johninjapan2000

You are right, Lex, I didn't notice the photos. My apologies to Ken and the posters here. This is by far the most impressive effort he has ever made. I look forward to more of the same. I admit I *did* grow tired of his earlier...style.

 

Actually, all of the reviews I have seen pretty much rate all of these lenses as being very close in quality. That's why I went for the widest one (and I don't need full-frame).

 

John

Those photos are really cool. Almost impressionistic or pointellist (spelling?) or whatever. Very nice!

 

John

Example photos and measured performance: For those looking at wide angles lenses, here are two website recommendations:

 

1. photozone.de, good quantitative and intelligent qualitative discussion of lenses.

 

 

2. pbase.com/cameraguy21773/sigma_1020_samples, side-by-side comparisons, with examples and discussion (forum) of Sigma and Tamron.

 

Trying to judge a lens' performance by taking a picture of the lens itself (as Ken Rockwell did) is about as intelligent as trying to judge the seaworthiness of a ship by measuring the captain's whiskers. Perhaps less so.

 

Go see what good reviews look like. Please. Thank you.

 

John

Anthony: I agree that the test LOOKS good; it is a nice effort. But, it lacks any example photographs and it is rendered in Ken's patented dismissive prose (words to the effect of, "nobody but me could possibly see the difference, therefore there *is* no difference", a typical Ken rant or riff).

 

I know his type. He spent a lot of time in the San Diego area, as did I. There are loads of no-nothing (or not much, just enough to be dangerous) types in SD, people who think they are soooo much more perceptive and discerning than anyone else. A kind of phoniness, perhaps due to the proximity to Hollywood? No, I'm not joking. Anyway, in my opinion, it is this dismissive and elitist quality which sets people off, I think.

 

There are better reviews out there. There are reviews with side-by-side photo examples (can't remember the URL. Google it). There are reviews where the pluses and minuses are weighed in a more mature fashion (Nikonians, for example).

 

Classic Ken: "the Sigma makes a funny noise when it is autofocusing", or words to that effect. This quote all by itself proves the man is a bit of an idiot. What he is saying is that because the sound of *NORMAL* operation of one lens is different than the sound of normal operation of the lens he is accustomed to, then the former lens is somehow bad. IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT. Have I made my point? No...critical...thinking...skills. Plus, dismissive and elitist.

 

'Nuff said.

Actually, the Nikonians review implies that the Tokina is not very sharp. One definitely walks away with the feeling that one buys the Tokina for reasons *other* than sharpness.

 

Which is perfectly consistent with Ken Rockwell: he doesn't care much about sharpness. He's more into vivid, over-saturated effect.

 

John

Hi Jeffrey,

 

Nice to talk with you. Feel free to email me anytime. I did quite of lot of internet research in the past. There are some interesting scopes out there, no doubt the market has moved well beyond my current understanding.

 

One thing I do know: a good mount, if purchased separately, can easily cost more than a modestly priced scope.

 

I have not heard of the scope you mention. I will check it out and get back to you later. Please do send me an email, I would love to discuss this further.

 

The Tak was gorgeous, by the way. I bought just the OTA (optical tube assembly), no mount. It was *Perfect*: no color, no aberration. It cost about 100,000 yen in Tokyo (and, I think, that model has been discontinued). I got some nice Vixen eyepieces to go with it. In my old apartment, I didn't even have to take the scope out of the house, just point it toward the window and Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon (at various times of night) were right there. It was such a kick to see the planets...live, as it were.

 

More later,

 

John

Other reviewers have disagreed with him, however. Not only about these lenses (and how they compare to each other) but about many others. I always take what he says with a grain of salt, figuring that he sort of likes to be the "odd man out".

 

Still, he did use all of the lenses, apparently. I have not.

