kk_yu

<p>You could also consider a third-party scanning service like ScanCafe or something similar. It would save you the time and effort but could cost more if you are scanning a lot of images. There's also the thought of having the negatives out of your own hands which may be something you cannot accept.</p>

<p>As a kudos for Olympus, I would like to note their system has had AF Adjust for wide and tele ends of zooms since at least the E-30 in 2008! But great to see Canon putting it in their cameras now too =D.</p>

<p>Shun, did you do any tests to see how the wide end's field of view compares to other lenses? Is it as close as 35mm? I hope it's not that close!</p>

<p>For the curious, my Velvia image was shot at 1/60 @ f/4.8</p>

<p>@Peter Hamm and others who value corner performance:<br>

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that the corners never count. For that image, the corners don't count, at least for me. Indeed, corners can count, but they can not matter sometimes too!<br>

I don't think anyone is saying "buy this lens as a 16mm for FX / film," but rather, oh hey this thing happens to cover FX and isn't half bad as long as you know how it works and its limitations (and therefore need to avoid putting things that need to be sharp in the corners). The OP just had it leftover and wanted to see how it worked, no one is saying this lens is all you ever wanted at 16mm!</p>

<p>bottom right quadrant, 100% view</p><div></div>

<p>bottom left quadrant, 100% view</p><div></div>

<p>Just for curiousity's sake, since the OP wanted to test on slide film, and further evidence of bad corner sharpness outside its designed DX coverage, here's a shot from a Nikon N75, Tokina 11-16 at 16mm, on Velvia 50, scanned at 5035*3339 px. I have the aperture written down, will update when I get the book. I have a color corrected / post processed version to get rid of the blue cast on the building, adjust contrast etc., but can't find it right now, so this is the straight scan. In any case, very sharp where it counts, very unsharp in the corners. When I took this photo I didn't even know the corners were to be avoided, guess I just got lucky in composition that I put dark trees in the corners!</p><div></div>

<p>i was going to go with the thread and try to convince you to get a d7000, but after reading, the d3100 is actually a very very good suggestion too.<br>

if you do mostly landscape and keep to AF-S glass, then the d3100 is way more economical.<br>

things i'd want the d7000 over a d3100 are for older lens use, sports/action photography, extreme low light, more buttons. but if you stick to landscapes, casual use, family/friends, the d3100 is more than up to it, for much cheaper. it's also much lighter, and smaller too.<br>

personal anecdote: my first DSLR was also a D40; i got it may 2007. i like to carry my cameras everywhere so size is pretty important to me. i had a D90 for a while, but sold it. when i did have it i didn't really like how much bigger it was. the d7000 i understand is a tiny bit beefier than the d90. however its AF ability and low-light ability, combined with fast FPS make me want it as a sports camera.</p>

<p>f6... when i got one i was floored by how refined and precise it is. it's just heavy. but i love how i can just stick any nikkor on it (ai and later). with the split image screen it's wonderful. the viewfinder is so bright too.</p>

<p>runners-up:<br>

d700/d3/d300/d7000's AF systems - af sensors everywhere is sweet. put this AF system (or the d4's) in the F7 please.<br>

fm3a - like the wonderful no-frills-just-shoot FE, but with better ergonomics! i wish it had matrix/spot meter. illuminated finder for night would be good too.<br>

f3hp - smooth as silk film advance. smoothest i've ever felt, no resistance at all (sometimes bad since i wonder, is my film advancing??).<br>

n80 - an f6 for AF lenses only, but way lighter. very quiet shutter.<br>

fg - smallest form factor nikon, P mode, TTL flash, huge viewfinder.<br>

fa - matrix meter, pasm modes for mf nikkors, i like how it looks too.<br>

d40 - my first dslr, and 1/500 flash sync woohoo!</p>

<p>great comments from everyone, just wanted to mention, video on a DSLR is quite different than on a compact. some inconveniences mentioned are that autofocus is not great, and that dslr sensors show a lot of the rolling shutter effect (pan horizontally and your vertical lines slant visibly). advantages are that you can isolate your subject really well (sometimes too well) due to smaller DOF, and that low-light performance is better.<br>

just wanted to make sure you knew that DSLR video isn't like video on a compact camera, which in my experience is much more convenient (huge depth-of-field, dedicated movie buttons, no rolling shutter). try the video on the T1i out and see if it's to your liking.</p>

<p>the last two images are the same area (within reason, 58mm is a bit longer than 50mm), and same 100% pixel level, 697x545 px.</p>

<p>The quality of the SOBSA/coma is up to subjective judgment but it's pretty clear that the size of the Noct's coma is much much smaller than the 50mm 1.2.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>the noct is indeed better corrected for SOBSA (coma), which is why you use it... it's a special purpose lens for shooting points of light.</p>

<p>A comparison at f/1.2 of the Noct 58mm 1.2 AIS and the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI, full images and sides where SOBSA (coma) is at its worst:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>i have been craving:<br>

70-200mm f/4 AF-S VR for film and FX<br>

and for DX, the equivalent lens (in terms of size and weight and DOF options): <br>

50-135mm f/2.8 AF-S VR</p>

<p>Velvia 100 scanned by NCPS, Nikon N80 and Nikkor 50mm 1.4 AF</p><div></div>

<p>Velvia 50 scanned by NCPS, Nikon N75 and Tokina 11-16mm DX @ 16mm</p><div></div>