ross nolly

I find that the 24mm AIS outperforms the 24mm AFD by a long chalk on my D200. And my Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 beats both easily!

I have thought about the Sigma 10-20 but I don't realy need it that wide and also the f5.6 is a bit too slow at the long end.

 

My ideal lens would be a 24mm AFD but I've tried that and have found it to be less than ideal on the D200. The 24mm would give me close to my ideal 35mm focal length(film equivalent).

 

One reason I have been leaning more to the Nikon 12-24 is because it is supposed to be better than the Tokina at the 24mm length.

 

The other option is the Nikon 17-55mm of course wich is meant to be a stunner at all focal lengths.

 

The Sigma 15-30mm can be a pain because of the huge size of its front lens which makes filter use a pain in the proverbial too!

Has anyone here used the Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 DG EX as well as either of the

Nikon/Tokina 12-24mm's on a D200?

 

I'm still undecided whether to purchace the Nikon or the Tokina. I'm using the

Sigma at the moment but it's a huge lens and prone to flare. However it is very

sharp.

 

I mostly use my lenses for photojournaism and the prime range I used most often

was the 24mm and 35mm lenses. I shoot for magazines and photolibraries and am

at the moment leaning towards the Nikon.

 

I can't view a Tokina because no store in my area stocks them. I can buy new

from an online auction site but am a bit worried about sample variation (with

the Tokina).

 

I've read nearly every review imaginable on the Nikon and Tokina but am stil

tearing out what little hair I have left out making the decision. They both

have their pro's and con's. Where I live (New Zealand) I can purchace the Nikon

for about NZ$1600 and the Tokina for around NZ$760.

 

How does the Tokina compare to the Sigma? If I have a benchmark between the two

I can make a better decision since I can't try out a Tokina.

 

I am thinking more of the 12-24mm range rather than the 17-55 because I can use

my 50mm f1.8 AFD and 180 f2.8 AF to cover the rest.

 

Thanks everyone

I bought a 180mm f2.8 AF to use for rodeo and it works well. On my D200 it's the "poor man's nearly 300 f2.8"! It cost me about NZ$360 (about US$250) for one in mint condition.

 

It's a tack sharp lens and seems to be reasonably abundant on the used market.

I'm pretty new to using rangefinders but have been putting a bit of Tri-x

through an old Yashica Electro GSN.

 

What do the readers think the chances are of a Bessa digital in the future. Is

it possible to put a cropped sensor similar to a D80 or D200 into a Bessa type

body?

 

The M8 seems to have proved that there is a niche for a high end digi RF

camera, what about a mid range camera like a Bessa?

 

I think I'd jump at it (if the IQ was ok) for some of my work. Any ideas anyone?

Ilkka; A D3 would be great, but I don't need the fps etc. I will be getting a D300 though if the high iso's are better than the D200. I'll use the D200 as a back up.

 

At the moment I'm tossing up whether to get the Tokina or Nikon 12-24mm as that is the focal length range I use the most. Each has it's pros and cons, decisions, decisions!

Does anyone wish Nikon would make a 16mm f2.8 DX (or FX) prime? I'd love to get

my old favourite 24mm focal length back again.

 

And while they're at it maybe a revamped 24mm f2.8, so I could have a 35mm

equivalent?

 

I know that zoom afficianados probably outweigh prime users but surely there

must be a niche for them?

 

For the type of work I do I would rather use a 24mm equivalent for most of my

work. As it stands at the moment I need to use a zoom to get my 24mm focal

length. Otherwise I use a 20mm AF, which is ok, but not the 24mm length I love.

You can't beat a good old FM2n, they're built tough and reliable. I've got four at home and they've been used hard and never let me down.

 

If you choose a FM2 instead of an FM2n the only thng you miss is that the flash synchs at 125th sec instead of 250th. No big deal if you're not going to be using flash much.

 

I see that KEH.com have got plenty of both in stock. The FM2n's are about the same price as the FM2's so you may as well look at them.

 

They seem to have risen in price since I last looked. The ones in ex cond seem to be around the $300 mark, maybe too dear for you?

 

I don't live in the US but everyone seems to rave over KEH's reputation and that their ex grade is nearly mint.

Hi Daniel.

The 24mm AIS (alongside a 35mm f2 AIS) was my favourite lens for film. I decided to buy a 24mm AFD lens for the D200 to use as 35mm prime.

