I thought I would share a recent exercise in pricing ultrawide angle
options and some observations. Here are some sample prices for new and
used ultra-wide nikon mount lenses from the latest Shutterbug Ads (1/98)
Even if you don't use nikon, you can construct a similar decision matrix
Ultrawide market must be very shallow, as so few used lenses are listed
Sigma is main competitor below 17mm to nikkor primes (in Shutterbug ads)
Tamron or Tokina at 17mm, both f3.5 (and a relabeled Cambridge lens?)
Sigma is a third the price of equal speed nikkors (14 and 18 mm lenses)
Vivitar 19mm lenses are lowest cost ultrawides (f3.5, f3.8 same lens?)
Ultrawides are often slow (f3.5), so f4-4,5 zooms aren't much slower
Cosina 17-28mm f/4 zoom remarketed under samyang, vivitar, other names
17-28mm zoom isn't (it is 17.8mm to 25mm per feb 92 pop photo tests)
Given 30% drop in Korean currency, will these ultrawide lenses drop too?
Be wary of add-on costs, for mounts, filters, lens front/rear caps etc.
autofocus mounts
$120+ zooms, $370 Tokina 17mm, $600+ sigma 14mm
Realistically, how much can you expect out of a 17-28 f/4-4.4 zoom
ultra-wide lens that costs under $110? Fortunately, the tests show that
the lens works best at the widest (17.8mm) setting, poorest at the 28mm
setting (actually 25mm optically). If you already have primes in the
upper range, consider the similarly priced 19mm vivitar series I. If you
don't have any wide angle primes, than the 19mm-35mm zoom seems logical.
For around $200, you can get a 17mm f3.5 prime (tokina) that is far
enough from the usual 20mm wide angle to be very useful.
Don't give up on ultrawide fisheye photography! You can get a 180 degree
circular fisheye image on 35mm and medium format using one of the .18x
fisheye adapters. These adapters screw onto the front of your regular
lenses, providing a .18x times 50mm or 9mm f5.6 fisheye effect using
normal 50mm lens. Using a short-tele zoom, you can range between 9mm and
18mm (100mm setting). Optically you will get more flare, less contrast,
and more uneven light falloff than with a prime circular fisheye that
costs 10 to 25 times more. See fisheye article linked below
for details. But expect to have a lot of ultrawide fun for only $50+ (used).
I found out two surprising facts from this study. First, there are very
few used ultrawide lenses for sale. Darn! Second, there is a pricing
anomaly at 17mm, both for primes and the Cosina 17-28mm zoom. With the
drop in the Korean won, there may be a chance to snag a bargain here!
Even if you aren't a nikon lens user, I will bet that a bit of research will reveal a similar pricing and opportunity selection for your brand.
Email additions to [email protected]
This page is at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronwides.html
See
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronfe.html
for fisheye adapter article
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 21-35 opinion
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998
Noel J. Bergman wrote...
I am interested in first hand experiences with this lens and/or
recommendations for a wide angle zoom. I have already checked photozone and
Pop Photo's '92 review. I own a Sigma 28-70/2.8, so for the most part, I
would be using the wide angle zoom towards the wide end and stopped down to
shoot landscapes.
The Sigma 21-25 I know of is used, but apparently in excellent shape
with a B+W 81B and Heliopan UV for circa $200.
The one I tried was, to be charitable, not up to my minimum standards...
I would try for a used Nikkor 20mm f2.8, or maybe a Tokina ATX AF 17mm.
Personally, I find tele zooms useful, mid-range zooms less so, and wide
zooms pretty useless - and I would rather have high image quality (it is
hard enough to find really good wide primes, let alone even decent wide
zooms...).
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
[email protected]
[ED. note: David Ruether posts a very well respected review of Nikon..
lens quality and related topics at his web-site]
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998
From: MDDESKEY [email protected]
Subject: Re: lens hacking etc Re: Medium format equivalants to 35mm
Although I have known for 25 years about the PC lenses for 35mm. They are
VERY expensive. I have eliminated much of their need by using a 14mm [watch
your shoes!] with the camera back vertical......a grid screen helps
here....and cropping a part of the slide.
14 mm Sigma:
From: Evan Miller [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ultrawide Angle Lens Options, Prices, and Observations
MDDESKEY wrote:
I have the 14mm Sigma and it allows me as an architect to avoid
converging
vertical lines on pictures of buildings, even though it means sometime
using
only part of the frame. It is a godsend and amazing
I've had a 14mm Sigma for about 3 years now and agree that it is an
amazing and useful lens (awesome for interior shots). There is NO
rectilinear distortion at all! I found it to be noticeably better than
the Sigma 18mm lens. Sharpness and contrast are very good, there is
some vignetting wide open that is pretty much gone by f/5.6-8. I tested
it against a Nikkor 15mm f/3.5, which was only very slightly sharper,
about the same for flare, but 3X the price, not AF or matrix metering,
and not as wide a lens.
Evan Miller
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Klaus Schroiff [email protected]
[1] Re: Tokina 17mm f3.5 differences ?
Date: Tue Jan 20
The AF version is an entirely different design. It is
supposed to outperform the MF version by far.
Klaus
Ronen Ashkenazi wrote:
Hi,
I am looking into purchasing an ultra-wide lens and was thinking about the
Tokina 17mm f3.5 lens. I noticed that there are two versions the AF and MF.
The MF lens costs considerably less and I was wandering if there is a
difference between the two. I do not need AF and the price of the MF
lens is tempting.
Thanks, Ronen Ashkenazi
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
[1] Re: Tokina 17mm f3.5 differences ?
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998
They are completely different designs. The new design is called ATX and has
aspheric technology. The lens is quite good, actually. I haven't tested
the older one and can't comment on it. My suspicion is that the difference
in price between the two is justified in terms of optical quality. I don't
think the pricing has anything to do with focusing technology. Good
shooting.
--
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: David Rosen [email protected]
[1] Re: Tokina 17mm f3.5 differences ?
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998
Rod [email protected] wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:29:23 +0200, "Ronen Ashkenazi"
: [email protected] wrote:
: I am looking into purchasing an ultra-wide lens and was thinking
about the
: Tokina 17mm f3.5 lens. I noticed that there are two versions the AF
and MF.
: The MF lens costs considerably less and I was wandering if there is a
: difference between the two. I do not need AF and the price of the MF
lens is
: tempting.
: I find it interesting whenever I hear about lenses of the exact same
: focal length with the exact same aperture from different manufactures,
: when the said lens is a strange (IE non standard) focal length. I have
: a Tamron 17mm f3.5 lens. I didn't know tokina made one too. Anyway,
: it is most likely that the lenses are identical as far as glass goes.
: I say get the manual focus one.
That's a considerable amount of guessing to pass
along as advice. There is nothing non-standard
about 17mm, as it has long been available from
Canon, Minolta, Tokina, Tamron, while Nikon and
Pentax [and Sigma] have long offered 18mm. That
Tokina offers one is widely known, as it has been
offered for over 20 yrs. OTOH, to suggest that
there is no difference between MF and AF versions
of a lens you admit that you never heard of is a
bit too presumptuous, no ? The AF version is new
and quite different from the 20 yr old design of
the MF version. The AF version is composed of
much greater diameter glass and is longer, so the
difference is plain, no rocket science required.
As to the man's concern and desire to economize,
I'm very happy with the MF version, and mine has
the Vivitar RS label, meaning that it may not see
the same QA inspection that the Tokina-labeled
stock receives. But it seems to be an excellent
design, as I had previously used one with the old
Assanuma label, and now with the Vivitar label,
but both are sharp and rather free of flare. The
corners benefit from a stop or so departure from
wide open, and distortion is visible. Evenness
of illumination is quite good. Where economy is
a concern, another benefit of the MF version is
the much smaller filter size.
David Rosen [email protected]
[note: Fred Whitlock is a well known lens reviewer for nikon lenses
etc.]
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
[1] Re: Tokina AT-X 17 AF
Date: Fri Jan 30
I wrote a short review of the Tokina AT-X 17mm f3.5 AF lens several months
ago on this newsgroup. I was very impressed with both the mechanical
quality and the optical performance of this lens for its very reasonable
price. This lens incorporates aspheric technolgy and performs with corner
to corner sharpness at f5.6 and smaller apertures. It is high in contrast
and makes photos with a lot of what I refer to as "snap" or contrasty
brilliance. I carry one of these lenses often. If you would like to see
how rectilinear it is take a look at the photo of the 1937 Chevrolet grille
on my web site. This photo was made with the Tokina AT-X 17 with the
camera held in as close to perfect vertical orientation as I could manage.
It's easy to mistake for a shot made with a normal lens. I can recommend
this lens without qualification.
--
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (ClaudeD535)
[1] Re: 20mm vs. 17mm
Date: Mon Feb 02
I went through the same agony. I also have a 28-105, and had planned to
buy the
20-35 USM. While playing with the 20-35 at the store, I felt the 20mm end
wasn't wide enough. So I switched to the AT-X 17mm. It was on sale, and with
the $30 rebate, about $160 cheaper than the 20-35 (at Samy's). I haven't
used
it enough to accurately rate its optics, but the first few slides look very
good (and ALL NG posts I've seen have been very positive on this particular
lens). But after using it a little bit, 17mm is sure WIDE! I'm thinking that
I'll take less shots with this than if I had the versatility of a 20-35
zoom,
even if it only goes to 20mm. The Canon I hear has a problem with filter
vignetting, and since I'm a polarizer addict, I'm not sure if even Hoya's
low-profile polarizer will not vignette. The AT-X does not vignette even
with a
standard (and cheaper) height polarizer. The moral of this story is that
even
after I bought this lens, I'm still not sure it was the best choice (so this
was a lot of help, huh).
cdb
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998
From: Steve [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[email protected] wrote:
Hi there I am considering vivitar's 19mm to suplement my other lenses
which are:
28 f 2.8, 50 f 1.8, 135 f 2.8.
Is this lens worth $109.95 that B&H has it for?
Thank You for any help in advance.
End of Line... For now.
Hi
I have this lens. Very sharp and fun to play with. Made some great shot
of the kids at the playground with it - made 'em look really goofy,
getting close with an extreme depth of field.
It's worth it for me. And it's a fairly low price for a lens of this
extreme wide angle, without being a fisheye.
Steve
From: [email protected] (VAllebach)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Vivitar 19mm f 3.8 opinions please
Date: 2 Feb 1998
Greetings:
For the price you can't go wrong. I own two of them; one for my Minolta
X-700 and my Nikon FM. They produce good sharpness and no more fuzzines
at the
edges than do my prime normal lenses. They also have excellent contrast.
Now,
if you can afford Nikon, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, etc. WA lenses they're
probably slightly better and more durable than the Vivitar WA lens.
However, I
did drop my Nikon version and it didn't seem to faze it .I must admit,
though,
that I normally stop my WA's down to f8 or smaller.
Vic Allebach
From: Crimescene [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 20mm vs. 17mm
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998
I have a Sigma 18-35mm, and I love it. I bought the Sigma for the quality and
the
price. And I must say the quality is awesome!!!
Go for it!
Stephen
FrankBruin wrote:
what is everyone's thought on these ultra-wide angle lenses? specifically,
I'm
looking at the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM ($480 @ B&H) and the Tokina AT-X 17mm
f/3.5 ($370 @ B&H).
Optically i hear they are comparable. The major issues for me are 1)
price,
2) the 'ultra' width of the 17mm, and 3) brand.
1) the 17mm has a wider view, yet cost considerably less than the
Canon. Is
this simply because it is a 3rd party lense? The Tokina is quite noisy
compared to the USM, but who needs silence when shooting sweeping sceneries
or interiors? the tokina even comes with the hood.
2) i don't have any experience with either lense, but people have
warned me
that the 17mm may be too wide and thus more difficult to use. On the other
hand, i've heard from people who just love the 17mm.
3) canon vs. tokina. i have a 28-105 and plan on purchasing the
100-300 USM, so obviously i prefer Canon lenses over 3rd party. however,
in this case, the cheaper, wider Tokina looks good as well.
I'm considering zooms such as the EF 20-35 USM because i think that'd be
redundant with the 28-105.
to wrap things up, i'd appreciate any insight on this issue of wide-angle
lense
selection. thanks :)
Frank
From: "Malcolm" [email protected]
Subject: Re: fisheye lens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 5 Feb 98
Stephen
I've got the Sigma 15mm fisheye & it's very impressive. It covers
almost
360deg. & comes with a hood to produce the well-known circular pictures.
I've found it useful when photographing architectural sites such as Greek
Theatres and ancient buildings from within their courtyards - and Red
Square in Moscow! The quality is good, though you obviously get distortion,
but used thoughtfully, it's a useful and not too bulky piece of kit.
Malcolm([email protected])
My widest lens is a 20-35f/2.8 Nikkor. Visually, the 20-35 range is quite short, but the image quality is truly, wonderfully crisp and snappy. I don't have a 28mm in zoom range or fixed focal length so the 20-35 makes sense for me. But you have a 28mm in the zoom so a fixed FL 20mm would seem to be logical in your case. If you opt for a wider 17mm, then you might also consider a 24mm to help fill the gap between 17mm and 28mm. I used to have a 24f/2.0 Zuiko and used it a lot when I had it.
would you mind sharing what you replaced the sigma with? and how's your
experience so far with th is new lense?
i'm curious. thanks.
I now have the Canon 17-35L. While it is surely no comparison in
terms of costs it is also no comparison in regard to the performance.
Try
http://i31www.ira.uka.de/~klaus_s/reviews.htm
for some of my thoughts about the Sigma as well as the Canon.
best regards
Klaus
From: [email protected] (Luca de Alfaro)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 20mm vs. 17mm
Date: 6 Feb 1998
For the price and quality the Tokina 17mm ATX has an excellent
reputation as one of the best 17mm and is highly recommended.
