Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX zoom

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
> I am giving serious thought to getting one of these for my D70. Has anyone
> got any comments on performance?
>
> According to Thom Hogan you can use this on a full frame SLR from about
> 17mm onwards with good results, but I am more concerned with how it will
> render wide angles on the D70.
>
> The other option I am considering is the 10.5mm fisheye which has the
> option of being rectilinear with the software afterwards.
>
> Thoughts?
>

This seems to be a pretty darn good review of this lens. So far, he has
hit about dead-on with the lenses I am using.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Marek M. \"rogus\"" <rogus@pocztnijowy.totez.net> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse napisal(a):
>> This seems to be a pretty darn good review of this lens.
> In his opinion everything which has a Nikon sticker on it is a darn good
> professional tool. Not a pseudo-profi - actually created only for the
> amrketing reasons such as all of the Canon's equipment

Why did you try to turn this into a Nikon -vs- Canon thread? The link I
provided was for a review of a Nikon lens. The guy who wrote the
review invariably shoots Nikon. The OP asked about a Nikon lens. What
is your problem?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse napisa³(a):
> Why did you try to turn this into a Nikon -vs- Canon thread? The link I
> provided was for a review of a Nikon lens. The guy who wrote the
> review invariably shoots Nikon. The OP asked about a Nikon lens. What
> is your problem?

I wouldn't treat Ken's opinion as hmmm let's even tiny objective
Well the guy has totally freaked on Nikon and his reviews go like
this "eventhough there is somthing wrong with focus[for example] well I
do not usually use autofocus very often it is a feature for thoose
kigohs which dont know how to mf"

Really ain't turning the discussion into a flame war, but just suggest
to eat rather a square meal with complete review and a minority of
sujective opinion not otherwise.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Ken Rockwell is a complete idiot.

He has managed to make a name for himself. Who is Roxy d'Urban?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:02:57 -0700, James Of Tucson wrote:

>
>
>>Ken Rockwell is a complete idiot.
>
> He has managed to make a name for himself. Who is Roxy d'Urban?

Head of Research for the University of Psychopathic Interludes.

Ken Rockwell once had the absolute gall to say that the 70-210mm Nikkor
was sharper and better than the 80-200mm f/2.8. Anyone who takes him
seriously needs a reality check. The man's a dope.

--
"I'm here to make pictures, not friends."
~ Chris Buck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roxy d'Urban wrote:

> On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:02:57 -0700, James Of Tucson wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>Ken Rockwell is a complete idiot.
>>
>>He has managed to make a name for himself. Who is Roxy d'Urban?
>
>
> Head of Research for the University of Psychopathic Interludes.
>
> Ken Rockwell once had the absolute gall to say that the 70-210mm Nikkor
> was sharper and better than the 80-200mm f/2.8. Anyone who takes him
> seriously needs a reality check. The man's a dope.
>
Quote from Ken Rockwell:
"It's good, but not that good! For that price you could get a brand new
80-200 2.8. which is better in every way except too big to stick in a
pocket."

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
>
> Ken Rockwell once had the absolute gall to say that the 70-210mm Nikkor
> was sharper and better than the 80-200mm f/2.8. Anyone who takes him
> seriously needs a reality check. The man's a dope.
>

Uhm ... I believe he said, "as sharp as". He made no claims of
superiority in optics. It is clearly faster, but it is also clearly
heavier. That is what he said? It seems some people have a need to
justify their own decisions and will discount anything that does not
support their choice.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Rockwell is not taken seriously except by those insecure types who need
> a warm and fuzzy after they've bought Nikon equipment.
>

Hmm ... I have used Ken's reviews, along with others like those at
photo.net, to make purchasing decisions for lenses. I have not once had
to use his site to justify a purchase I have already made.

> Nothing against Nikon, but Rockwell is not always objective.
>

Cite a specific example?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"JR" <jrhone@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:jrhone-71F57A.08355318052005@news.east.cox.net...
>I would (and have) get the Tokina 12-24/4 lens. I had the Nikon and
> found the Tokina every bit as good optically at half the price. It also
> has a better build quality.
>
> JR

The build quality of mine is excellent. What was wrong with yours?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Rockwell is not taken seriously except by those insecure types who need
>>a warm and fuzzy after they've bought Nikon equipment.
>>
>
>
> Hmm ... I have used Ken's reviews, along with others like those at
> photo.net, to make purchasing decisions for lenses. I have not once had
> to use his site to justify a purchase I have already made.
>
>
>>Nothing against Nikon, but Rockwell is not always objective.
>>
>
>
> Cite a specific example?

