paul.droluk

Nikon never made a 17mm prime. Tokina, Tamron and maybe some of the other

independents did, but they all perform horribly on a digital sensor. I used to have a

Tamron 17/3.5 SP... it was excellent on film... much better than the Nikon 18/2.8 of the

same vintage.

There are several truly great lenses for the RZ... 37/4.5 Fisheye, 50/4.5 ULD, 65/4 L-

A, 140/4.5 M/L-A Macro, 210/4.5 APO, as well as the 110/2.8 which you already

have. I don't have one, but the 180/4.5 is highly regarded for portrait work (I use the

210 APO). If you don't have the AE Prism Finder, by all mean get one... the meter is

superb. Last but not least, get the double cable release, which allows for easy

mirror-up shooting.

The attached photo was taken with the 50/4.5 W. One day I hope to reshoot this

using the 50/4.5 ULD... the very corners are a bit soft.

I'm using a current Mac Pro & 10.5.2... I loaded NX, and it totally crashed my

machine. I had to reboot from the Startup Disk, and reload everything from a Time

Machine back-up, which took several hours.

My free copy of NX (got it with my D3) went into the trash, just like all the previous

Nikon software I've foolishly tried.

I really don't understand why Nikon keeps trying to market their less-than software

efforts... like they don't already make enough profit on cameras and lenses. All you

ever hear... too slow, too unstable... time after time after time.

Dear Nikon... STOP ALREADY. Give your proprietary coding to Adobe, and let them

do something descent with it. It will leave you more time to work on better lenses.

Perhaps I'm not the best candidate to offer advise... I can't write a single line in

Basic, and I've never actually used a PC. That being confessed, I have been a MAC

user since 1985, four years after I started my business. I started with a UNIX based

machine (Fortune Systems) and subsequently migrated to MAC after Fortune went

bust. Today, we operate using over 50 MAC's, from G3's for low end duties to the

biggest, baddest Mac Pro (mine... "it's good to be the king").

What I want to say... from the very beginning, we contracted an external IT

company for support and service (as I said, I can't write a single line of code). Over

the years, the owner of that company has become a friend and fishing buddy, and

naturally we have had numerous conversations of the "MAC vs PC" genre. In the

end... HE ABSOLUTELY LOVES PC's. He personally uses MAC's exclusively, but

he's able to afford them (and lots of other toys) by the revenues his company

generates servicing his PC based clients!

I have both of these lenses (both the current Mk-II versions), and have posted test results

previously. They are both very sharp, with great contrast and color.

Before reading on, be advised that my 50-150 has been returned to Sigma for warranty

repair. It seems as though one of the elements had de-centered.

On a D300 the Sigma 50-150 is a great longer walk-around lens, effectively a small(er)

and light(er) 75-225 on FF. When I carry this lens I usually also carry a 17-35. Together,

these usually covers 95% of my potential needs.

The Sigma (or Nikon) 70-200 does not meet my definition of a "walk-around" lens, due to

size, weight, and pronounced tele view. Both lenses are excellent performers, with the

Nikon showing a tiny advantage on a D300, but only by a smidgeon when viewed at 100%.

On a D3 the Sigma 70-200 actually out-performs the Nikon 70-200VR in the outer 500

pixels of the image, and exhibits less vignetting. Center resolution goes to the Nikon, once

again by just a smidgeon.

This is an update to my earlier posting.

Without any apparent reason, my lens has developed what appears to be a de-centering

defect. The left side of all of my images went blurry... not soft, but downright blurry. The

remainder of the frame dropped considerably in performance as well. Quite unexplainable,

as the lens hasn't been used since my previous testing.

It is back at Sigma for repairs at this time.

I'll advise when I get it back, but I'm a bit bummed at this juncture.. I'll always worry about

a recurrence from now on.

Definitely sexier than a Linhof...

Camera: $800

Wife: priceless<div></div>

I use two different macro lenses;

Nikon 105/2.8 VR on my D3, and the Sigma 70/2.8 EX on my D300.

Both lenses are SUPERB. On a D50, my 1st choice would be the Sigma 70/2.8 EX, where it is

equal to a 105mm. It also makes an excellent portrait lens. The build quality of the Sigma is

very good... perhaps better than my previous Nikon 105/2.8 AF-D, which for me was too

long on DX format.