I have the Tokina 17mm, the MF version, not the ATX which is reputedly
even better. I am very satisfied with it: it is very solidly built,
it has fairly low distorsion (less than I expected), and vignetting is
not bad at all. It is a bit soft in the corners wide open, it
improves by f/5.6, and by f/8 it's quite good - and f/8 is not so hard
to use, since I can shoot sharp photos with it even at 1/15. It is
not on par with the sharpness of my Zeiss 28/2.8, but I take very nice
slides with it. (and thanks to David Rosen who pointed out in some
posts the qualities of this lens).
Luca de Alfaro
[email protected]
If money is the main issue (that is, the lack of it), one could go for the
older Sigma 21-35.
It is al lot heavier than the 18-35, but the image quality is also a lot
better.
Color balance is neutral, sharpness OK and contrast a lot better than the
18-35.
I have one, and I am quite content with it. I wanted to upgrade to a Sigma
18-35, but decided not to do so after
testing this lens for 10 days.
Now I'm planning to use my old 21-35 until I can affort the Canon 17-35.....
Leon
From: Max Ule [email protected]
Subject: Re: ultra-wide-range zoom
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998
Do not overlook the Sigma 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 zoom.
I have had one for two years and have succesfully enlarged prints to 12x18
inches. The results are quite sharp and it is very light weight.
Some of the photos on my web site of Ireland and Scotland were taken with
this lens.
Regards,
Max Ule
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 19-35mm Zooms - Which one?
From: [email protected] (Dragon)
I just got for a canon a Pheonix 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 and its Great! great
sharpness, and not that expensive, except that the 77mm filters hurt
the budget
--
Bruce Butkus
I'm really impressed with this lens. Not only is it sharp and contrasty
but it's built like a tank when compared to most modern AF lenses. It's
going to make room for a Nikkor 18, though.
This Tokina AT-X 17mm f3.5 AF lens in Nikon mount is like new in the box.
It's pretested for you and absolutely perfect in every way. If you'd like
to see a photo made with it visit my web site and view the photo of a 1937
Chevrolet grille. If you would like to see a photo of the lens itself just
click on this URL
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com/images/17.jpg
$300 firm. I plan to list it on Ebay next week if it doesn't sell here. I
hope the Nikkor 18 will be a worthy replacement. Good shooting.
--
Fred
Maplewood Photography
To: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
From: [email protected] (MDDESKEY)
Subject: Re: Ultrawide Angle Lens Options, Prices, and Observations
I have the 14mm Sigma and it allows me as an architect to avoid converging vertical lines on pictures of buildings, even though it means sometime using only part of the frame. It is a godsend and amazing
From: Philip Quaife [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 19-35mm Zooms - Which one?
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998
Although I almost hate to admit it, my Vivitar Series 1, 19-35 produces
excellent results and is very cheap. I paid about $160.- from B&H. I
took it to Yellowstone and it became my most used lens for anything but
wildlife. The transparancies I took have a lot of "snap" which is what I
look for and will willingly trade a little light falloff at the edges
(hardly noticeable). The Nikon equiv. is a major investment at $1300.00
dollars +. If the Vivitar had turned out to be a dud I would have sent
it back, but I'm keeping this one.
Have fun.
Just to add my 2 cents,
I also agree with the others. I purchased the Vivitar 19-35 zoom 5 months
ago
and have been very happy with it, and, considering the price, it's a real
bargain!
Ron Mar
[email protected]
Tokina has two wide angle zooms on the market, the 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 at around
$270US (B and H), and the 19-35 at around $160US. I don't know who makes the
20-35,
but the 19-35 is made by Cosina.
Bob Zellner
Mechanicsburg, PA
rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: help with wide angle lenses
Date: Wed Apr 29 22:36:45 CDT 1998
> B&H offers these two lenses, I'm not sure wich one to buy for my Canon > EOS.... > Sigma 24mm f/2.8 -- $178.00 > Vivitar 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Series 1 -- $189.95 > Everybody keeps telling me fixed focal length lenses are always better > than zoom lenses; I want to have a wide angle and not pay a lot for it, > so the vivitar zoom seems nice (19mm). But if the loss in quality is big > when compared to the other one, I guess I should get the Sigma fixed > length.
I have used both lenses that you are considering.... if the Vivitar is the
same manual focus lens that I'm thinking of.
Personally, I thought the Vivitar was a "fun" lens, but I wouldn't have
used it for anything serious. It produced decent pictures overall, but
there was quite a bit of distortion and noticeable light falloff at the
corners. But, the image appeared to be pretty sharp all the way across...
then again, I usually used it at 19mm at f8 or so and it's hard to tell if
your image is a little out of focus with those settings.
I'm currently using the Sigma 24mm lens and have generally been happy with
the results. The distortion is minimal and overall image quality (IMO) is
much better than that produced by the Vivitar. I just think that Sigma
should have made the lens hood able to reverse-clip onto the lens... or
allow the lens cap to be attached when using the lens hood. It's a pain
having them separated in my camera bag!
I'd say that your decision should depend on your intended use for the
lens. If you are a hobbyist and just want to take nice shots for your
personal photo album, you could probably make do with the Vivitar... the
zoom range does give you some options that the Sigma can't provide.
If you're serious about photography, and image quality is important (maybe
you want to make big prints or you want to try for stock photo?) then
you're probably better off with the Sigma.
-Kevin
From: [email protected] (Joe Berenbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: 8mm T-mount fisheye Sigma/Spiratone/Acura users query
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >Greetings, >I have just bought a 12mm f/8 sigma T-mount fisheye - an oldie obviously, >and decided I would also be interested in its sister lens - an 8mm >T-mount lens, sometimes called a 7.5mm f5.6 fisheye lens, under the >sigma, spiratone, acura or similar brand names. These lenses were only >$100-200 new, and seem to be running the same used... >Has anyone used this lens, and can they report on its qualities - optical >and mechanical? I would also be interested in anyone who has one they >want to get rid of that is gathering dust ;-) >The T-mount is a major benefit to these unique fisheyes, allowing you to >swap fisheye easily and cheaply. With auto-aperture cameras, and given >huge depth of field of fisheye, lack of automation isn't such a big problem. >thanks again to anyone who can share their experience with this >interesting fisheye lens - regards bobm >* Robert Monaghan
A year or so ago I ordered a "Spipatone" circular fisheye in Nikon
mount- I can't now remember the focal length but it wouldn't have been
very much. It didn't focus. It looked like one of those roll-on
deodorant sticks in shape- long, maybe 4", and with a protruding
semicircular front element. I didn't keep it long enough to test it
out- it had marks on the front element that made in-focus (or nearly)
black marks in the image and I knew I'd never use it. I returned it
for a refund. I did correspond briefly with someone who had one and
who used it occasionally- as I recall he said it wasn't too bad if it
was stopped down about halfway (which would have been quite far since
it wasn't a fast lens in the first place), and if you avoided close
subjects. BTW that is how it was spelt- 2 P's and no R. Maybe lenses
have typos too.
Since then I found myself a Sigma 8mm circular fisheye in Olympus
mount with no lens cap. It has been sitting in a drawer ever since. I
really mean to send it off to SRB and get a professional opinion on
whether thay can alter the mount to something I already use- which
would be Leica R or Minolta AF- and none of those looks that easy for
conversion. Or maybe Minolta MD since I use that also for certain
strange things, but I don't like to pay good money to convert to
Minolta MD- it just doesn't compute, even though I do use it... If the
worst comes to the worst, I can buy an old OM-1 and maybe do so for
less than the cost of the (hoped-for) conversion, but I don't like to
have extra systems where I have a whole new body just to use one lens.
Joe B. (Please remove the ".com" from my address for email)
From: [email protected] (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: 8mm T-mount fisheye Sigma/Spiratone/Acura users query
Date: Wed, 27 May 98
There even seems to have been a 12mm/f5.6 Spiratone, but probably only a
small batch of prototypes. With f8, f16 and f22 F-stops, no f11 for
whatever strange reason....8-))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
[Ed. note: see
Willem-Jan Markerink's handy list of fisheyes page!]
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998
From: [email protected] (James M Greenland)
Subject: 17mm Tokina AT-X f/3.5 AF
I just got back the first 5 rolls of chromes after adding this
lens to the bag and I want to report that I, as a card-carrying sharpness
grouch, am more than pleased.
My results pretty much follow the PopPhoto test of Jan '94
except
that they are even better than I expected. Yes, I would rather have the
Nikor 18mm f2.8, but the Tokina was only 339 US after the rebate (which I
don't have yet) and I havn't missed the extra half stop.
At f5.6 and f8 it is very, very sharp and contrasty - at least as
sharp as my 20 and 24mm f2.8 Nikors. 16x20 prints should be a snap. I
didn't shoot any chromes at f3.5, and the newspaper test I ran on Tri-X
was only so-so. I am beginning to think that may have been my fault
after seeing the chromes, but am not much worried about it. I don't see
much use for small apertures with a 17, so didn't try anything smaller
than f8. POP listed it as A+ to 8x10 and A to 16x20 at both f11 and f16.
One carefully leveled shot of the living room looked great to me, but
would be surprised if there is not a bit of barrel distortion
discoverable in an optical lab.
BTW, the perspectives with the 17mm at a place like the Grand
Canyon can be awesome, especially when you have interesting clouds. They
seem to wrap overhead in 3-D. Makes a 20mm look tame.
The fixed lenshood is a pain, however. No Cokin holder will fit
that I can find. And a decent selection of good 72mm screw-ins will set
you back as much as the lens. But it focuses nicely (not much of a
problem with a 17mm!) in manual mode (I use an F3 backed up with an FE).
There is no switch, you just do it.
So don't despair if, like me, you can't justify a grand or
better for a super-wide. This Tokina will not disappoint you.
Jim Greenland
Gold Canyon AZ
Date: 7 Aug 1998
From: Upper East Side Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]
Subject: Samyang 18-28mm
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Red Rover" [email protected]
Subject: Samyang 18-28mm
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 22:11:33 -0700
Not a fast lens, but still very affordable for a zoom in this
range.
Anyone have this lens? Comments?
______________________ Message Separator_________________________
I have this lens, and have been very pleased with it. It is
not as sharp, of course, as single focual length lenses or
comparable zooms from major manufacturers.
There was a review of this lens in the February 1992 issue of
Popular Photography, which stated that:
"Hands on: Somewhat longish physical length and large front-lens
elements reflect remarkable zoom focal-length range. Well
finished in bright black. All markings large and highly legible.
No infrared focus marking or depth-of-field scale. Rubberized
and highly grippable zoom and focusing rings turn smoothly.
Metal ribbed aperture ring of good size.
"In the lab: SQF data indicates performance as average at 18mm
and 24mmsettings but below average at all [other] focal lengths.
"In the field: Test slides were generally well exposed with good
contrast but with noticeable edge and corner light falloff from
maximum aperture to f/8 at 18mm, f9 1/2 at 24mm, and f/11 at
28mm. Flare was very well controlled throughout.
"Conclusion: Extreme wide-angle but relatively compact zooms are
among the most difficult lenses to design and manufacture.
Obviously, sacrifices such as in maximum aperture light falloff,
field curvature, and SQF results at 18mm are trade-offs for the
high convenience of the focal-length selection available."
From: [email protected] (Bill Lawlor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Samyang 18-28mm
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998
I had this lens in Canon FD mount. I carried it around Europe in 1996
and got quite acceptable 11X14 B&W prints when stopped down to 16. I
used Delta 400 film. I paid about $170 mail order.
Bill Lawlor
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
[1] Re: Sigma 14mm Lens Differences
Date: Fri Sep 04 19:59:22 CDT 1998
On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:26:59 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>I am planning to buy either a Sigma 14/3.5, Sigma 14/2.8 or a used Nikon >15/3.5. Even used the Nikon is about 2x the cost of either of the Sigmas new. > David Reuther's notes on the Nikon 15/3.5 suggest weak edge performance. It >will be a relatively low-use lens for me. I suspect no one has even seen the >new Sigma 14/2.8, but the other HSM Sigmas have been highly praised. Given >all this, what advice/recommendations can anyone provide in making the >choice. Again, thanks in advance.
The edges of the Nikkor 15mm f3.5 are fine - its the corners at wide
stops with color, and pretty much at all stops with B&W that aren't
great (though, I suspect, still better than the Sigmas...;-). The
bargain lens in this FL area is the Nikkor 15mm f5.6 - it is a
surprisingly fine lens, with truly amazing lack of linear distortion
and good evenness of sharpness to the corners, especially around f11.
It is slow, but as with all superwides, it is effectively faster than
rating since it is easy to hand-hold at VERY slow speeds (1/8th second
is easy with the 15mm). There is more on it on my Nikkor evaluation
list (under "I babble" on my web page). BTW, I have four favorite
very-wides: 15mm f5.6, 16mm f3.5 (now THAT is a GOOD lens!!!), 20mm
f2.8, and 28mm f4PC - all really fine lenses, capable of crisp
images everywhere in the frame...!
David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98
From: "Rai, Rajendra" [email protected]
Subject: Lens Test
Hi! The following appeared in the EOS digest. I hope many of you will
find it
interesting.