His whole site is Nikon-gush. Glad you use other reviews before buying.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"JR" <jrhone@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:jrhone-204D38.16455518052005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <xUJie.30159$w15.25248@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>
>> "JR" <jrhone@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:jrhone-71F57A.08355318052005@news.east.cox.net...
>> >I would (and have) get the Tokina 12-24/4 lens. I had the Nikon and
>> > found the Tokina every bit as good optically at half the price. It
>> > also
>> > has a better build quality.
>> >
>> > JR
>>
>> The build quality of mine is excellent. What was wrong with yours?
>
> Nothing WRONG with mine. But next to the Tokina, the Nikon feels flimsy
> and cheap. The Tokina is built like a tank. The ONLY area the Nikon
> beats it is in slightly faster focusing, but with such wide angles,
> focusing is not very slow. Just my opinion...plop one on your digital
> camera, take a few shots, then try the Nikon in the same way...dump the
> images, then print and you can see which one is the winner....I couldnt
> tell a difference, so the winner was the one at half the price of the
> other.
>
> JR

I have no doubt it is a fine lens. When I bought mine, it was the only game
in town.

Tom

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:44:38 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> Well, he's a very opinionated person, with some views that fly in the face
> of "received digital wisdom." One example is his insistance that one
> should shoot JPEGs only, and not mess with raw images. Just about everyone
> else in the field who does fine art or nature photography says the
> opposite.

I'm with the jpeg school of thought. Your end product if you are making a
print is going to be a jpeg anyway, and if you can't get the basic
exposure you want by shooting jpeg in the first place, there is a problem
with your technique, not your workflow.

> But for many shooters, especially beginning non-pros, just shooting JPEGs,
> and not spending a lot of time tweaking stuff in PS, makes a lot of sense.
> Perhaps it's better to learn more about composition than how to fine tune
> an image before you have good images to fine tune.

I have yet to see the benefit of shooting RAW. It's a lot of work and to
my mind work takes the fun out of photography. I shot these images on
Sunday with my jpeg setting on the D70 to medium, a custom curve uploaded
to the camera, maximum sharpness and auto WB. http://tinyurl.com/8njxm No
other processing except for minor cropping on some of them.

> That's just an opinion. Every opinion has to be taken in a context.
>
> I wouldn't call him a dope. Some of his opinions and writings are very
> entertaining (and I don't mean this in a condenscending way).

The trouble with his website is that he comes across as being an authority
on the subject of lenses, but in reality he dosn't really know all that
much about the field. He's not even a pro photographer, just a dude with a
healthy trust fund.

> He's a Nikon guy, and so is Thom Hogan. Both very different. Hogan takes
> an engineering/scientific approach to evaluating Nikon gear, Rockwell
> takes a more (umm) "aesthetic" approach. Problem is, I don't like his
> images (Rockwell's), but I still read him.

I gave up reading him when I contracted spyware clicking on one of the
links on his site (pre XP SP2).

--
"I'm here to make pictures, not friends."
~ Chris Buck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roxy d'Urban" <not@home.com> wrote in message
newsan.2005.05.19.05.45.20.267000@home.com...
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:44:38 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
<snip>
I'm with the jpeg school of thought. Your end product if you are making a
> print is going to be a jpeg anyway, and if you can't get the basic
> exposure you want by shooting jpeg in the first place, there is a problem
> with your technique, not your workflow.
>
<snip>

Your argument falls apart here. My images NEVER are JPEG images. They're
opened as RAW and if necessary saved as TIFF, but NEVER lose pixels to a
JPEG conversion. I also print on an Epson 7600, 24 inches wide by whatever I
want. JPEG isn't good enough.

Tom

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:16:46 +0000, Tom Scales wrote:

>
> "Roxy d'Urban" <not@home.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.05.19.05.45.20.267000@home.com...
>> On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:44:38 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
> <snip>
> I'm with the jpeg school of thought. Your end product if you are making a
>> print is going to be a jpeg anyway, and if you can't get the basic
>> exposure you want by shooting jpeg in the first place, there is a
>> problem with your technique, not your workflow.
>>
> <snip>
>
> Your argument falls apart here. My images NEVER are JPEG images. They're
> opened as RAW and if necessary saved as TIFF, but NEVER lose pixels to a
> JPEG conversion. I also print on an Epson 7600, 24 inches wide by whatever
> I want. JPEG isn't good enough.
>
> Tom

I never print on an inkjet. I have my prints done at a pro lab using
either a Frontier or Konica digital interface. If I send them TIFF's they
convert them to JPEG's anyway and charge me for the hassle.

--
"I'm here to make pictures, not friends."
~ Chris Buck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.05.19.05.45.20.267000@home.com>,
Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
>I'm with the jpeg school of thought. Your end product if you are making a
>print is going to be a jpeg anyway, and if you can't get the basic
>exposure you want by shooting jpeg in the first place, there is a problem
>with your technique, not your workflow.

That is ridiculous. There are many ways of mapping a 12-bit linear value
to an 8-bit gamma corrected value. Changing this mapping in the field for
every shot you take is not only a waste of time, but also very inpractical
when the light changes quickly. (And in more complicated situation, you
may want to push or pull part of the image).