 

However after numerous tests have found the 24mm AFD to not be as sharp as my Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 DG EX at all apetures! The results totally blew me away, so much so I've repeated the tests 4 times now in case I'd messed something up!

 

I'm really dissapointed. Maybe I got a bad sample, I don't know, but there does seem to be a reasonable number of similar stories on here.

 

But the 24mm AIS is definately sharper than the AFD too, even though they are meant to have the same construction.Yet my 35mm f2 AIS is really sharp on the D200.

 

My 50mm f1.8AFD and 180mm f2.8 AF on the D200 are sharp enough to shave with!

Hope this helps.

Hi Keith.

I was pretty much in the same situation as you. I'd been working in a toally different trade for twenty years, but have always done photography. I mostly shot and sold a few images on the side through photo libraries.

 

When I decided I wanted to give full time photojournalism a try I did it by a different method. I cut my fulltime work days to four ten hour days, which gave me an extra day to shoot.

 

I used Ron Engh's book Sell & Resell your photos as a guide. I picked a few areas that I could specialise in to eliminate a lot of the competition. This has worked well.

 

I also decided I needed to write so I could supply the complete package to an editor. Again i wrote/photographed in the areas I specialised in. I took a extra mural freelance photojournalism course to hone the writing. Writing isn't essential, but has opened more doors for me, than by just submitting photos.

 

Within a year I left the fulltime job and worked part time for 3 8-hour days per week. Again more time for shooting/writing and it helped me wean myself into the new career.

 

I haven't a family so have not got as much to risk as you, but easing yourself into the new job is a good idea to minimise your financial risk.

 

If you wanted to give newspaper work a go, well then I suppose my way of working wouldn't work. But I decided to freelance, which is probably the hardest way to go.

 

I decided to freelance (& do editorial work) so I could pursue the stories that I found interesting.

 

So far it's working. I have kept the part time work for about three years and am now am just about to go full time freelance (October).

 

In the meantime I've built up solid contacts and a backlog of articles stretching out to early next year (to help soften the financial blow!)in a variety of mags. I think this is the route I would have taken if I had a family to minimise the financial risk.

 

As for your "window of opportunity closing", don't say that cos I'm 44! I hope this helps. It may not be suitable for you, but you may give you a few ideas. Email me if you want.

The one thing I've noticed about the D200 is that at 400ASA+ I need to make sure the exposures are spot on. Underexposed areas tend to be noisy.If you ensure exposure accuracy (pretend you're still using slide film!) you'll be ok.

Thanks for that Tony, I really appreciate the time you've taken to answer my question.

Also, i use Capture NX and the CA reduction is always on so maybe that is correcting the CA on my Sigma. Or is it an overated symptom anyway?

 

The bulbous lens on the Sigma is really prone to flare too!

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. By real world i mean general photojournalism, documentary photography etc. It's just that a review might say it's bad, but is that only in an extreme test?

 

I use a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 DG EX at the moment & reviews say that the CA is extremely bad, yet I haven't noticed it! Whether that's just sample variation or I don't typically shoot in the situations that promote it.

 

It's a very sharp lens, but prone to flare. It's just that it's a fair chunk of lens and a constant apeture would be great.

 

Allan; "Even you are saying that the CA is only bad in extremely high contrast situations. Do you think the CA is a make or break on this lens?" That's exactly my point!

 

Normally I stick to Nikkors, but if the CA (& maybe sample variation) is a problem I'll shell out for the Nikkor.

 

Thanks everyone

In "real world" tests how bad is the CA on a Tokina 12-24mm? Also, how well

does Capture NX automatically clean the CA up? Any experiences would be

gratefully received.

Thanks everyone.

Hi everyone;

 

There's quite a bit of info on here about the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 lens. I

am considering buying this lens and was wondering if anyone is using it for

photo library or magazine work? It's just there's a great deal of difference

between adequate sharpness for a 8x12 print or web use compared with photo

library work.

 

I'd love the equivalent Nikon but can't afford to drop the money on it in case

Nikon do indeed bring out a FF camera in the not too distant future.

 

The price of the Nikon lens(in New Zealand) is NZ$2,200+ about the price of a

new D200, so probably a fairly substantial part of any new D200 upgrade!

 

I've posted because the question here because it won't stay on the boards for

long & I won't get flamed for asking a question that many think may have been

answered before!