Rajendra
> From: Klaus Schroiff[SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: 11 September 1998 22:57 > To: EOS > Subject: EOS: Lens Tests ... > > Hi, > > Some of you probably know that I had to shut down the "Lens Test archive" > about a month ago. Posting the former "Easy Guide Index" via email should be Ok I guess so I'll send the updated data to the list once every quarter year or so - unless, of course, you think this is a waste of bandwidth. > > This time here're the ratings for zoom lenses only. Fix-focals will follow > soon. > > Klaus > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The final results represent an averaged mark based on test verdicts from 5 > photo magazines from all over the planet. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The results range from 1.0 to 5.0 (5 is best). > There're 6 texual marks for the optical quality: > > 1. (4.26 to 5.00) = excellent > 2. (3.76 to 4.25) = very good > 3. (3.26 to 3.75) = good > 4. (2.76 to 3.25) = average > 5. (2.26 to 2.75) = sub-average > 6. (1.0 to 2.25) = poor > > A typical result looks like this: 3.48 (3) = good > The number in brackets shows the number of tests included for the > calculation. Only results with (3) or more tests are more or less stable! > Everything less should be taken as a tendancy only! > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wide-angle zooms 17-21mm- Optical Quality > Nikkor AF 2.8 20-35mm D 3.46 (5) = good > Canon EF 2.8 17-35mm USM L 3.30 (4) = good > Canon EF 2.8 20-35mm L 3.13 (3) = average > Tokina AF 2.8 20-35mm AT-X Pro 3.12 (3) = average > Minolta AF 3.5 17-35mm G 3.04 (3) = average > Canon EF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm USM 3.01 (4) = average > Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm 3.0 (1) = average > Tokina AF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm II 2.88 (5) = average > Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm 2.81 (2) = average > Tamron AF 2.7-3.5 20-40mm ASL 2.74 (5) = sub-average > Vivitar / Cosina / Soligor AF 3.5-4.5 19-35mm 2.27 (4) = sub-average > Sigma AF 3.5-4.5 18-35mm ASL 2.24 (5) = poor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wide-angle zooms 28-70/2.8 Optical Quality > Nikkor AF 2.8 35-70mm D 4.09 (5) = very-good > Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM L 3.98 (5) = very-good > Pentax SMC-FA 2.8 28-70mm AL 3.87 (4) = very-good > Minolta AF 2.8 28-70mm 3.85 (4) = very-good > Tokina AF 2.6-2.8 28-70mm AT-X Pro 3.63 (4) = good > Canon EF 2.8-4.0 28-80mm USM L 3.53 (4) = good > Angenieux AF 2.6 28-70mm 3.48 (4) = good > Sigma AF 2.8 28-70mm 3.35 (3) = good > Tamron SP AF 2.8 28-105mm LD (IF) 3.33 (4) = good > Tokina AF 2.8 28-70mm AT-X 3.21 (5) = average > Tamron AF 2.8 35-105mm ASL 2.75 (4) = average > Sigma AF 2.8-4.0 28-70mm UC 2.64 (4) = sub-average > Sigma AF 2.8-4 28-105mm Aspherical 2.48 (4) = sub-average > Tokina AF 2.8-4.5 28-70mm 2.39 (2) = sub-average > Soligor / Vivitar / Cosina AF 2.8-3.8 28-105mm 2.08 (3) = poor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Wide-angle zooms 28-70/80mm Optical Quality > Minolta AF 4.0 24-50mm 3.64 (3) = good > Nikkor AF 3.3-4.5 24-50mm 3.61 (3) = good > Pentax SMC-FA 4-5.6 28-105mm 3.23 (4) = average > Nikkor AF 3.5-4.5 28-70mm (D) 3.21 (4) = average > Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 24-85mm 3.22 (4) = average > Canon EF 3.5-5.6 28-135mm ImageStabilizer 3.15 (3) = average > Nikkor AF 3.5-5.6 28-80mm D 3.14 (2) = average > Pentax AF FA 4.0 28-70mm 3.12 (5) = average > Canon EF 3.5-5.6 28-80mm IV (USM) 3.07 (2) = average > Nikkor AF 3.5-4.5 28-85mm 3.03 (5) = average > Nikkor AF 3.5-4.5 35-105mm D 3.02 (2) = average > Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 28-85mm 2.99 (3) = average > Nikkor AF 3.5-5.6 24-120mm D 2.99 (4) = average > Canon EF 3.5-4.5 28-105mm USM 2.94 (4) = average > Sigma AF 3.5-5.6 24-70mm ASL 2.88 (5) = average > Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 28-105mm 2.85 (4) = average > Sigma AF 3.5-5.6 28-80mm Macro ASL 2.81 (3) = average > Pentax SMC-F 4.0 24-50mm 2.77 (4) = average > Minolta AF 4.0-5.6 28-80mm 2.71 (4) = sub-average > Vivitar/Soligor AF 3.5-5.6 28-80mm 2.67 (3) = sub-average > Sigma AF 4-5.6 28-105mm 2.64 (4) = sub-average > Canon EF 3.5-4.5 24-85mm 2.54 (3) = sub-average > Tamron AF 3.5-5.6 28-80mm ASL 2.34 (4) = sub-average > Tamron AF 3.3-5.6 24-70mm ASL 2.29 (4) = sub-average > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tele zooms f/2.8 -210mm Optical Quality > Minolta AF 2.8 80-200m APO G 4.25 (3) = excellent > Nikkor AF 2.8 80-200mm D new 4.14 (3) = very-good > Canon EF 2.8 80-200mm L 4.06 (5) = very-good > Nikkor AF 2.8 80-200mm D old 4.03 (4) = very-good > Sigma AF 2.8 70-200mm EX (HSM) 4.0 (2) = very-good > Canon EF 2.8 70-200mm USM L 3.96 (4) = very-good > Pentax SMC-FA 2.8 80-200mm ED (IF) 3.77 (4) = very-good > Vivitar/Soligor/Cosina AF 2.8-4 70-210mm 3.28 (2) = good > Sigma AF 2.8 70-210mm APO 3.27 (5) = good > Tokina AF 2.8 80-200mm AT-X Pro 3.23 (3) = average > Tamron AF 2.8 70-210mm LD 3.15 (3) = average > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tele zooms -210mm Optical Quality > Micro-Nikkor AF 4.5-5.6 70-180mm ED 3.76 (3) = very-good > Sigma AF 3.5-4.5 70-210mm APO Macro 3.44 (3) = good > Canon EF 3.5-4.5 70-210mm USM 3.13 (4) = average > Minolta AF 4.0 70-210mm 3.09 (2) = average > Nikkor AF 4.0-5.6 70-210mm D 2.95 (5) = average > Minolta AF 4.5-5.6 70-210mm 2.85 (4) = average > Pentax SMC-FA 4.0-5.6 70-200mm 2.85 (5) = average > Canon EF 4.5-5.6 80-200mm USM 2.80 (3) = average > Nikkor AF 4.5-5.6 80-200mm D 2.69 (2) = average > Tokina AF 4-5.6 70-210mm 2.44 (4) = sub-average > Tamron AF 4.5-5.6 80-210mm 2.40 (4) = sub-average > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tele zooms >210mm Optical Quality > Minolta AF 4.5-6.7 100-400mm APO 3.42 (4) = good > Tokina AF 4.0 100-300mm AT-X II 3.10 (2) = average > Pentax SMC FA 4.5-5.6 80-320mm 3.06 (3) = average > Minolta AF 4.5-5.6 75-300mm 3.04 (4) = average > Canon EF 5.6 100-300mm L 3.03 (3) = average > Nikkor AF 4.5-5.6 75-300mm 3.0 (3) = average > Minolta AF 4.5-5.6 100-300mm APO 2.95 (4) = average > Sigma AF 5.6-6.3 170-500mm APO Asph. RF 2.86 (3) = average > Sigma AF 4.5-5.6 135-400mm APO Asph. RF 2.85 (4) = average > Canon EF 4.5-5.6 100-300mm USM 2.79 (2) = average > Sigma AF 4.0-5.6 70-300mm APO Macro 2.75 (5) = average > Canon EF 4-5.6 75-300mm IS 2.64 (5) = sub-average > Canon EF 4.0-5.6 75-300mm USM II 2.64 (4) = sub-average > Tokina AF 4.5-5.6 80-400mm AT-X 2.46 (4) = sub-average > Tamron AF 5.6 200-400mm LD 2.19 (5) = poor > Vivitar/ Cosina/ Soligor AF 4.5-6.7 100-400mm 2.17 (4) = poor > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Universal zooms Optical Quality > Canon EF 3.5-5.6 35-350mm USM L 2.87 (4) = average > Nikkor AF 3.5-5.6 28-200mm IF 2.67 (2) = sub-average > Tokina AF 282 3.5-5.6 28-210mm EMZ 2.61 (3) = sub-average > Pentax / Tamron AF 3.8-5.6 28-200mm LD-IF Super 2.32 (5) = sub-average > Tokina AF 4.5-6.7 35-300mm SD 2.28 (3) = sub-average > Sigma AF 3.8-5.6 28-200mm ASP II 2.03 (3) = poor > Vivitar/Cosina AF 4-6.3 28-300mm 1.74 (5) = poor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- END ------------------------------ End of nikon-digest V4 #43
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 16:37:45
From: "Rai, Rajendra" [email protected]
Subject: Lens Tests - contd
Further to my email earlier today, here is the second part of the posting
which appeared in the EOS digest on lens tests.
Rajendra
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998
From: "Klaus Schroiff" [email protected]
To: EOS [email protected]
Subject: EOS: Lens Tests (Part II)
Ok, here's part two of my previous mail ...
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix-focals 14-20mm Optical Quality
Canon EF 2.8 20mm 3.72 (4) = good
Nikkor AF 2.8 20mm 3.63 (3) = good
Nikkor AF 2.8 18mm D 3.45 (2) = good
Tokina AF 3.5 17mm AT-X 3.13 (3) = average
Pentax SMC-FA 2.8 20mm 3.06 (3) = average
Minolta AF 2.8 20mm New 2.94 (3) = average
Canon EF 2.8 14mm USM L 2.92 (3) = average
Sigma AF 3.5 14mm 2.20 (4) = poor
Sigma AF 3.5 18mm 1.98 (3) = poor
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix-focals 24-35mm Optical Quality
Pentax SMC-F(A) 2.8 28mm 4.07 (3) = very-good
Nikkor AF 1.4 28mm D 4.01 (3) = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 28mm 3.80 (4) = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 24mm 3.72 (3) = good
Nikkor AF 2.8 24mm 3.71 (3) = good
Canon EF 1.8 28mm USM 3.66 (3) = good
Canon EF 1.4 24mm USM L 3.59 (3) = good
Minolta AF 2.0 28mm 3.44 (3) = good
Pentax SMC-FA 2.0 24mm AL (IF) 3.30 (4) = good
Sigma AF 2.8 24mm 3.23 (4) = average
Nikkor AF 2.8 28mm 3.22 (3) = average
Minolta AF 2.8 24mm new 3.21 (3) = average
Minolta AF 2.8 28mm 2.95 (3) = average
Sigma AF 1.8 28mm ASL II 2.94 (2) = average
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Lenses Optical Quality
Nikkor AF 2.0 35mm 4.02 (4) = very good
Minolta AF 2.0 35mm 3.80 (4) = very-good
Minolta AF 1.4 35mm G 3.60 (4) = good
Canon EF 2.0 35mm 3.48 (4) = good
Nikkor AI-S 1.4 35mm 3.43 (3) = good
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality
(Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.62 (4) = outstanding!
Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 4.55 (3) = outstanding!
Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent
Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.25 (4) = excellent
Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.19 (4) = very-good
Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good
Leica Summilux R 1.4 50mm 4.00 (4) = very-good
Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.97 (4) = very-good
Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.89 (3) = very-good
Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.86 (3) = very-good
Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.65 (2) = good
Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.60 (3) = good
Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.55 (3) = good
Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.70 (2) = sub-average
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix-focals 80-135mm Optical Quality
Pentax SMC-FA 1.4 85mm 4.85 (3) = outstanding!
Canon EF 2.0 135mm USM L 4.68 (4) = outstanding!
Canon EF 1.2 85mm USM L 4.60 (3) = outstanding!
Nikkor AF 1.8 85mm D 4.50 (2) = outstanding!
Canon EF 1.8 85mm USM 4.48 (4) = excellent
Canon EF 2.8 100mm Macro 4.46 (4) = excellent
Sigma AF 2.8 105mm macro EX 4.33 (2) = excellent
Canon EF 1.2 85mm USM L 4.27 (3) = excellent
Tamron AF 2.8 90mm SP Macro 4.26 (5) = excellent
(Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 105mm 4.24 (5) = very-good
Minolta AF 2.0 100mm 4.23 (2) = very-good
Minolta AF 1.4 85mm G 4.20 (4) = very-good
Nikkor AF 1.8 85mm D 4.19 (2) = very-good
Minolta AF 2.8 100mm Macro 4.10 (4) = very-good
Nikkor AF 2.0 135mm DC 4.04 (3) = very-good
Pentax SMC-FA 2.8 100mm Macro 3.88 (3) = very-good
Tokina AF 2.8 100mm Macro 3.80 (5) = very-good
Canon EF 2.0 100mm USM 3.66 (3) = good
Soligor/ Vivitar/ Cosina AF 3.5 100mm Macro 3.33 (2) = good
Sigma AF 2.8 90mm Macro 3.18 (4) = average
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix-focals 200mm Optical Quality
Minolta AF 2.8 200mm APO G 4.53 (4) = outstanding!
Canon EF 2.8 200mm USM L II 4.38 (4) = excellent
Canon EF 1.8 200mm USM L 4.28 (3) = excellent
Canon EF 3.5 180mm USM L Macro 4.18 (3) = very-good
Pentax SMC-A 4.0 200mm ED Macro 4.18 (2) = excellent
(Micro-)Nikkor AF 4.0 200mm ED 4.15 (2) = excellent
Nikkor AF 2.8 180mm ED 4.10 (3) = very-good
Sigma AF 2.8 180mm APO Macro 3.91 (2) = very-good
Sigma AF 5.6 180mm APO Macro 3.43 (3) = good
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix-focals 300mm Optical Quality
Canon EF 2.8 300mm USM L 4.50 (3) = outstanding!