 

John

Dang it! Now you all got me thinkin' about buying a 'scope again! Shucks! :-)

Telescopes: It's not only about the 'scope focal length, there is the eyepiece as well. I forgot how the thing was set up when I had it (I had a Tak with about a 76mm diameter objective, call it a bit over 3 inches). Maybe somebody else here knows. I do remember seeing the moon fill the eyepiece to overflowing. That is what the sensor (your eye or the camera, makes no diff) would see.

 

John

If you want to see the moon bigger and more glorious, try a Takahashi telescope. As the Moon and Earth move relative to each other, the stationary scope seems to drift across the surface of the Moon. It is like being in a moving spaceship. Fantastic view.

 

And there is a Nikon adapter, of course. :-)

 

j.

You can use the Sunny-16 rule for the Moon. If so, it will look darkish grey, which is what it really is. (so: ISO 200, f/16, 1/200 is about right if sky is clear)

 

Your shot is much better than the shot I took recently with an Ais 200mm f/4. Of course, at half the focal length, mine was not as magnified. Still, yours is a nice one.

 

Taken at 1/1000 sec, probably f/8, ISO 200, handheld.

 

John<div></div>

Nice shots! Really like that pen, very luxurious. Hmmm...I haven't done any macro since going digital....

 

John

Yeah, I wish they would put VR on something really useful, like a good prime: f/1.8 and VR: that would be something to have!

 

John

I don't really know, but I wonder if it has something to do with the view of the lens not requiring much in the way of glass or design. Wide angles have more glass, I think (side to side) and telephotos have more glass (front to back). High quality glass is expensive. Also, the design of the 50mm is stable, so has been fully amortized, whereas some wides and teles are still being tweaked?

 

Then, too, pricing policies may have something to do with it. There is no law that says the profit margins have to be the same with all lenses.

 

For what it's worth: the 85mm f/1.8 lens is a much bigger animal than the 50mm f/1.8, but only costs twice as much (in Japan: 20,000 yen versus 40,000 yen, in round numbers). And the 35mm f/2 is only about 50% more than the 50mm. So, it seems about right to me (the aperture opening on the 50mm is really small: not much glass in there!)

 

Is there an optical expert out there who has real knowledge of this?

 

John

To run software, you can try left-clicking the Start button, then click on Run (on the bottom right of the little frame that pops up). Browse for the CD you want to install from, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

John

The D50 is a wonderful camera for the beginner, I believe. The only thing it lacks which I would want, is a cable release (I think using the cable release is actually a somewhat important skill; far more important than depth-of-field preview which is nearly useless, in my experience, and redundant on a digital camera, in my opinion).

 

The problem with film is that you are then locked into two things, neither of them good:

 

1. Greater ongoing expense and the "hesitation and reluctance" this creates. You know that you are spending between, say, 30 and fifty cents every time you trip the shutter. This can really have a chilling effect (at least it did on me). With digital you are completely free of this drag on your creativity.

 

2. You are looking backward. Digital is only gonna get better. Film is only going to get worse (in convenience, cost, etc). Why join a deteriorating situation?

 

With digital you can use any computer as a darkroom, easily print your own photos in B&W or color, easily stitch photos together to create panoramas or simply to build greater depth-of-detail in your photos, etc etc.

 

With film you have a tiny little postage stamp-size piece of emulsion...and that's all you will ever have!

 

With digital, the possibilities are much more open-ended.

 

Bite the bullet and turn your back on film. I did (except for the "humor value" of using a few rangefinders) and it has been nothing but golden.

 

Best of luck, whatever you decide.

 

John

You could try the Sigma 10-20mm. It has gotten good reviews, I have one and like it, and it costs about 500 dollars. Worth a look.

 

John

Oh, and be careful about Ken Rockwell. He has interesting things to say but his standards are different. His work doesn't rely so much on the beautiful rendering of detail as it does on deeply saturated colors. If your photography is not very similar to his, you may be disappointed. Just a thought.