The Photozone testing is all done on a DX camera, where indeed the Nikon is an excellent

performer. Their test of the Sigma is for the previous (MkI) version.

I tested theses two lenses side by side, the results of which are posted here... http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Oq4J

Net, net... the Sigma is an excellent lens... clearly much better than the Nikon on FF (D3).

I've decided to keep the Nikon until they update it, as the VR is very much appreciated...

but it's use is restricted to my DX bodies (D2X/D300).

Actually, until I got the D3, I was extremely pleased with the Nikon 70-200VR. Nikon

really stubbed their toes on this one... had they labeled this a DX lens all along, they would

have avoided the current embarrassment.

A second for the Horseman VH or VHR... MUCH smaller and portable than a 4x5. Add the

Horseman Angle Finder, and you have almost an SLR view (just in reverse). For architecture,

having movement capabilities is a tremendous asset, and being able to use current LF lenses

also assures the very best optical performance. And you have your choice of 6x7 or 6x9

RFB's.

I have the 24-70/2.8 AFS, and it is a marvelous lens. I also have the 24/2.8 AIS, 28/2.8

AIS, 35/2.0 AIS, 50/1.4 AFD, and Sigma 70/2.8 EX Macro.

On a D3... performance of the 24-70 equals the 28, 35 & 50mm Nikon primes. The Nikon

24/2.8 outperform the 24-70 at the corners, but the 24/2.8 generates more CA. The

Sigma 70/2.8 outperforms the Nikon 24-70 wide open.

On a D300... it's harder to see any difference in performance between the 24-70 and any

of the primes, other than for the Sigma 70, which outperforms the Nikon 24-70 wide

open.

No doubt, the convenience of the zoom is a big asset. The 24-70 is now my walk-around

lens on the D3... sometimes the D300. However, when shooting from a tripod I tend to

prefer the primes, as they physically balance better.

I had the MkI and now have the replacement MkII version. My understanding is that Sigma

tweaked the design to better the performance when focussed closely. My testing confirms

that Sigma's effort succeeded. That being said, I was very pleased with the MkI. I'm

guessing most of the criticism of the MkI came from folks wanting to use the lens for

portraiture or almost macro type work. As I use other lenses for those types of work, the

shortcoming of the MkI never really effected my usage... nonetheless I upgraded.

The image quality is superb at all focal lengths and focus distances. There is a slight

amount of mechanical vignetting that creeps in at the long end... but nowhere near as bad

as the Nikon 70-200 VR on full frame. Images are crisp and contrast is high. While it does

have an HSM motor which focusses plenty fast, it doesn't seem to focus quite as fast as the

Nikon 70-200 VR.

IMHO this is the perfect long zoom for the DX format, equalling a 75-225/2.8 on full

frame... THE range (70-200) of choice on FF for a very long time. I don't understand why

Nikon themselves have not come out with a comparable lens (with VR)... it is such a

natural on DX.

I must say that Sigma is sure winning me over lately. On top of the 50-150 MkII, I recently

purchased their 70-200/2.8 MkII as well, after being very disappointed with the

performance of the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR on my D3. Testing side-by-side, the Sigma

clearly outperforms the Nikon on a FF sensor. I also tested the new Sigma 100-300/f4

while at my local dealer... as soon as I free up some additional cash, it will replace my

Nikon 300/4 AFS.

Numerous of the AIS wide angle lenses (20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.0) were absolutely

wonderful... ON FILM. Unfortunately, on many digital sensors they exhibit considerable

amounts of CA. The 20/2.8 & 24/2.8 performed especially poorly on my D100 & D200. The

24/2.8 is much better on the D3 and D300... I sold the 20/2.8 before I replaced the D200,

so it might be fine as well on the new sensors. The 28/2.8 and 35/2.0 performs quite well on

the new cameras.

Here are a few excerpts from Photozone's (http://www.photozone.de) rather authoritative

review of this lens...

"Regarding its rather steep price tag the build quality is somewhat disappointing with lots

of rather average quality plastics. It?s not remotely comparable to the pro grade lenses

within the Nikon lineup"

"the amount of barrel distortions (4.1%) at 18mm broke a new negative record. At 24mm

the distortion characteristic is neutral before turning into very pronounced pincushion

distortions beyond. All in all one of the worst performances here."