Nikkor AF-I 2.8 300mm ED 4.36 (3) = excellent
Canon EF 4.0 300mm USM L 4.28 (3) = excellent
Canon EF 4.0 300mm USM L IS 4.21 (4) = very-good
Minolta AF 4.0 300mm APO G 4.06 (4) = very good
Nikkor AF 4.0 300mm ED 3.90 (2) = very-good
Sigma AF 4.0 300mm APO Macro 3.84 (5) = very-good
Pentax SMC-FA 4.5 300mm ED (IF) 3.70 (3) = good
Pentax SMC FA 2.8 300mm ED (IF) 3.72 (2) = good
Minolta AF 2.8 300mm G 3.90 (3) = very-good
Tokina AF 4.0 300mm AT-X APO 3.64 (5) = good
Tamron AF 2.8 300mm LD IF 3.65 (3) = good
Sigma AF 2.8 300mm APO 3.14 (4) = average
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix-focals 400mm+ Optical Quality
Canon EF 2.8 400mm USM L II 4.60 (3) = outstanding!
Canon EF 4.0 600mm USM L 4.32 (2) = excellent
Canon EF 4.5 500mm USM L 4.07 (2) = very-good
Minolta AF 4.5 400mm APO G 3.76 (3) = very-good
Sigma AF 5.6 400mm APO Macro (HSM) 3.51 (4) = good
Pentax SMC-FA* 5.6 400mm 3.44 (3) = good
Canon EF 5.6 400mm USM L 3.32 (3) = good
Tokina AF 5.6 400mm AT-X 2.57 (4) = sub-average
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
END
------------------------------
[Ed. note: I included not just the wide angle lenses, but also the other
lenses, partly to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of sundry
lenses, but also to show how relatively small the difference may be in
performance between many third party lenses and prime OEM made lenses.
You already know that the cost differences are often quite a bit
larger!]
From: "Michael L. Pipkin, M.D." [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Vivitar 19-35 3.5-4.5
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998
Considering the price, it's very good. In absolute terms, it is sharp and
contrast is good but it has significant barrel distortion at the wide end.
It's fairly well made, twice the weight of the Sigma, and it's an honest
19mm at the wide end. I have 20mm and 35mm Nikkors but still use the
Vivitar sometimes when straight lines and wide aperture are not important.
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: photo mfgers name game was Re: Phoenix Lenses...any Ideas?
Date: 24 Sep 1998
greetings,
Welcome to the "name game", in which the same lens is made and sold under
different names, sometimes with slightly different or optomistic specs ;-)
It is quite confusing, intentionally so, and covers up the relatively
small number of corporations actually making lenses worldwide with many
more trade names and importers names to protect the guilty ;-)
My understanding is that at least some of the Phoenix lenses are made in
Korea, and they may also be marketed under the Samyung and Vivitar name(s).
This observation is from some wide angle zoom and fixed lens reviews I
saw (see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronwide.html for summary of results).
These third party lenses are often low cost leaders, optically so-so to
very good depending on the design and quality control, possibly a good
buy for the usually lower asking price, if they meet your needs etc.
Vivitar lenses are harder to pin down, some are relabeled lenses of
others, some are made under their supervision in Japan and China and
Korea and ???, and some are their designs made by others etc. Other lens
names such as Kalimar are trade names under which lenses may be imported
and sold, while names such as Prinz are a particular retailers trademark
name for their imports from a bunch of third party lens makers etc.
Some US importers will also import lenses from such third party makers and
put their own name on them - cambridge camera corp is one example with
its cambron lens line -
Incidentally, many lenses are sometimes quoted as f3.8 instead of f/4
etc. to imply some minor benefit over the slower labeled lens of buying
that importers lenses. Be aware that lenses vary in specs, and that some
importers quote the upper or more positive range for their lens specs,
even if it is the same lens another is quoting as an f/4, theirs is (+10%
range) an f/3.8 listed lens. A 17mm lens may really be a 17.92mm lens, or
a 17-35mm zoom may be really a 18+-32mm zoom on the optical bench. So
there are a lot fewer lenses out there than the names and specs might
suggest.
On the plus side, the name game makes it possible for some third party
lenses to be sold at a discount over higher markup lenses by discounters
and may get around some fair trade laws in various countries etc.
hope this helps - bobm
From: Degui Gu [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS: 18mm/3.2 lens by Soiratone $120/obo
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998
The lens is in excellent plus condition, glass perfect, focusing ring smooth. It is a T-mount lens, and with proper adapter, you can use it on most of the manual focus cameras. An adapter to minolta MD mount is included, and it is readily useable if you have such a camera. $120/obo plus shipping.
From: [email protected] (Wai Lun Alan Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Wide Angle Zoom -- Tokina vs ?
Date: 21 Oct 1998
[email protected] writes:
>Because the Nikon 20-35/2.8 is prohibitively expensive, I just bought a new >widely touted Tokina ATX Pro 20-35/2.8 . I have since burned up about 6 >rolls running tests at different distances, focal lengths and apertures. To >my chagrin I have discovered that my carbonate bodied $160 variable aperture >wide angle zoom optically (resolution and distortion) equals or exceeds the >$700 Tokina at virtually every focal length/fstop/distance combination -- >particularly at the edges/corners. Additionally, the cheap zoom actually has >a few mm of additional wide angle coverage. >The Tokina is truly of professional caliber in terms of construction, but >does not quite live up to this standard or its price optically. The question >is whether I should keep the Tokina with its better construction and near one >stop faster speed, although this 2.8 comes at a cost of marginally >[un]acceptable edges/corners, or send the Tokina back and stick with the >cheap one, or, given the possibility that this particular Tokina sample is >defective, exchange the Tokina for another one and test that one. >In typical field test slides, it is unlikely the Tokina would look bad. >However, for $700 I guess I believe I am entitled to better than that. >Since I have to return the lens immediately, if I am going to, your timely >thoughts and input would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance for any >comments and thoughts.
AFAIK, the reputation of Tokina comes from the famous 28-70mm f2.6-2.8 which
was originally designed by Angenieux which is excellent on zoom lens design.
Other than that, Tokina has never been the best on producing super sharp
lenses compared to Sigma and Tamron, let alone camera brand lenses.
I strongly believe many people overrate other Tokina lenses by the fact that
they have excellent built quality, and the greatly successful 28-70mm zoom.
===========================================================
=== regards, http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~wlac/ ===
=== Alan Chan [email protected] ===
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Buzzeb)
[1] Re: Vivitar 19-35 mm Series 1 lens
Date: Thu Oct 29 22:23:13 CST 1998
I own the Vivitar and think that it's an OK lens. Certainly, considering
its range and price, it's hard to beat. It's very light and the focusing
ring has little resistance, which gives it a bit of a "cheap" feel. In AF
mode, it focuses quickly and accurately.
As for image quality, I would have to say that it's not in the same league
as, say, the Nikon 24-50. To my eye, it has less contrast (evident even in
4x6 prints) and a cooler (bluer) color cast than my Nikon lenses. Perhaps
this is typical of Vivitar glass, however. I used to own a Series 1
105/2.8 macro in Contax mount, and it ehibited some of the same
characteristics.
BTW, Herbert Keppler of Pop Photo apparently owns this lens and uses it
frequently, as I've seen it referred to in several of his columns. It also
got a fairly good review in Shutterbug a few years back.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (AACProfTed)
[1] Re: Vivitar 17/3,5
Date: Mon Nov 02 07:57:57 CST 1998
Has anyone tested this lens? This MF lens looks well built, but the
price is low compared to original manufactureres primes. I have not
been able to find any tests.
Harold, I used the lens in a Canon mount for several years and was very
happyk
with the results. Didn't ahve some of the 'snap' of my Zeiss optics on a
Contax but well, look at the orice difference. I used it exclusively for
indoor architectural stuff, interiors for Real Estate ads and it preformed
flawlessly.
Ted Harris
From: "Michael Gelfand" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tamron 3.5 17mm MF or Tokina 3.5 17mm MF ??? For X-700
Minolta
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998
I owned the Tamron for several years and found it exceptional. I
particularly liked the 3 inbuilt filters in it and its sharpness.
It is however extremely contrasty - if you like that sort of thing.
Michael
>Hi, > >Which is the better one >Tamron 3.5 17 mm or Tokina 3.5 17 mm.
From: "toby" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma AF 3.5 14mm/Tokina AT-X 17mm/3.5 reviews?
The Tokina 17 AT-X has a good reputation, as far as I have heard. I had the
pre AT-X and found it very disappointing due to extreme unsharpness at the
edges. I have a Sigma 14 3.5. It is reasonably sharp across the field for a
lens of this extremity, although not up to the Canon 14. Major problems with
this lens are light falloff at the edges and flare. You have to stop down to
f8 to get reasonably even illumination across the field (but this is a
common characteristic of all extreme wide angles to some extent--don't
forget that the fabled Zeiss Hologon 15mm has a max aperture of f8 and comes
with a center ND filter). You'll find that the lens is also very subject to
flare from any reasonably bright light source, including open sky. All this
being said, it is an amazing lens for the price. Sigma just came out with a
14 f2.8--might be worth checking out, too.
Hope this helps,
Toby
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Tomi T. Salo)
[1] Re: tokina 17mm lens
Date: Fri Jan 15 00:12:08 CST 1999
[email protected] (Neuman - Ruether) writes:
> It is not a fisheye, and for my purposes, it > was also not very sharp... (ATX-AF...).
You mean your specimen was not very sharp ;-) (for your purposes,
whatever these might be...) My specimen might also not be
VERY SHARP in the extreme corners, but it certainly is sharp
(considerably better than the accepted 0.03 (or 0.025) mm
circle of confusion standard). Saturation, distortion and
contrast are very good. Build is excellent. AF is pretty lame
though.
--
[email protected]
Tomi T. Salo
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999
From: Neuman - Ruether [email protected]
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tokina 17mm lens
On 14 Jan 1999 02:57:35 -0600, [email protected] (Robert
Monaghan) wrote:
>see related postings at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronwide.html [...] > >David's point is well taken- the 20mm f/2.8 nikkor is a fine lens, but I >find there is quite a bit of difference in 3mm at the ultrawide end, at >least in how much background you get in and how it looks, with a 17mm vs >20 mm (or 18mm vs 21mm). [...]
It appeared to me that the 17mm Tokina was not really very
much wider than the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor, perhaps due to FL
"fudging" in its rating by the mfgr... For this reason, I
also sold my Nikkor 18mm f3.5 - it was not as good as the
20mm f2.8, and the coverage was greater by only a miniscule
amount. BTW, I recently acquired a 20mm f3.5 AIS Nikkor - it
was clearly not as wide as the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor, though the
mfgr. and rated FL were the same... Also, BTW, my 15mm
Nikkor IS clearly wider than the 20...! ;-)
David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999
From: Ben Harper [email protected]
Subject: RE: Sigma 18-35 Aspheric [v04.n200/9]
Miguel,
I owned a Sigma 18-35 Aspheric. It is light and dramatically
wide. I took it to France on a week's vacation and it traveled well,
produced nice, handheld exposures and was a very nice lens. It requires,
however, 82mm filters, which, at the time, didn't seem to be such a
problem. I bought a used B&W UV filter for it to protect the front
element, which was long overdue, but 82mm filters aren't cheap and
represent a large investment in relation to the cost of the lens. Every
time, though, that I wanted to use it I found I needed filtration of some
type...either to adjust for tungsten fluorescent light or polarizing to
intensify colors, and kept getting frustrated by the 82mm ring. My
daughter, however, indicated a desire for a wide-angle lens for Christmas.
It was now or never. I boxed up the Sigma, instructions, lens hood and
B&W filter, and gave it to her for Christmas. For myself, I bought a
Tokina 20-35 f/2.8, w/ 77mm, which I have all the filtration I need for
now. We are both very happy. Good luck with your choice.
Ben Harper
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
[1] Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye)
Date: Wed Jan 20 09:06:49 CST 1999
You can see a photo made with this lens on the web site. Look for an
architectural shot of a glass facade (actually it's the College Football
Hall of Fame.) It was made with a Sigma 14 and my shoulder against the
glass.
Generally the lens is very prone to flare (almost unusably so in some
lighting situations.) It is also a bit low in contrast compared to better
ultra wides. It is affordable, though, compared to many and can make some
interesting photographs. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Tom)
[1] Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye)
Date: Wed Jan 20 10:17:51 CST 1999
I bought the Sigma 14 a month ago, and I immediately ran some tests.
Your comments reflect exactly what I would say about this lens except
that you omitted the fact that it vignettes pretty badly at 2.8. You
must stop down to around 5.6 to eliminate this effect (or do a
quasi-fix after the fact in Photoshop).
Tom
Washington, DC
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999
From: Rolland Elliott [email protected]
Subject: RE: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 HSM lens [v04.n210/15]
Someone asked about this lens, so here's my opinion:
I've had the Sigma 14mm lens for about two months now, and I'd have to
say that I really like the angle of view it offers. It is very well
built, but rather heavy for such a small looking lens. The front
glass element is HUGE, and there 's no way you can filter it. The
front element makes it look like a fish eye lens. However you can
slip gel's in the back of the lens to get some filtration.
As far as optical quality goes, I really haven't done any tests and
have nothing to compare it to since this is the first ultrawide angel
lens I have ever used. One thing is very obvious though, it has a
great deal of distortion. Objects at the edge of the frame are
stretched out and distorted looking. (especially noticible with
pictures of people) This lens does however keep verticle lines
straight (such as buildings) at the edges of the frame as long as the
camera is level. If you don't hold the camera level you will get
extreme CONVERGENCE of verticle lines. However, I've read that this
is typical of most ultrawide angel lenses.