Throwing away 4 bits of information in the camera, when it is known that an
8-bit gamma corrected value is barely enough in many situations, is a good
example of bad technique.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:37:51 -0400, Walt Hanks wrote:

> I agree. For any serious photographer, throwing away data in the field is
> foolish. Now, an amateur who prints at Walmart may be just fine doing
> that, but not anyone doing their own post processing.
>
> In addition, I don't know why Roxy thinks you have to print from a jpeg.
> I never do. I always print from PS using a psd file. Do you have some
> reason for such an assertion Roxy?

As I said in a previous reply, the labs I use convert the files I bring
in to JPG anyway, then they charge me for the time it takes them. I don't
know if it is possible to print to a Frontier using anything other than a
JPG or not. What I can say is that the prints I get back are pretty fine.

I certainly wouldn't use a 6 mega-pixel digital camera (or colour neg for
that matter) to do any serious photography in the first place. So from a
professional point of view the argument for RAW is irrelevant. I would
only use pro slide film if I wanted the best possible results and then
have that drum scanned.

Professional tools for professional results.

--
"I'm here to make pictures, not friends."
~ Chris Buck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.05.19.05.45.20.267000@home.com>,
Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:

>I have yet to see the benefit of shooting RAW. It's a lot of work and to
>my mind work takes the fun out of photography.

There are various reasons, which may or may not matter to you as
you take and use your shots.

Sometimes, I am after maximum detail on a shot -- to use for
analyzing and rebuilding a piece of machinery. Jpeg is a *lossy* format
by design. It improves its compression by throwing away information.
The most information is lost when fine detail lines cross at angles less
than 90 degrees -- turning the intersection area into a cloud of various
density pixels. Sometimes that may be just the information which I
need, such as a diagram on a data plate on the device which I did not
think to photograph up close when I had the opportunity.

If there were an option to shoot in tiff format, I would use
that for this kind of photo.

For other purposes, the ability to recover more information from
the shadow areas really calls for RAW -- or a 16-bit TIFF format, or the
internal format used by PhotoShop (or that used by the GIMP, if you
dislike working on Windows systems or Macs).

If I were doing medical photography -- especially documenting
surgery or tumors of some sort -- I would not risk losing fine detail
with JPEG.

That said -- for general shooting, I keep the camera set to
medium/fine, and find quite good image detail (as the "fine" setting
minimizes the effects of the lossy compression in the JPEG format.)

> I shot these images on
>Sunday with my jpeg setting on the D70 to medium, a custom curve uploaded
>to the camera, maximum sharpness and auto WB. http://tinyurl.com/8njxm No
>other processing except for minor cropping on some of them.

The custom curve can help you to recover the shadow detail -- if
you have the *right* custom curve for that purpose loaded. Shooting in
RAW gives you the ability to discover after the shoot that you needed a
different curve -- and to recover from that.

An example would be the shots of the motorcycles aloft, where you
could recover some detail in the downside of the motorcycles and riders
(the side which you are able to see) because of the intense backlighting
from the sky.

Whether you would *want* more detail from the guitarist's shadow
side of the face is up to you. I would like a bit more detail visible,
but the contrast may have been an intentional choice on your part.

Just some thoughts and opinions,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <zK6dnUXsDuCUhBDfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Walt Hanks <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>news6j27p$1ib$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com...
>(snipped)
>> Whether you would *want* more detail from the guitarist's shadow
>> side of the face is up to you. I would like a bit more detail visible,
>> but the contrast may have been an intentional choice on your part.
>>
>> Just some thoughts and opinions,

[ ... ]

>Don, I just wanted to thank you for posting a calm, informative reply. I
>learn a lot from your posts.

Thank you. I try to be as informative as possible, and to make
it clear when what I post is opinions instead of known facts to which I
can post references.

But I *do* try to understand how things work, and to share that
when it seems appropriate.

Thanks again,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:

> "Roxy d'Urban" <not@home.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.05.19.12.09.47.631000@home.com...
> <snip>
> I certainly wouldn't use a 6 mega-pixel digital camera (or colour neg for
>
>>that matter) to do any serious photography in the first place. So from a
>>professional point of view the argument for RAW is irrelevant. I would
>>only use pro slide film if I wanted the best possible results and then
>>have that drum scanned.
>>
>>Professional tools for professional results.
>
>
>
> You're kidding, right? You wouldn't use a 6mp camera for serious
> photography? What limited credibility you had just flew out the window.
>
> 6mp images are excellent and enlarge very well!
>
> Tom
>

Yes - but you don't know this until you have tried.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frederick wrote:

> The OP asked for a specific example. Ken Rockwell has a huge site. He
> uses Nikon. So what? What makes what he says "gush"?

1, Declare your equipment.

2, Go read the ref site with an open mind regardless of your reply to 1,
above.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.