whoz_the_man_huh

<p>I see your point, peter. Although I suppose at 24mm the lens is less extreme and closer to a standard focal length that's quite usable.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info, Jose.</p>

<p>Thanks, Lil.</p>

<p>I'll get you and the 14-24mm a room. Heh.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Mark.</p>

<p>Indeed I wonder why Canon doesn't have any answers for the Nikkor 14-24mm.</p>

<p>Thanks, Doug.</p>

<p>Oskar, would you mind explaining why wide angles are inferior in IQ generally?</p>

<p>Thanks, Douglas.</p>

<p>Not sure I understand the engineering reason for a zoom being better than primes though.</p>

<p>Jose, do you mean the 14mm has border and corner problems that aren't experienced by the 14-24mm? I don't know all that much about either but it sounds peculiar that a prime would fall behind a zoom like this.</p>

<p>Err... these might be dumb questions:<br /><br /><br />1) In terms of curvature - or anything else I might not be aware of - is there any difference between this lens at 14mm and its 14mm prime sibling? How about this lens at 24mm and a 24mm prime?</p>

<p>2) Is it safe to assume that this fattie has the best overall image quality of any lens manufactured by Nikon?<br /><br /><br />Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

<p>Thanks, Rob.</p>

<p>Brent, that's exactly what I was looking for.</p>

<p>The image looks like something the D300 would produce at ISO 3200. Which is pretty much what I expected. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Thanks, Nic.</p>

<p>I'm not actually looking for 200%. You may have read my request "Anything larger or 100% cropped?" as "Anything larger than 100% cropped?"</p>

<p>I've been known to pixel peep, but this is not one of those times. Heh.</p>

<p>Good tip, Steven. I'd love to take the D3 out for a spin if it's not too costly.</p>

<p>Very nice, Robert.</p>

<p>Can I assume that is NR-less?</p>

<p>Same question, Terry.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shal.</p>

<p>Anything larger or 100% cropped?</p>

<p>Much appreciated, Dan.</p>

<p>True, Lex. I was just hoping for some links to robust webspace.</p>

<p>Thanks, Nic.</p>

<p>The three images look spectacular in low res. I guess photobucket.com resizes your photos automatically when you upload them. Too bad.</p>

<p>That's the D3 you have, right, Nic?</p>

<p>Do you use Capture NX's NR? Also I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but any chance you can post full res?</p>

<p>Thanks, Dan.</p>

<p>I visited your site but unfortunately I have no idea which images were shot at which ISO. I'd be curious about whether you turned on NR as well. Would you be able to clarify at all?</p>

<p>Thanks, Joseph.</p>

<p>Any chance you can post full-sized stuff? I'm not sure how much is lost in resizing down to web-friendly proportions. Also did you use NR?</p>

<p>Wow. Is it me or is there nothing special about the D3X's high ISO?</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've seen dozens of impressive samples in marketing booklets and online at reduced web-sized resolutions, but I refuse to be convinced by anything other than full scale specimens by real photographers. Please share your works of wonder at ISO 3200 or 6400.</p>

<p>Zero Noise Reduction and zero post work would be awesome. And 100% crops are nice but nothing tells the truth like the whole enchilada, yeah?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

 

<p>I definitely have icon envy.</p>