Flare is a very big problem. If you shoot into the sun or bright
light source you will get flare 9 times out of 10. Using your hand to
block the light is a possible solution, but because the angle of view
of this lens is so large it is hard to block the light without getting
your hand in the image. Using a smaller aperature will help reduce
the flare also.
The AFS motor is smooth, quiet, and absolutely unecessary! Who needs
fast focusing with an ultrawide lens? The depth of field is so great
you can basically forget about focusing, as long as your subject isn't
extremely close to you. The instant manual override is only useful in
singel servo mode. If you try to manually touch up the AF in
continuous mode the Nikon camera will constantly try to correct your
manual adjustments! Sigma should incorporate AFS technology into their
300mmf/4 and 400mmf/5.6 lenses, not ultrawide angles.
The price is definetely right, I got mine for $690 US, which is cheap
compared to other brand name ultrawide angles. Canon's 14mm f.28 lens
is twice this cost.
Even though this lens has flare and distortion problems, it is fun to
use. The angle of view is just amazing. The best thing about this
lens is that it has an extremely small minimum focusing distance.
Objects as close as 2 inches away from the lens can be focused upon.
By using a small aperature one can get everything is focus along with
a really unique perspective. Foreground objects close to the lens,
appear much larger than objects in the back ground. I think it's a
great portrait lens if you like wierd perspective! Also very useful
for nature closeups of flowers and plants. With the right perspective
people's hands can look bigger than their heads.
Using this lens with a flash might be a problem due to it's very large
110 degree view. Most flashes will not cover this area. A solution
is to use a barebulb flash like those made by Quantum and Sunpack.
Another solution (that I haven't tried) would be to stick one of those
omni bounce diffusers over your Nikon flash and point it at about a 45
degree angel. Supposedly this gives your flash coverage similar to
barebulb flashes.
Overall I think it's a cool lens. However some photographers wouldn't
use such an ultrawide angel lens often, and couldn't justify the cost
of such a tool. I for one like the extremes; ultrawide or ultra
telephoto.
Peace Rolland Elliott
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (David Rozen)
[1] Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye)
Date: Sat Jan 30 11:43:22 CST 1999
Tom ([email protected]) wrote:
: PS - I'm curious, do you have any personal experience with the : original subject of this thread (the new Sigma 14 mm f/2.8 lens) : and/or do you have any comments on my informal review (1/23/99) of it : - I know you are quite knowledgable in this area and have reviewed : other wide angles b4.
I used the Sigma 14:3.5 for a while. Not a
bad lens from f:8 onward. Has about 1.5EV
falloff over about 20mm, but at least the
center isn't sharply hotspotted. The outer
regions are never terrific, and you need
very healthy contrast in both your subject
and your lighting to get pix with some zing.
This means, if you do a lot of fluorescent
flat lit interiors and you're so perverse
as to want to squooge even more expanse of
those ugly scenes into a long-suffering 24X
36mm film chip, the 14:3.5 will not only
wedge more scene into your frame, but make
it even flatter and uglier. This lens was
made for pleasant sparkley days.
Now, I did get some outstandind pix with
the 14mm, some of the best are of a freight
derailment involving toxic cleanup. Catch:
with an ultrawide your front element may be
inches from a spray nozzle, making a clear
statement only until the breeze puts some
spray on your front glass, which cannot be
casually wiped clean because it's not just
a filter, it's your bulbous front element.
I've been in similar messes with a 20mm and
just cleaned the glop off the filter with a
paper towel from lunch, several times in a
single shoot. This won't instantly ruin a
filter, you have to do it for about a year.
I'd rather need a new filter every year
than a new 14mm lens.
Anyway, maybe the 14:2.8 is a bit better or
maybe its worse or the same, but I never
got a shot with the 14 that I couldn't just
as effectively get with a 17, and a 17 uses
regular filters and has reasonable snap and
decent evenness of illumination. As soon
as a bargain 17 came my way, I sold the 14
[for over twice the cost of the 17]. 17mm
seems to be some break point for so-called
rectilinear wideangles. I wouldn't quibble
over a mm. Maybe a Hologon defies gravity
or maybe 18mm is the best compromise, but
there's a point somewhere near allowing a
focal length of about half the frame width
which is the limit for "rectilinear" image
projection. Wider than that, and the need
to swell objects near the edge and shrink
objects into the center just overwhelmes
the supposed gain in angle of view. You
couldn't give me a Nikkor 13:5.6 [I mean
of course you can, but I'll just sell it].
The 13 might be a necessity in a 3m length
micro-submarine, but I'll steer clear of
both, thanks. And anyway, underwater, the
13 is really a 17 by angle of view.
There are behaviors that cannot be imposed
on healthy photons. Most healthy photons
are in concensus that they don't want to
take a 90 degr snap turn on their way to
their favorite silver salts, and even just
close to 90 degr gives them nosebleeds.
Regards, - dr
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Rich Shelton" [email protected]
[1] Tokin 20-35/2.8 ATX Pro at 24mm vs Nikon 24/2.8 Prime Comparison
Shots
Date: Sat Feb 06 09:22:44 CST 1999
With all of the discussion here regarding the Tokina Pro lenses and various
Nikon/Canon zooms and primes, I decided to try to compare the Tokina
20-35/2.8 ATX Pro set at 24mm with my Nikon 24/2.8 prime. Admittedly, this
is inherently unfair to the Tokina, but should give one a fair comparison of
output from a very good WA prime and a third-party higher-end zoom.
My intial test shot was simply trees in snow at f/11 (for focus in the
foreground). I found color and contrast to be nearly identical, even with
hi-res tiff's viewed in photoshop (although there isn't much color in the
photos...), and the Tokina even seemed sharper in the center of the frame!
The Tokina's downside was some blue ghosting (chroma?) in high-contrast
areas near the edges. This is a clear quality difference, but to me, at
least, not particularly bothersome. Does anyone know whether the Nikon
20-35/2.8 has this problem at all?
I plan to do some additional side-by-sides of these lenses as time permits,
and hope to add some Tokina vs my Nikon 35-70/2.8 at 35mm shots as well.
I'll post a note here when I get those done...
To see the comparison, click on the "Tokina vs Nikon" link on my page below.
Feedback/requests always appreciated!
For comparison purposes, B&H sells the Tokina 20-35/28 ATX Pro for $699 (was
$640 after my rebate), the Nikon 20-35/2.8 for $1390 gray/$1569 usa, and the
Nikon 24/2.8 for $275 gray/$290 usa.
Rich Shelton
[email protected] (remove ZZZXX on reply!)
http://www.sheltons.net/rich.htm
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999
From: Dennis Higgins [email protected]
Subject: Advice over Sigma 18-35 lens [v04.n235/7] [v04.n236/5]
Filippo, I have used the much maligned 18~35 Sigma for quite some time
now. Initially I though I had made a bad purchase because of the
negative posts on this lens. However, with the cost of the Nikon lens
of similar size and even the cost of the Tokina, there was no other
option. I have since successfully shot several jobs which included
slides done with this lens and have had no problems with sharpness or
crisp color rendition.
I've handled the Tokina and outside of the greater speed of the lens,
see no reason to spend twice the money that I did on this one - I would
buy the Nikon, just because it IS The Nikon, but can't afford that and
so I am content with the results of my purchase!
As to an 18~70 Sigma f2.8 ... I wonder if that's coming out along with
the 20~600 f4 (tongue now removed from cheek)
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Michael L. Pipkin, M.D." [email protected]
[1] Re: Vivitar Series One wide angle zoom
Date: Sat Feb 13 17:48:23 CST 1999
For the price (now ~$150?) it is very good indeed. I just sold mine, having
subsequently bought 20, 24, and 35mm Nikkors, but had no complaints about
the Vivitar in terms of sharpness or color, and it is a true 19mm, no
fudging. Some linear distortion, not a lens for architecture (nor are any
of the other inexpensive wide zooms), and why it is referred to as macro
beats me; it focuses to 1 ft or so like most other wides.
ReedColt wrote
>Any experience out there with the Vivitar Series One 19-35 Ultra Wide Macro >Zoom....seems very inexpensive for this range. Wondering if it is any good?
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (MDDESKEY)
[1] Re: Sigma 24mm 2.8 comments
Date: Sun Feb 14 01:35:40 CST 1999
my experience with Sigma has been good, especially with their 14mm
From: [email protected] (Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye)
Date: 24 Jan 1999
>How do you find the flare when you shoot into lights or the sun with this lens? > >Peter
Below is a review of the lens I recently wrote for another newsgroup.
I hope it answers your question.
===================================================
With respect to your bottom line question of how do I like the lens,
the short answer is I voted with my credit card and kept it (grin).
Below is my review of this lens.
Immediately after getting the lens, I ran a series of tests. One test
involved shooting pix inside a darkened church, directly on axis on
the center isle, and shooting directly into a stained glass window
which at this time of year, the sun is directly behind. This test was
primarily to look for diffuse veiling flare (large angle scattering)
and also would show up any geometric distortion.
Other tests included shootin outside, directly into the sun at various
stops (to look at aperature diffraction / small angle scattering
effects), and some real-world interior architectural shots.
I didn't have another ultra wide with me to do direct comparisons, but
I duplicated all shots with a reaslnably new Nikon 20 f/2.8 AF-D.
To summarize the flare results, under the conditions of my tests,
which were designed to bring out the worst in a lens, the Sigma 14
f/2.9 lens had noticably more small angle scattering (localized flare
around small individual light sources) AND more large angle scattering
(diffuse veiling flare) than the Nikon at corresponding angles,
contrast conditions, and aperatures. It's hard to be quantitative in
such informal tests but I would note that these differences in flare
could not be seen under less extreme contrast situations, ie normal
interior shots.
Small angle diffraction (aperature "star-bursts") and flair improved
somewhat as you go from 2.8 to about 5.6, but then gets worse as you
keep on stopping down. This is clearly a lens where the old rule that
the optimum aperature is 1-2 stops down from wide open is correct.
Ghost images were troubling. They were *much* worse than those of the
Nikkor, and could occasionally be seen in conventional shots (ie, non
extreme tests). Thus one has to be be careful to scan the frame for
ghosts, and take appropriate measures to avoid them. In outdoor
shots, if the sun is outside the frame, but at certain angles in front
of the camera you get ghosts galore. The newly introduced
"Flair-buster" that slides into the hot shoe is made for this lens.
I did not do a lot of work to seek out Geometric distortion. Its
obviously fairly small and certainly was not objectionable in any of
the test shots or real-world shots I have taken.
With respect to light fall-off, most of my shots are done stopped down
so this is not an issue, but focussing and viewing at 2.8 is certainly
welcome. In a few cases where I did have to shoot wide open because
it was a fast moving, available light situation, strongly uneven
lighting also existed and tended to mask the lens fall-off, so I
simply overexposed a bit (on neg film) to ensure adequate exposure in
the corners and in the shadows, and fixed the overall unevenness in
Photoshop. Thus, having 2.8 available when needed is a real blessing.
Finally, I should point out that the large, bulbous front element
seems to be a magnet for dirt and is about as vulnerable as they get.
I did a shoot inside a farm house, and had to keep blowing off the
front element every 15 minutes. I would never use this lens around
kids or animals that might decide to thumbprint it or lick it (grin).
After these tests, because of the ghost, flair and light fall-off
problems, I considered returning the lens. However, after I started
using the lens for real world shooting situations, I decided to keep
it and work within its limitations.
It gives pictures that simply couldn't be taken otherwise for the same
amount of money, as conveniently, at relatively low light levels,
etc.. All in all, I like it and will definitely keep it.
Feedback on my pix taken with this lens has been positive. I've taken
a couple of very tight interior shots that subjects have said made
their farm house look like examples in "Better Homes and Gardens".
Hope this helps.
Tom
Washington, DC
From: [email protected] (Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye)
Date: 22 Jan 1999
The previous two posters on this thread are absolutely correct to
worry about softness in the corners potentially could go along with
light falloff via a design tradeoff. They were also correct to point
out that very good lens designs that require radial ND filters are
available but they seriously reduce the effective, on-axis f number of
the lens.
With respect to the Sigma 14 f/ 2.8, one of the things that attracted
me to this lens is that even wide open, the corner sharpness is
adequate (albeit somewhat dim), whereas stopped down, corner sharpness
improves to the point where any sofness that remains would hardly ever
be an issue for my purposes.
I would also contend that for my purposes, I would rather have f/2.8
available (say rather than a minimum effective aperature of f/5.6 to
f/11 (perhaps due to use of the radial ND filter) and either stop down
the Sigma (in situations that this is possible), or shoot wide open
just to get the shot, and then correct the radial fall-off afterwards
in Photoshop.
My experience is that with ultra-wides not used in the studio, you
almost always have strong non-uniformities in lighting across the
large field of view, and that you almost always have to smooth things
out in Photoshop anyway, even if you had an ultrawide with absolutely
no light fall-off.
Because of the combination of speed and short FL, this lens can make
some really unique available light / photojournalistic pictures.
People just are not used to being able to see "the whole room" in an
obviously available light, hand-held shot, and they seem to
subconsciously respond to this novelty in a very positive manner. A
couple of people have likened shots taken with this lens to pictures
taken in the studio or taken on-location with a full lighting and
camera rig (so that lenses like the f/11 Hologon could be employed).
My real concern about using this lens in these on-location
situations is damage to the front element. As I said earlier, the
lens coating seems to promote buildup of a static charge that attracts
dirt like a magnet. However, since the DOF is so great, you
absolutely MUST keep the front element pristene, and really don't want
to be cleaning it over and over. Hence I now keep the (rather large)
cap on it until the moment I shoot.
d
Just my $0.02.