I've got a Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 & my tripod tests have shown it beats the 24mm AFD hands down at all apetures (on a D200). I mentioned it on another post. I'm actually reselling the 24mm AFD it's that bad. Yet the 24mm AIS easily beats the AFD!

 

The 20mm AF is too soft wide open, but really sharp at f5.6.

Walter; I agree. I could never understand how someone could look at a 35mm slide through a 4x loupe and say how sharp their lenses and films were! I always used an 8x & occassionally a 10x for film.

 

I think I'll resell the 24mm AFD. I've done four tripod tests with it now (in case I did something dumb in the other tests, Murphy's Law you know!) and still the same results.

 

Thanks everyone for your help.

Thanks for your replies everyone. I was actually comparing viewing Velvia and Provia 100 through an 8x loupe to a D200 100asa file on a computer screen at 100%.

 

Re; prime lenses. My 24mm AIS blows away my equivalent AFD lens, and both are beaten by the Sigma zoom on the D200. Those results surprised me too.

 

My 20mm AF is too soft wide open but good at f5.6+. My 50mm f1.8AFD and 180mm f2.8AF are fantastically sharp on the D200 (even wide open).

 

That's what I was meaning by digital highlighting the weaknesses of some lenses that were originally designed for film. And, that viewing through an 8x loupe means that you are viewing them at roughly A4 size, whereas I think that 100% on a computer screen is around 20x30 inch equivalent (i think!).

I've had a posting in the Nikon forum about lens sharpness & an offshoot of it

prompted me to post this in this forum. I'm not trying to cross-post.

 

When it came to lens sharpness & film. Am I being really picky about image

quality, or is it that I was lulled into a false sense of how good some of

these lenses were by viewing slides through an 8x viewer (about A4 size).

 

Whereas now I view images on screen at 100% (about 20x30 I think)and the lenses

that I once thought were sharp, weren't ever really that sharp at all?

 

And, some of the later lenses are outperforming some primes for digital? E.g my

Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 DG EX blows away my Nikkor 24mm lenses, both AIS and AFD

at all apetures!

 

Not trying to start a brand war or film vs digital war, just interested in the

feedback..

Shun; I agree! I bought the new 24 because it's the focal length i used the most for film. I'm still a bit unsure whether to buy a DX lens in case Nikon replace the D200 with a FF camera. I can't afford to drop a wedge of cash on a DX lens right now only to replace it.

 

I like using the minimal amount of gear needed!

 

I'm prepared to wait until near the end of the year when hopefully the question will be answered. But as mentioned above, for the work I'm doing primes are ideal.

 

The rationale for the 24 was that I can use it as a 35 on my D200, & if a FF comes out I'd pick up a 35mm f2 to go with it.

 

But image quality is really important, the agencies I use are pretty picky (so am I!)

 

I'm really amazed how good the Sigma is though re. sharpness. I had a 24mm Sigma once and it packed up after about 18 months of constant use.

 

Am I really picky? Or is it that I was lulled into a false sense of how good some of these lenses were by viewing the slides through an 8x viewer (about A4 size) & now am viewing at 100% (about 20x30 I think)?

Hi Shun; Looks sharp to me too! I really can't explain my lens sample. I've always used the 24 AIS with no problem and was really looking forward to using the AFD.

 

I think I'll look at the Nikon 12-24mm, it seems to have really good ratings.

 

Thanks everyone

Second 100% crop from Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 DG EX, 350th sec f3.5 wide open, unsharpened.

 

I took another few shots with 24mm just after this one with similar results to first photo, ok to about 50% but no more.<div></div>

Here's a unsharpened 100% crop. The only work I've done on it is to open it in capture NX and change the colour mode (I originaly shot it in B&W RAW)It's shot at 350th sec @ f8.<div></div>

Matt.I set up on a tripod, mirror lock up & cable release and focussed on a wooden fence.I used both manual focus & S mode @ exactly the same focal lengths on the Sigma and 24mm & shot at 100ASA.

 

I was photographing an anti-China protest for one of my agencies and used the new 24 for a few shots before going back to the Sigma, just in case something was faulty on the new lens, Murphy Law etc. (I hadn't had a chance to test the 24 beforehand). The 24mm's protest shots were ok up to about 50% (@ 400 ASA)but no more. That's what made me wonder what was going on

 

But the Sigma blows away the 20mm at equivalent apetures too.

 

Shun; I was sure they had the same optical construction too, but thanks for the confirmation