mm. I presume that is what KR was refering to, as the 12-24 remained the same size regardless of focal length.<br>

As for the lens being more plasticy, well that is indeed hogwash. In fact it appears to be <strong><em>exactly</em></strong> the same build quality of 12-24 and in fact weighs a little more too (515g as oposed to 465g). <br /><br />Something I forgot to mention in my review was that min. focus distance is a little closer than the 12-24. I haven't measured it, but in the first barrel distortion photo at 10mm the front of the lens was approx 12cm from the A3 page.</p>

<p>Hmm . . .<br>

I did a quick test outside the camera store with my D80 at 10, 12, 15, and 24mm and could not get the corners to sharpen up to an acceptable level at 10 and 12mm even going to f/11. They certainly improved over being wide open, but they were sill fairly blurry. At 15 and 24mm the corners were just fine.<br>

I should note that I photographed a building across the street with the top of the building in the upper right hand corner and the street pavement in the lower corners. The building in the upper corner definitely improved (like in the lemondedelephoto tests http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/TEST-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f-3-5,2126.html), but the corners showing the near pavement, which should have been in focus, was still fairly mushy even stopped down.<br>

Even at infinity focus everything from ~2-3 ft. on out should be in focus at f/5.6 on up.<br>

I wonder if sample variation is coming into play - some samples the corners get much better stopped down while others the corners are really bad and don't ever get to be good. Ken Rockwells few pictures seem to not show mushy corners like some others have shown.<br>

On the other hand I was impressed with the wide open center and edge sharpness at 10, 12, and 15mm, while it seemed to be slightly less sharp at the 24mm end of things.<br>

I would not mind forking out ~$900 for this lens if the corners actually do clean up like the OP has shown, but if they are as bad as the one I quickly tested I might as well go with the Sigma. I hope to post my pictures over at dpreview sometime this weekend.<br>

Thanks for the test and posting of the results!<br>

- John</p>

<p>"Erik, the lens is still IF as the physical length does not change while focusing. It does however change a little while zooming, as I pointed out in my test. Zooming from 10-13mm it shortens by about 5mm and from 14-24mm it extends again by approximately 10mm. I presume that is what KR was refering to, as the 12-24 remained the same size regardless of focal length."</p>

<p>yes, that's what i meant, telescoping zoom tubes. the nikon and tokina 12-24s dont do this. probably not a big deal, and wouldnt stop me from getting a 10-24 if i was in the market for a wide.</p>

<p>John (and everone else), I have now posted some more crops of the corners @ 10mm. My lens does indeed seem to suffer from the same "mushyness" you speak of (and that we see in the link you posted). It does however seem to be most prominent in the top corners (or perhaps the corners nearest infinity) as the bottom corners seem to be acceptable.<br>

As far as center sharpness goes I found it to be sharp all the way from 10-24. And at 24mm I find this lens is every bit as good as the 12-24 is at 24mm.<br>

One other thing. When I weighed the lens my scales read 515g with lens cap and hood on. I see that the weight of the lens given in the French review is 460g so I presume that is without the plastic on.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting your shots mate! This is one lens to consider. IMO corners seems much better at 10mm/F8 than the 10-20 sigma I used to own. Definitely worth considering if I ever needed an ultra-wide again.<br>

Alvin</p>

<p>John H,</p>

<p>Could depth of field be the problem? A textured wall is usually best for corner tests as everything is on the same focal plane.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Could depth of field be the problem? A textured wall is usually best for corner tests as everything is on the same focal plane.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan -<br>

I did the DOF calculation for my quick test. The building was across the street about 20 meters or so and if you do the calculation everything from 1.3 meters on out should be in focus at f/3.5 and 0.8 meters at f/5.6. So DOF should not have played a role here.<br>

I've read reports that it's extreme field curvature in the corners that causes the problems. I'd be interested in someone with a brick wall changing the center focus until the corners are as sharp as they can be to see if field curvature is in fact the culprit or that it's just plain not sharp in the corners.<br>

- John</p>

<blockquote>

<p>John (and everone else), I have now posted some more crops of the corners @ 10mm. My lens does indeed seem to suffer from the same "mushyness" you speak of (and that we see in the link you posted). It does however seem to be most prominent in the top corners (or perhaps the corners nearest infinity) as the bottom corners seem to be acceptable.<br /> As far as center sharpness goes I found it to be sharp all the way from 10-24. And at 24mm I find this lens is every bit as good as the 12-24 is at 24mm.<br /> One other thing. When I weighed the lens my scales read 515g with lens cap and hood on. I see that the weight of the lens given in the French review is 460g so I presume that is without the plastic on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hamish -<br>

Thanks for supplying the additional corner crops - it appears to be consistent with what I found, maybe even a bit better than the copy I tested. I'll try to submit my photos this afternoon. I should also say that I agree with your center sharpness results - even though I indicated that I thought the center sharpness at 24mm was less than at the wider FLs I did not mean to imply it wasn't sharp, but rather slightly less sharp (but still plenty sharp-enough for me for sure).<br>

I'm not sure why the near corners appear sharper in yours while the corners farther away are more "mushy" - I kind of found the opposite. Will post pics later on - gotta get some work done first!<br>

- John</p>

 

<p>Thank you, Hamish. Now I have to control my NAS... :)</p>

<p>Hamish.... I didn't have time to reply yesterday coz I was leaving my hotel, in a hurry coz I was already late.</p>

<p>Anyway, I am not an expert and i am not interested on this lens, never the less I wanted to see what you have wrote about it.<br>

I just want to congratulate you coz I think you did a pretty good job. Very easy to understand, specially for people like me who don't know much bout the technical aspects of a lens. So well done.</p>

<p>PS. <br>

"aren't you that famous bird photographer from Japan ;-) "<br>

Well, YEAH! In my house I am very famous coz I have the biggest camera of all! :)</p>

<p>LOL :-)<br>

Thanks René.</p>

 

<p>I talked to my local Nikon rep today, and he had the D5000, 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX and 10-24mm AF-S DX on hand. I took some quick shots with the 10-24 on my D300 inside the camera store. Those are hand held at ISO 400 around 1/30 second, so perhaps there is a bit of camera shake.</p>

<p>In any case, corner sharpness at 10mm seems reasonable and perhaps somewhat better than the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX.</p>

<p>Construction quality is pretty much identical to the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX; both are high consumer grade with a plastic barrel, which is fine for a small lens like these. The barrel does extend a bit when you zoom on the 10-24.</p><div></div>

<p>OK, well I finally got a chance to crop some of my own quick test images taken outside the camera store here in Seattle. Not the best test, but it should give you a sense of what the sharpness and corners look like. Shot with my D80, ISO 100, RAW, converted to jpg in CaptureNX without sharpening or other corrections other than automatic CA correction (this is needed in the corners, but cleans up nicely). Here's the full image with crops to be taken at the center, upper right corner and lower right corner. Only wish I'd gotten the top of the building closer to the corner.</p><div></div>