Tom
Washington, DC
From: Evan Miller [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye)
Date: 22 Jan 1999
Jay Lichtman wrote:
> Is this lens any good? I was playing with it while waiting in line at B&H > yesterday, and the image was nice and bright and crisp... Does anyone have > real results to report? > > -Jay
I had a chance to shoot some photos through this lens at the Sigma booth
at the photo show last October in the Jacob Javits convention center in
NYC. I shot on Fuji 800 print film at all apertures to f8. The indoor
lighting was very irregular, bright displays, arc lights on the ceiling
and dark shadows all over the place. My examination of the negatives
shows very fine detail right to the corners, even at f2.8, better than
the f3.5 lens I had and sold a couple of months ago. There is some
darkening in the corners, without much change after f4, so it's hard to
determine how much vignetting there is vs. the lighting effects. There
is a carpet strip near the bottom of the frame that shows slight barrel
distortion, probably real but could have been a mislaid carpet strip at
the show. The old lens had zero distortion, it was perfect for
architectural work. The f2.8 shows some flare around the bright ceiling
lights, but no large blotches of flare that the old lens was prone to.
Overall I get the impression the f2.8 is sharper and less flare, but
maybe the same level of vignetting and not as good for linear
distortion. I still plan to get one, I had the f3.5 but sold it a
couple of months ago.
Evan Miller
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "J Jones" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
[1] Re: Cheap ultra-wide for EOS
Date: Mon Mar 15 15:01:15 CST 1999
I have the Vivitar 19-35, and have been quite pleased. As with any lens,
you get what you pay for, so yes there is a bit of softness in the outer
regions of the frame, but for my style of photography it has performed
finely. To see an example of this lens and my style, click here:
http://home.talkcity.com/PicassoPl/d_moriarty/creative.html
The photo titled "Limberlost" was taken with the Vivitar @ 19mm.
-
Jason Jones
Rogue's Hollow Fine Art Photography
http://home.talkcity.com/PicassoPl/d_moriarty/home.html
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
[1] Re: Advice please: fixed wide angle lenses
Date: Wed Mar 17 22:32:40 CST 1999
On 17 Mar 1999 23:22:41 GMT, "no-uce"
[email protected] wrote:
>I want to buy a wide angle lens, 20 to 28 mm. I will be buying a body >also -- probably a Canon or Nikon. My subjects are usually landscapes, or >people in front of landscapes. I don't like autofocus, so it doesn't matter >if the lens has it or not (if it does have it, I guess USM would be nice). > >What is important to me is image quality, including good quality at wide >aperature. The most I can afford for the lens is about $500. > >I would appreciate any constructive suggestions or advice, pointers to >specific magazine article or web pages, etc. Thanks in advance.
You can find a Nikkor evaluation list on my web page, under
"I babble". Since it is easy to hand-hold wide-angle lenses
at slow shutter speeds, I consider good wide-aperture
performance less important with wides than with normals.
Nikkor wides with unusually good wide-aperture performance
are the 16mm *f3.5*, 28mm f2.8 *AIS*, 28mm f3.5 PC, 28mm
f3.5 *AI/AIS*, 35mm f2 *AI/AIS*, 35mm f2.8 PC, 35mm f1.4
(all these are MF lenses, BTW, and can be used wide open
with good results...).
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://imperium.bayside.net/ruether
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sigma 8mm/4.0 & 15mm/f2.8 EX => AF!
Just to follow up my note on the pan list, cc'd to the EOS list:
Sigma has released two new fisheye lenses in the EX series:
A 8mm/f4.0 EX fisheye, circular image of 22.06mm, and a view
of 180 degree in all directions (vertical, horizontal, diagonal, and
everything inbetween).
And a 15mm/f2.8 fisheye, full-frame image, and a view of 180
degree diagonally.
Focal length: 8mm / 15mm Maximum aperture: f4.0 / f2.8 Elements/groups: 10 in 6 / 7 in 6 Aperture blades: 5 / 7 Minimum aperture: f32 / f22 Minimum focus distance: 20cm / 15cm Maximum magnification: 1:13.9 / 1:3.8 Filter size: rear slip-in gelatine External finish: EX / EX Lens hood: / "perfect hood" Dimensions: 73.5 x 61.8mm / 73.5 x 63.5mm Weight: 320gr / 370gr
Note that the 8mm has a different optical design compared to its
predecessor: the old one had 12 elements in 8 groups, this one 10 in
6. It is also 160gr lighter than before, mostly because of the less
complicated filter design: rear slip-in compared to the previous
'inbetween' screw filters, which required the lens to be parted in
half (bayonet construction, requiring most of these 160gr I guess).
Both lenses are available in the following mounts:
Sigma SA Minolta AF Nikon (D) Pentax K(AF) Canon EOS
The production of the old 8mm and 15mm has been seized, which
includes the manual-only versions Minolta MD, Contax/Yashica,
Olympus and Canon FD mount.
The new version will be available early summer.
This reminds me that I still have a brand new old-style 8mm/f4.0 for
sale....;-)) Still in its original Contax/Yashica mount, but intended to
be modified to EOS. US$600 in original mount, US$750 modified to EOS.
For more info about fisheyes, in particular an overview of nearly
all fisheyes ever produced (both circular and full-frame, both 35mm
and medium format), as well as some pictorial samples in a
sublimation of fisheye, infrared and winter, check my homepage:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Rnatrajan)
[1] Re: super-wide angle opinions
Date: Mon Mar 22 16:20:18 CST 1999
I saw the Sigma 14mm/2.8 at B&H during a recent visit. It's a real beauty
and I am today placing an order for it. It costs $710.00 with the Nikon
mount whereas the Tamron equivalent is $1199.00 (overpriced?). Since you
have a FM2N which is purely manual, do you need an expensive lens like the
Sigma 2.8 which has a HSM (motor) to speed up autofocus? Suggest you
consider the Sigma 14mm/3.5 which is available in manual focus version for
$549.95. Good luck!
From: "toby" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 HSM
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999
I have the 3.5 old version of this lens, and have read that while the new
version (out now for some time and reviewed here in Japan by the photo mags)
is improved in terms of sharpness and light falloff, it still has major
flare problems. BTW did you know that Tamron also now has a 14 mm f2.8 out
(at least over here)? It's significantly more expensive than the Sigma.
Still haven't heard anything about the quality.
Toby
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tokina 17mm lens queston
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999
Excellent value and build quality. Needs to be stopped down
quite a bit to get the corners sharp. I replaced it with a
Nikkor 18 so that I could get better performance at wide
apertures but that's a pretty expensive lens. For the money
the Tokina is a great buy. You can see a photo on my web
page made with the Tokina 17mm lens. It is the grill of a
1934 Chevrolet I shot for a brochure cover. If you can hold
the camera plumb and level then even an ultrawide can
provide the perspective of a normal lens. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
From: [email protected] (Gpmsu)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tokina 17mm lens queston
Date: 29 Apr 1999
There is a new PRO version of this lens. Costs about $60 more. The
original model is now discontinued but still available in many stores.
Interested in the performance of the new model, but haven't seen any
reviews.
From: SCOTTG [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: Tokina AF 235 II 20-35mm f3.5 to 4.5
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999
I've owned mine for about a year now and use it with an EOS Elan IIe.
Solid, mostly metal construction. Good saturation, sharpness and
contrast. Surprisingly low linear distortion for a zoom in this range.
I really like it and think it's the best value in that zoom range.
Compared it to the EOS USM with the same basic specs and found the
Tokina had less distortion and better contrast.
hth/Scott Gardner
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999
From: Paul Martinez [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 17-18mm lenses
Some light falloff in the corners was observed, irrespective of aperture,
which is typical of older wide angle lenses (and some modern ones too!).
All superwide lenses have light fall-off due to the Cos^4 Theta law. Which
mainly calculates the light fall-off due to the increased distance the light
has to travel to reach the edges of the film from the optical axis, as
compared to the center of the film. The farther the light has to travel, the
weaker (darker) it becomes - it is a law of physics. I don't know of any
manufacturer that has been able to overcome this. Not the Mamiya 7 43mm
(look at the discussion on their website: www.mamiya.com), and not the
Schneider 47/5.6 XL. In 35mm, not even the latest Zeiss 16mm Hologen or 21mm
Biogon does. A lens manufacturer may *increase* the effect of light fall-off
through poor design, but I have not seen a lens that can compensate for the
effect off light loss due to the Cos^4 Theta law. That is why they recommend
the use of center ND filters. Those filters darken the center to compensate
for the edge light loss.
From Nikon Manual Focus Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999
From: "Bob Scott" [email protected]
Subject: Russian 17mm f/2.8
I just received a Russian fisheye from Moscow. It looks great... perfect
coatings, no internal dust, smooth operation. It came with a convertible
mount: Pentax screw or Nikon K. I installed the Nikon mount ring and found
that it fits my F2S perfectly, JUST fits on my FG, ALMOST fits on my F4s,
and won't fit my FA. I would say my F2S has the most worn body mount,
followed by my FG, F4s's and FA.
(The design of the lens mount prevents damage to the aperture indexing tab
on the camera body on bodies that won't take non-AI lenses.)
This leads me to believe the lens mount ring is just a tad out of spec
somewhere. I'm guessing the clearance from the face of the mount to the
inside of the mounting flanges is just a tiny bit tight.
Does anyone have any experience with one of these lenses? I'm prepared
to whip out my trusty Dremel and go to work....
Happy New Year,
Bob Scott
PS After a few minutes work with a tiny Italian file made of Swedish
steel, my Russian mount fits my Japanese camera, thus ending the
Millennium in a success of international cooperation, sort-of.
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000
From: Piotr Keplicz [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8
AFAIK this Peleng is a pretty good piece of optics. Surely it doesn't
perform as well as the Nikkor, yet it's said to be better that the
other russian fisheye, Zenitar 16/2.8 (which comes with a regular Nikon
AI mount, though).
___ _ _ | . ) |/ / -- Piotr K�plicz ------ Nowy Polski S�ownik Pijacki: ----- |__||_|\_\ -------------------- http://rainbow.mimuw.edu.pl/~pkeplicz --
[Ed. note: price is circa $75-120 US in Russia for Zenitar
depending on mount per posters..]
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000
From: "David Bain" [email protected]
Subject: Russian lenses
Re recent posts on twin-fitting Russian lenses. Are those of you who refer
to M42 threads sure they are what you think they are? Here in the UK those
lenses are sold as "Nikon or T2 fit", not "Nikon or M42". While the thread
diameter of Pentax and T2 is the same, the pitch is .5mm (if my memory
serves me correctly)different.
Just be careful before cranking them into a Pentax body!!
BFN
David
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
From: "Bob Scott" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8
> Any shots yet? How sharp (or not) is the lens?
Funny, I was just scanning the first color negs made with the lens when your
message arrived....
The lens is OK. I don't really have anything in a similar focal length
(17mm) to compare it to, but it is definitely not as sharp as any of my wide
Nikkors (24,28,35).
Here is shot of the back wall of the house at f/11 (this and the other shot
were taken on the Fuji Superia 400 that was in the camera I grabbed first)
http://capital.net/users/desmobob/TEST.JPG
Here's a hand-held shot, at f/4, I believe. It shows some corner
vignetting that apparently only happens at the widest two stops:
http://capital.net/users/desmobob/TEST2.JPG
I don't think this shot is as sharp as it could be. It is very hard to
focus the lens exactly due to it's huge field of view. And, to compound
matters, I had it mounted to an F4s with a plain "B" screen. A split-image
focusing aid would have helped a great deal.
FOR THE PRICE, I consider it a great buy! I only paid $140.00 for it.
(From what I've seen, used Nikkor 15mms go for about a grand; 18mms for
around $700.) This lens has no auto diaphragm. You must stop down meter
with it. It has a third ring between the focus and aperture rings to
quickly and conveniently stop down the lens. I figure a 17mm fisheye is
neat to have, but will most probably be the least-used lens in my bag, by
far. That makes spending the cash on a Nikkor out of the question. This
lens will suit my purposes just fine. I'm satisfied (for now!).
I saw one of these lenses going for $225.00 when I looked in on an Ebay
auction.... :-)
Good shooting,
Bob Scott
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
From: Rich Lahrson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8
Bob Scott wrote:
> This lens has no auto diaphragm. You must stop down meter > with it. It has a third ring between the focus and aperture rings to > quickly and conveniently stop down the lens.
Hi Bob!
Thanks for the comments on the Russian 17mm fisheye. I was not
aware that it lacked an auto diaphragm. That partly explains the
price break compared to the Nikkor.
Cheers,
Rich Lahrson
[email protected]
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
From: Piotr Keplicz [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8
Rich Lahrson [email protected]:
: Thanks for the comments on the Russian 17mm fisheye. I was not : aware that it lacked an auto diaphragm. That partly explains the : price break compared to the Nikkor.
No, *it* doesn't :-) Zenitar 16/2.8 has a Nikon AI mount with auto
diaphragm and lists at the same price as Peleng here in Poland (about a
hundred bucks).
Kalimex wants $260, tho'.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ultra wides
>It's not quite as simple as that. All lenses at that particular focal >length will display some sort of distortions, usually in the form of bent >lines and also in most cases light fall off. Fish-eyes just tend to do this >to a much greater extent. Don't expect perfectly straight images from any >ultra wide!
Not entirely true. There are rectilinear ultra-wides ... At least one
ultrawide Nikkor is a rectilinear. They tend to be very expensive, a
couple thousand dollars. Geometric light fall-off is not a distortion,
per se. It's due to inverse square law and the ratio of distances from
the nodal point to the center of the frame vs nodal point to the corner
of the frame.
The Voigtlander Heliar Aspheric 15mm f/4.5 lens is a rectilinear
ultra-wide. It's a Leica Thread mount lens. The Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 T*
is another, in Contax G mount. The Heliar is remarkably inexpensive
($450), the Hologon is pretty pricey ($2400). Neither of these lenses can
be used on an SLR camera as they sit well into where the mirror box would
be.