 

John

Don't forget to consider the Sigma 10-20mm. I like mine a lot and that extra 2mm on the wide end comes in handy.

 

John

It does well on my D50. Certainly in the ballpark, as far as my 50mm f/1.8 is concerned.

 

John

Don't get complicated. Get a D50 and a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Used manually, it will teach you everything, including the beautiful usefulness of depth of field.

 

500 for D50, 70 for memory card, 100 or so for lens = about 700 and you will never have to pay for film.

 

Oh, and get some books. John Shaw is good (he's does nature stuff, but so well that it makes a good intro for anything).

 

Trust me, this will work. But try to think through a picture before you take it. You will make the greatest progress this way.

 

Don't get a point-and-shoot unless you want to have a thoughtless point-and-shoot mentality. A D50 at least *feels* serious (and it is capable of serious results with the 50mm lens)

 

John Robinson

Oh, and regarding inventories: the build-up of inventory is a standard measurement of business success. High inventory = failure. Stock prices drop when inventories go up. Why? Because there are common-sense assumptions we can make about production capacity, etc. Shun is exactly correct in citing high inventory as being a negative. This is standard in any business. Especially when a product is new, there SHOULD be waiting times for a "hot" product. This is absolutely standard business common-sense. Just go ask GM. They have loads of experience with new iron sitting on their car-lots 'cause nobody wants it at any price. But, the hot new cars? You a gonna wait two months fer those. Absolutely normal.

 

Cheers,

 

John

Dear Mark, your logic is good but a bit too restricting, in my humble opinion.

 

You seem to be saying that Nikon is devoting adequate-or-better production capacity to the F6 and inadequate capacity to the D200. While it is true that they may not have tweaked their production schedules to absolute perfection, it is much more likely (given the huge popularity of digital SLRs recently; I mean, who the heck wants the F6? That is soooo 20th century! Okay, now all you film addicts can chime in, hehehe) that the production capacity simply does not, and cannot, exist without tooling up more factory space, training more workers, etc. These are very risky things to do and quite unneccessary, when you know that your customers are willing to wait. They may b*tch, but they will wait.

 

Actually, I think that even if Nikon had cancelled the F6 and put all those resources into the D200 that there would still be post-Christmas back-log. Have we forgotten what Christmas does to manufacturers (not to mention shipping; some seaports lack the capacity to unload even when the manufacturers can ship product)?

 

I strongly suggest we look at wages for technical workers as well as commodity prices. There are heavy supply inelasticies present here (meaning no matter how much more you spend, you will have a hard time getting additional supply), in my opinion. Those technical people I work with over here (though in unrelated industries) are in heavy demand.

 

Not trying to argue, just discuss. I am perfectly happy to believe that maybe Nikon could have dropped production of one or two cameras (say, the D50 and the F6) just a smidge and put that into the D200. But, these are very close judgement calls. They are doing well enough. Great products, reasonably good support, etc.

 

John

I will second (or is that third?) the suggestion about multiple hard-disk back-ups. Hard disk space is CHEAP and FAST and fairly ROBUST (no doubt some will challenge this last item). CDs and DVDs are relatively SLOW and CHEAP and, if the ordinary kind, extremely FRAGILE.

 

I have three copies of everything important: two 3.5 inch hard-disks (completely separate) and one portable 2.5 inch hard-disk. The weakness in my program? The portable hard-disk is only out of the house when I am. :-)

 

My sister just lost a large quantity of scanned images. She can re-scan, but it would have taken her just a few minutes to back-up onto a separate disk. Now she has many hours of labor or a hefty recovery bill in front of her. Back-up is your *first* priority...everyday.

 

John

I may be wrong here, but I thought the only issue was that the sensor size of some DSLRs, being smaller than film, meant that lenses made for the small sensor might not have an image circle big enough for film. However, the reverse problem doesn't exist: no film lens should have any trouble 'covering' a full-frame or smaller digital sensor. Are there other issues?