"The lens showed quite pronounced field curvature and high residual spherical aberrations

(focus shift when stopping down) at the wide end of the zoom range."

"Chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are relatively well

controlled [for such a zoom lens]. Nonetheless they can be visible in many scenes with an

average CA pixel width of around 1px regardless of the focal length, except at 100mm."

"Regarding some glowing reviews available on the web, the expectations were rather high.

Unfortunately the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX wasn't able to

convince completely. Weak points are rather hefty distortions and high vignetting (@ f/3.5)

at 18mm."

I purchased this lens shortly after it came out, hoping it would become my everyday carry

around. I got shed of it as soon as I tried to make my first larger print... only 12x18

inches. I think this is a case of Nikon trying to make a lens that does everything for

everybody... maybe they thought they were losing too many sales to Sigma, Tamron and

Tokina.

All of my other lenses are "Pro" level f2.8 Nikkors, which I can print to 22x33 inches...

when I execute carefully (D3 & D300).

For a snapshot lens... making smaller prints, or posting images on the web, I'm sure the

18-200 would be just fine. I rarely do either.

The bigger round rubber eye-cup (I think it's a DK-17)... I wish I could put this on my D300

as well.

Kirk plate, which adds the ability to mount the camera strap to the side of the camera... not

sure if the RRS plate does the same. The D3 is heavy, especially with a good lens... carrying it

by the side makes it much more convenient.

So yesterday I was in Hong Kong and picked up the latest Sigma variant... APO 70-200mm

F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM. I redid my test of 3 days ago, directly comparing the Sigma

against the Nikon. Once again... tripod mounted, VR off (Nikon), Mirror Up, ISO 200, 200mm

@ f8. There is a slight difference in the mounting feet, and perhaps the actual focal length as

well, so the comparison framing is not 100% identical. Net, net... center sharpness is so close

between the two lenses, I'm calling it a draw. However at the corners, the Sigma dramatically

outperforms the Nikon. Additionally, the Sigma exhibited considerably higher contrast,

though you can't see this in the posted examples which have had "auto color" applied in CS3

(it was a very hazy day today).

Pretty amazing in my mind as the Sigma costs around 40% of what the Nikon does. I'm going

to keep both lenses until Nikon (hopefully) comes out with a better FX version... but my Nikon

will only be seeing duty on my DX bodies from now on.<div></div>

Ok then, now I'm really curious... can ANYBODY post a full format shot with this lens that

SHOWS SHARP CORNERS at 200mm/f8? All I'm seeing is bad corner postings... don't those of

you who have a "good" lens ever take pictures with it?

I too have been complaining about this lens for the very same reason. I just took these... D3,

200mm @ f8, ISO 200, Tripod mounted, Mirror Up, Kirk Foot, No Wind. Each crop is about

200x200 pixels. I started in the upper right hand corner, and then took additional crops

moving in and down from the right hand corner by 200 pixels. To my eye, the unacceptable

softness extends into the image from the corners by 500 pixels.<div></div>

I just acquired the 50-150 VII, and used to have the 70-200. I replaced the Sigma 70-210

with the Nikon VR version, but the Sigma was a very good performer. The 50-150 VII is

perfect for the DX format... = to a 75-225mm, while being MUCH lighter and smaller. Image

quality of the 50-150 is excellent. I can see the 70-210 doing a lot more shelf duty now. The

air quality here in China has been pretty bad for quite a while, but I managed to snap the

attached pic the other day, wanting to see how the corners of the image hold up (they hold

up very well indeed.<div></div>

David, if you can advise what lens the Cone Assembly was configured for AND what lens you

want to mount... I can let you know what would be involved. It may be a simple (and cheap)

as a different shim or spacer.

Cone Assemblies are determined by the lens' FFD (flange focal distance), NOT by the focal

length. There are several 120mm lenses that are supported by our 612 camera, but as the

FFD varies for each, there are consequently several different Cone Assemblies for the

120mm FL. In fact, there are 2 different Cones used, depending on the specific lens.

Net, net... each Cone Assembly is unique to an individual lens (brand & FL). You would

need to remount the exact lens (brand & FL) in order to use the Cone Assembly being

offered. If you want to mount a different lens, new components (spacers or shims) or

possibly even a complete new Cone Assembly may be required.