Rectilinear ultrawides do demonstrate some distortion, even the best of
them. Not distortion of straight lines ... that's the point of their
rectilinear design, but distortions of 3 dimensional objects off center
frame and keystone distortion due to the subject plane and the film plane
not being parallel. It takes some careful framing to eliminate these
natural optical effects. The Heliar 15 has about 110 degrees coverage
across the diagonal and does not bend straight lines.
I'm no big fan of the fisheye lens as the curvilinear distortion doesn't
fit the kind of photographs I tend to be interested in. It's useful for
photographic hemispherical things, like celestial photography, if you're
looking for a "realistic" representation, or for extreme effects
photographs, but these represent areas of endeavor which have no bearing
on my photography.
>I know Godfrey's home page has some images shot on ultra-wides as does >Todd's page. They should be able to give you the addresses.
I did a comparison article between the Heliar 15 and the Zeiss Hologon
16mm (Contax mount) which is on my website. There are some sample
pictures in that set of pages, but I also have a couple of later pictures
which begin to show what it can do as I've become more experienced and
comfortable with it.
See
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/holhel/holhelcomp.htm
for the article and
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/fshrmn/fshrmn.htm
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/mpix2/mpix2.htm
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren e/photostuff/fshrmn/fshrmn.htm
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/ptlobos/tree-15a.JPG
for examples of four Heliar pictures.
Godfrey
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000
From: "kymarto" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tamron 14mm Rectilinear vs Sigma 14 Rectiliner
...
The Japanese photo mag Capa put these two lenses to the test and rated
them about equally. The Tamron had marginally better center sharpness but
the Sigma beat it in the corners, and with slightly less falloff wide
open. Their conclusion was that these lenses are the optical equivalent of
the Canon at a much lower price. As a working photographer for over 30
years I must admit that I have several Sigma lenses and find them OK. If
you go to any of the photo ops here in Japan you will see photojournalists
using third party lenses, including Tamron, Tokina and Sigma, although
admittedly they are usually not the ones working for the big agencies, who
usually use original equipment. Still, these guys get published and earn
their living with their equipment, so where's the beef?
--
Toby
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000
From: [email protected] (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian Fisheyes - any opinions?
Asleep Asleep@The_Switch.Com wrote:
>Have you ever handled the lens itself? What did it "feel" like? Do >you think it is worth the money? > >I had a non-photo friend from Moscow look for one for me but he really >couldn't tell me much about it and, from the reports I've read about >on the Keiv 88 MF camera, I was afraid that this lens would be of >questionable quality or way too "rough". > >Any feedback is appreciated.
I've had two of the 16mm Zenitars- first an M42 version which I used
on a Contax body, then later a Nikon mount version. The first one was
more contrasty and seemed sharper, maybe because of this. Both were of
slightly worrying construction- when mounting/dismounting the lens the
front half had a tendency to unscrew itself from the rest of the lens.
Apparently this is normal! The lens cap is an unusual design that fits
between the lips of the vestigial hood- this is not a lens cap that
would be replaceable by any standard cap. One of those little lens cap
strings that goes over the lens barrel would probably be a good idea
to stop it getting lost. Remember that a lens caps likelihood of
getting lost is directly proportional to its rarity. I think that for
the price, you can't really complain, the optical performance is quite
good (better than you would expect for this price) and these are fun
lenses.
Joe B. (remove glop for email)
Date: Sat Feb 12 06:57:15 CST 2000
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: "Gerard Kingma" [email protected]
[1] Re: comments on sigma or canon wide angles?
I bought the Canon 17-35, but I sold it again because of its distortion
and mainly because of its closest focussing distance of 25 cm, which is
not near enough for my purposes. I now have the sigma 14 mm and the sigma
24 mm, and I love them to death. Have a look at my site at
http://www.kingma.nu The wide-angle pictures from Ireland were shot with
the canon, most of the wide-angle winter images were shot with the sigma's
Regards, Gerard Kingma
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
From: "Les Freed" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 17-35/2.8-4
Kevin:
I bought a Sigma a few weeks ago, thinking that I'd trade it in for the
Nikon when they become available. After shooting with the Sigma, I've
decided to keep the lens -- and the extra $1000. I have some sample images
on my web page at http://members2.clubphoto.com/les101933 Look under
"recent photos" and "Nature pictures" for some sample images taken with
the Sigma and scanned on a Nikon LS-30.
Hope this helps...
--Les
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why not wider than 40mm?
Steve,
I happen to have an elaborate set of tables on view angles. This question
is a confusing one, as different formats and print sizes come into play,
as has been pointed out.
If we look at the diagonals, a 40mm MF lens has a coverage of 93 degrees
or so.
A 21mm lens on a 35mm has a similar diagonal angle of view.
If we look at the horizontal angle, or wider aspect of the rectangular
35mm format, the MF 40mm has about 74 degrees, and the matching 35mm lens
would be roughly a 24mm.
If we look at the vertical angle, the MF 40mm has an angle of 74 degrees,
still, as it is square, but the 35mm lens would have to be a 16mm to
achieve the same angle of view.
On practical terms, this says that the Hasselblad is at its best taking
pictures of square objects, in which case a 40mm MF lens is as wide as a
16mm lens on a 35mm cam. For a wide subject, the 40mm MF lens is only as
wide as a 24mm on a 35mm camera.
Math aside, in practice, the 40mm gives an expansive view. The early 40mm
has more distortion. The SWC has very low distortion, and has worked well
in all models.
Peter
....
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: Peter Klosky [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why not wider than 40mm?
Bernard,
I refined the calculations a bit, and include a summary, the calculations
and the source for the calculator. Summary follows:
I appreciate your concern over why I came up with "93 degrees or so" when
you say "88mm." Of course I am thinking you meant "88 degrees," and see
your point that it does make a difference. The first calculation I sent
you was based on a 60mm x 60mm usable negative size. I adjusted this to
57mm x 57mm frame size, and came up with a view angle of 90.44, about
halfway between 93 and 88. Hasselblad's data may be based on the real
focal length longer than 40mm, which may be something other than 40mm, or
using a negative size smaller than 57mm square. Refining the calculation,
I still get a diagonal equiv to a 21.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. You were
right that 93 degrees was an overestimate; 90.44 is closer, by
calculation, if not observation.
For the 40mm, I get a vertical and horizontal of 70.94, again more than
67. For 35mm equivs, I get 25mm on the wider aspect, 17mm on the narrow,
reading from the chart below. I include view angles for other Hasselblad
lenses.
Peter
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000
From: Bob Scott [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ultra wide angle lens options
> I'd be interested in posting any lens reviews based on your experiences > etc., or make links to your pages. I have promoted the low cost benefits > of the kiev lenses (see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html for > links andpages and kiev buying guide and other related postings...). > > see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/broncameratest.html on lens testing tips > > in any case, good luck with both your Kiev and russian lenses, and hope > you have some good news to share... bobm
Bob,
It is a dismal, rainy day here in upstate NY. The lighting was terrible
outside, so I shot a roll of T-MAX 400 inside and souped it in T-MAX
developer to quickly get an idea of how the lens does... I am very
satisfied, so far. -- This was my first use of T-MAX film and
developer... I souped the negs for 7 minutes at 68 degrees. The shots
look a little low in contrast. I don't know if it's the
film/developer/temp/time, the lens, or the lighting [SB-24 off the
ceiling]....
I put up a .TIF and .JPG on the web. The .TIF is shot at f/11; the .JPG,
wide open (f/2.8). The .TIF file is 900KB, the .JPG is 64 KB.
TIF: http://www.capital.net/users/desmobob/peleng17.tif
JPG: http://www.capital.net/users/desmobob/pelengwo.jpg
For $140.00, I think the lens is fantastic! It does lack an auto
diaphragm, but is has a convenient stop-down ring between the focus and
aperture rings, making it easy to stop down the lens before exposure -- if
I remember to do it. The way I look at it from a hobby viewpoint, this
will probably be the least-used lens in my bag. My Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AIS
gets used a lot, but I would NOT consider spending several hundred on a
nice Nikkor fisheye for occasional use. I am very happy with the
performance of this lens,considering the price. Not having an auto
diaphragm is not a big deal to me.
I'll have some color negs and more applicable test shots soon.
Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Whitehall, NY
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kalimex Ordering
Oh, you're talking 35mm, not medium format. Saul Kaminsky at
Kiev USA has those fisheye lenses. He showed them to me in
NYC at the end of October. I don't know what price he has on
them, but his stuff does go through his own QC.
There are two fisheyes that he sells, one a circular type like
the old Nikon ones, and a more modern full frame one which looks
like it might be copied from the Zeiss one. I assume that the
full frame one is the 17mm. He was going to send me one of each
to try out and I forgot about it. He probably did too. I'll
have to remind him. As I recall they were available in Nikon
mount and M-42 screw mount.
Bob
......
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999
From: "W Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Sigma 17-35 EX HSM
The June issue of Practical Photography, a British magazine, compares 14
wide angle zoom lenses from various manufacturers. The Sigma 17-35 EX
receives quite good ratings of 8 out of 10 on handling, auto focus,
performance and overall.
The 17-35L gets 9 out of 10 on handling and auto focus and 8 out of 10 on
performance and overall.
The surprise is the Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It rates 9 out of 10 on
all four ratings. This is actually the highest number of 9's of any of
the lenses rated and the magazine recommends that this is the Canon lens
to go for. This is a good deal considering that the 20-35 is the cheapest
of the three lenses.
This may not be a fair comparison, because the wide open measurements for
the 17-35 lenses are at bigger apertures than the 20-35 so you would
expect slightly poorer performance on equal quality lenses. If you just
compare the charts for the f/8 settings, the lenses seem to be quite
comparable.
I have the 20-35 USM and can vouch that it is a sharp lens. I don't find
the lack of a 2.8 aperture to be much of a disadvantage. Most photos
taken with this lens have some object in the foreground and I want the
background in focus too so I use a smaller aperture. (If I want to blur
the back ground, I use a telephoto lens.) I find the 20mm to be quite
wide. I don't know how often I would need the 17mm. The widest lens I
had before was a 28mm so it is taking me a while to work out good
compositions with the 20mm, it quite different.
See if you can give the 20-35 a trial run before you put out the money for
one of the 17-35's.
Scott
Carlton wrote in message ...
>Hi, has anyone used the Sigma 17-35 EX HSM lens to comment on it? I'm not much >of a Sigma fan but for the price compared to a Canon 17-35L lens, makes it all >the more attractive. > >Thanks!
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens Tests - 16mm fisheye
A while ago there was a discuttion on the 16mm fisheye. I recently did a
test of some wide angle lenses, which you may be interested in. I tested
the AIS 16/2.8, 20/2.8 and AIS 20/3.5.
The 16/2.8 has some marks on the barrel and a dent which indicates a heavy
impact. The retaining ring shows signs the lens has been adjusted in the
past, so my lens may not be the best sample. Otherwise it is in good
condition, with clean glass. The AIS 20/2.8 and 20/3.5 are both in near
mint condition.
The test: I used an FE2, mounted on a tripod, with Fuji Velvia film. Each
lens was shot at f4, f5.6, f8 and f11. At smaller apertures I figure
diffraction will equalise these lenses. I never shoot ultrawide angles
wide open because they are usually soft and I prefer greater DOF with
these lenses. The lenses were focused at infinity. I shot a scene of a bay
with a power line running across it - the power pylon and thin lines
across the frame provide an excellent test for sharpness, and the clear
blue sky gives useful information on illumination. Slides were viewed on a
Leica P150 projector with the Hector 85/2.8 lens (not the best way to
critique slides, but it's all I have...)
AIS 20/2.8: slight light fall-off at f4, gone by f5.6. A little soft and
lacking contrast at f4, very good out to the corners at f5.6 and really
crisp at f8. An excellent wideangle lens. It shows slight barrel
distortion in the central area which flattens towards the edges - not very
noticeable.
AIS 20/3.5: At f4 this lens is nearly wide open. There is noticeable light
fall-off at the corners, less at f5.6 none at f8. At f4 central sharpness
is quite good, the corners show noticable softness. Contrast is quite
good. Overall sharpness improves by f5.6 with good central sharpness
giving way to slight softness towards the corners. Corner sharpness is
good at f8 and f11 although they never seem truely crisp - central
sharpness is excellent. I've read that this lens has field curvature which
causes softness at the corners when focused at infinity, and it performs
better at medium-close range. My experience agrees with this. Barrel
distortion is similar to the 20/2.8, perhaps a tad stronger.
AIS 16/2.8: sharp in the center at f4, quickly becoming soft towards the
corners. It improves with stopping down, and at f8 is quite acceptable.
F11 may give best overall sharpness. I'm not very impressed by the this
expensive lens at wider apertures - maybe my sample isn't very good?
However it is hard to be objective - I probably expect to see more detail
with this lens because it gets more scene in the picture.
Fisheyes don't suffer from light fall-off like other wideangles.
Hope this is of some interest.
Roland
From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999
From: Glenn Barry [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: the exact focal length of Tokina 17mm Manual focus.
Cheap non OEM extension tubes are also really good for lens mounts, and a
lot sturdier than rear lens caps.
I have had no guilt cannabalising them in the past.
Glenn
[email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 99-09-01 20:34:40 EDT, you write: > > As I was Executive Editor at Popular Photography from 1971 > to 1986, I can tell you that all lens makers lie on the short > side. I would guess that the Tokina 17 is actually 17.8mm > If it were 18, they'd say 18. > .................................... > > Ed Meyers > > Actually lens manufacture produce lens either in the longer side or shorter > side depending on how convinient it is or how easier it is to produced. most > wide angle will be longer and most tele will be shorter . i remember at one > time people are debating wheter most 70-210 f2.8 zoom should be label 80-200 > because the tele end is mostly 195-199 mm. 8^) > > Okay back to 360'er . So if i cut the roller for 18mm and then reduce the > dia,meter bit by bit . do i have to shift the position of the roller or do i > let the Oring take up the slack. > I really need to get of my behind and start this project because it has > took me so long without any result. Maybe today or tommorow i'll try to find > the airplane modeler here locally that has a mini lathe to make the roller > for me and mount the motor and place the bearing for the roller shaft. > > Okay one last call for opinion before i buy the tokina 17mm (non atx) Here > is my situation i have Contax and maxxum camera. i have a 20mm f2.8 for > maxxum but i can't use it for 36 larscan sice it doesn't have manual aperture > tabs. i want to buy a manual 17mm with contax mount and mount on larscan via > the rear lens cap that way i can still use the lens daily. at first i have > two choice either Tokina 17mm (non ATX) $229 from B&H or Tamron 17mm SP $369 > plus 39 dollars for the adaptal mounts. but with tamron i could use with my > maxxum albeit with extra adaptall mount.right now i'm set on the Tokina since > i could get any info stating that tamron is superior than the Tokina. that > plus the price pretty much set me up. what you guys think ? > > On the side bar ! > > yesterday while flipping over this month shutterbug i saw an advertisement > for Yashica 15mm in one of the used camera dealer. it is advertise for $295 > dollars or some thing like that. i don't know exactly how much it is > advertise for since i was leaping out of my seat to grab the phone. > Unfortunately(you guys must have guess it) the lens already been sold. and > the guy told me over the phone that he could have sold at least fifty of them > by the phone call he got. Bummer. i know yashica 15mm is hard to come by . He > offer me Zeiss 18mm f4 or 16mm but i couldnt afford to get it.(at $1100 and > *1800 respectively) > > I truly wish i got the yashica 15mm though. it is hard to comeby and most > likely the quality is better than either tokina or tamron. plus the advertise > price is so low. from the tone of the seller at ken Mar (used camera dealer) > He actually regret selling it at $295. I bet next time he got the same lenses > he won't let it go that cheap anymore. But maybe there might not be next time > . > > Thanks.
--
Glenn Barry Photography
E-Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.acay.com.au/~glenn
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000
From: Mike Sinclair [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 16mm Zenitar lens & digital cameras
I purchased one of these (www.russia2all.com) for ~$200 though now see
they're offered in other mounts for $139. I am very pleased with its
performance. Images from film stitching is a bit tricky, especially for
landscape formats. PanaVue's Image Assembler thinks the real focal length
is 16.34mm which stitches fairly well in IA or Photovista.
Remember the debate a while back about fisheye lenses on slit scan and
digital pan cameras? I have tried it on a digital pan camera with
impressive results. My sensor, a 5100 pixel trilinear CCD, is ~42mm
long.....almost enough to cover the 24 x 36mm film aperture diagonal for
180 degree vertical field-of-view.
When I'm able to shed a dozen or so cables from the homeade camera, I'll
take some outside pans and post them.
-Mike-
FRom Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000
From: "Valery V. Zasedatel" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fish eye question & Pentax poll
Russian MC Zenitar-K 16/2.8 was reported (from different sources) to be a
nice stuff. It is available in Russia NEW for the price of some $80 (i'is
not a joke -just $80!) It is a manual focus lens and has a Pentax K-mount
(other 2 options M(M42 thread) and H (or "N" in English - for Nikon mount,
but that last is more expensive). It comes together with a case and set of
folters (slide-in I suppose) and is fully compatible with Pentax bodies,
but of course you will not have an F-sop information in the viewfinder, as
there are no electrical contacts.
This summer I am planning to visit Russia and am planning to buy a lot of
photo gear. Zenitar-K 16/2.8 is the first in the list.
Valery
FRom Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000
From: "Juan J. Buhler" [email protected]
Subject: Russian gear (was:Re: Fish eye question & Pentax poll)
On Fri, 26 May 2000, Valery V. Zasedatel wrote:
> Russian MC Zenitar-K 16/2.8 was reported (from different sources) > to be a nice stuff. It is available in Russia NEW for the price of > some $80 (i'is not a joke -just $80!)
Does anybody know of a good source for Russian made lenses and
cameras? I was checking a link posted here a couple of days ago,
(http://www.zenit-foto.ru) and the prices are *really* low.
Now, if you go to a place like Kiev USA, they have these items, but
with a *huge* markup, about %300 in some cases.
I'd love to get the Pentax mount lenses made by zenit, and even a
Horizon panoramic camera ($165, as listed in the Russian site!) but it
looks like this site is only prepared to sell to dealers.
Juan J. Buhler | Senior Animator @ PDI |
http://www.dsp.com/jbuhler
[Ed. note: Thanks to Roland for sharing these tips!...]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm F/4 AI Lens. Was: Nikkor 20mm Lenses - Comments
> My main criteria is the fact that I would like to keep my filter size to > 52mm and thus I am limited to either the 20mm F/4 or the 20mm F/3.5 > AI/AIS. > > I have read that the 20mm F/4 is probably the worst 20mm Nikkor lens out > there, even worst than the first F/3.5 Nikkor 72mm version.
Probably the best review of these lenses is at:
http://www.foto.no/nikon/lens_surv.html
The 20/3.5 (52mm filter) is available in AI and AIS forms. The AI version
has a more stretched out focus scale so focusing is slower, but more
accurate, and the DOF lines are correspondingly further apart and easier
to use. Optically they are the same.
I have always been very pleased with the results from my 20/3.5. My
shooting style is to use this lens at around f8-f11 for good DOF and
sharpness. At wide apertures light fall-off at the corners is noticeable,
and sharpness is not great either, but I never use the lens wide open so
it's not a problem.
I often use my regular Hoya polariser - it is not a slim line or wide
angle filter - and it only causes the extreme corners to go dark. This is
hidden by slide mounts so I don't worry about it.
> I would recommend considering the 20/3.5 AIS version which, although > lacking CRC as with the 20/2.8, is very close in performance. It is > reputed to be inferior at closest focus, and suffer some additional > vignetting wide-open
Actually I think the lens performs better at close range, at infinity the
corners are rather soft, probably due to field curvature. I recently
compared it to the AIS 20/2.8, which was noticeably sharper at infinity at
all apertures, with less vignetting. The AIS 20/2.8 also focuses closer
due to CRC.
Even though the 20/2.8 is better I find the 62mm filter size inconvenient
- all my other lenses are 52mm size. The small size of the 20/3.5 (and
20/4) is fantastic - what other lens has such a wide field of view in such
a small package? Used at medium range and at medium-small apertures (this
covers most of my shooting anyway) I think both lenses are very close.
Some alternatives:
24mm f/2.8 - not quite as wide, but shares the 52mm filter size and
probably has better performance at wide apertures.
16mm fisheye - the only way to get a wider angle of view in a small
package. A fun lens, but not often very practical. Very expensive and
rather soft away from the center until stopped well down.
Hope this helps,
Roland
[Ed. note: not an endorsement as I haven't dealt with Vlad, but
fyi...]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian fisheyes revisited
I bought a 17 mm fisheye directly from Vladimir ([email protected]) he was
excellent to deal with. I'm very content.
Ken Weissblum
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000
From: "C.L.Zeni" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian fisheyes revisited
After some more searching (thru ebay this time) I found that Belshop and
Vladimir Gritsuk are one and the same. In addition, he has a web page
where you can purchase the lens on line, paying via credit card handled
thru CCnow. CCNow has a proper website, a functioning phone number, the
whole schmear. Price for the lens, with Fedex delivery from Belarus, is
$258.00, considerably less expensive than the $400 being asked locally.
This includes the Nikon mount, case, filters, etc. The web page is at
http://www.geocities.com/belshop/
I've ordered one...we'll see how it goes. I used my Amex card just in
case something goes pffft....
Craig Zeni
A Bit Skeptical, North Carolina.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20mm Lenses - Comments
I've been shooting with a Nikkor 20/3.5 AI-S lens since I bought it
new in 1982. Wonderful lens, one of my favorites. I know the later
ones with the CRC rear element are supposed to be a little sharper
close up, but I've never found this one to be deficient at all. It's
small and light, wonderful for traveling, and returns excellent
results. My usual Nikon travel kit is the 20, 50 and 70-300, toss in
an 85 or 105 for a faster medium tele too.
Godfrey
From Pentax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000
From: Joseph Tainter [email protected]
Subject: Zenitar 16mm./f2.8 Fisheye (long)
Here's a copy of a review I just posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm. I
don't want to try Pentax's forebearance by reviewing other lenses here,
but several people have been asking about this lens.
"There's been interest in this inexpensive lens in various places. Mine
arrived Monday and I went right out to shoot the last ten shots or so of
a roll of Agfa RSX 200. Given the interest I thought I'd post my
impressions.
"The lens is heavy and solid, and appears to be all metal (except, of
course, for the focusing ring). I have the Pentax k-mount version. (It
also comes in Pentax screw-mount and Nikon.) The rear end is not
finished to the cosmetic niceness of Japanese lenses, but appears sturdy
and quite serviceable. It slips on and off my PZ-1p nicely.
"The focusing ring is smooth and a little stiff. That's probably heavy
grease. The aperture ring (f2.8 - 22) could be improved. It is rougher
than Japanese lenses, and goes slightly beyond f22. There's no click
beyond f22 and the aperture doesn't close further. The aperture
diaphragm (six blades) closes smoothly, but the blades seem rather
short. Between f3.5 and 5.6 the aperture is not a smooth hexagon, but
rather is jagged. The points of the blades stick out a bit. This does
not appear to affect image quality or exposure (at least on my slides).
I've never had a fisheye before, so perhaps the short aperture blades
are normal.
"I tested all full stops from 2.8 to 22. Viewing the projected slides,
the images appeared sharp, with accurate colors and good contrast, at
all aperture settings. If I were to shuffle the slides, I would not be
able to tell which f-stop each was taken at.
"There's a Russian-language manual, complete with a signed page that I
assume is an inspection certificate. It comes with four rear filters:
clear, red, yellow, and green. I'm told that these filters are needed to
focus at infinity, so they are integral to the lens. There's a clip-on
lens cap, fitted just to this lens, of course. I'm not sure what to do
when mine eventually breaks or gets lost.
"Verdict: this lens seems very serviceable at a very nice price ($80 in
Moscow, $109 in the mail from Moscow, $139 - $219 from dealers here). If
I needed a fisheye for serious work I would spend the extra money for a
Japanese lens. But I wanted this for inexpensive fun. So far I can
recommend it for that. I'm impressed enough to write this review."
Joe Tainter
From: "anfield" [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Vivitar 24mm wide angle ok ???
i've used the MF version b4..... it's really worth trying for its low
cost while still give u very acceptable quality! but personally i believe
u wont find much difference between the 24mm and the 28mm... so i suggest
u go something like 20mm or less i've also tried the vivitar 19mm/f3.5 MF,
but this lens is quite disappointing in terms of color and contrast....
its ok when performing in bright light condition but really disappoints me
when the light is dim.... so i sold both of them and bought the expensive
nikkor 20mm/f2.8. this lens offers better color and contrast with less
distortion(but anyway there're still some). to be honest i dont feel it
worths 4 times the vivitar..... maybe u can try the tokina 17mm where i
havent tested it myself.
"Vazquez Chichorro"
> Hello, > I've been looking at purchasing an extra wide angle lens for my K1000. I > already have a Cosina 28mm/f2.8, 50mm/1.7 & a 70-210mm. > > I have been using the 28mm alot but really would like something abit wider > for those landscape shots that i like to do. > > I've been looking at the Vivitar Wide Angle 24mm/f2.8 from B&H for > ~US$80.00. Has anyone tried this lens, or better still are there any reviews > on it? > > tia
From: dan of the north [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Vivitar 24mm wide angle ok ???
...
Why limit yourself to one focal length?
The Vivitar 17mm-28mm f/4-4.5 ~US$100.00-130.00 (used) or Series 1 19-35mm
f/3.5 - 4.5 ~US$150.00 (new)
These are relatively inexpensive and allow you to have the option of
superwide to wide angle.
The Vivitar Series 1 is generally well regarded.
--
dan
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: Peleng 8 mm fisheye
> http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/pagethree.html
I've never played with fisheyes, they don't appeal to my sense of
aesthetics generally, but these two images are very nicely done. The lens
looks to be quite good quality for the money.
Godfrey
From Pentax Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From: Joseph Tainter [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fisheye help
I have seen these priced in the U.S. from $139 to $225. I bought mine for
$175 from:
[email protected] Tel. 203-531-0900; Fax 203-531-6229
I was also given the following site in the Czech Republic, but their price
is as high as in the U.S., plus you have to pay by Western Union (more on
that below):
http://www.dedal.cz/OD_C_EN.html
The Russian supplier I nearly bought from is (with his message quoted):
Rustem Salikhov [email protected]
"yes, we have the Zenitar 16/2.8 for Pentax. The $109 price includes the
regular mail shipping. If You want to use the air mail shipping, add $10.
The best way to transfer money is the Western Union transfer to:
RUSTEM SALIKHOV,
ZHUKOVSKY,
MOSCOW REGION.
140180, RUSSIA
Thank You,
Rustem"
I have no reason not to think he is honest. I didn't buy from him because
of how the costs added up: $109 + $10 + $22 for Western Union transfer.
The total was too close to the U.S. price to bother with the risk of a
Russian transaction, and the nuisance if the lens should be defective.
KievUSA shipped very promptly. My lens arrived in a Russian box with a
Russian manual, in which is a Russian inspection certificate. Having been
to Russia I can make out a few words. Other dealers seem to have an
English-language manual, but I don't know why you would really need a
manual for this lens.
A used Pentax A 16 mm. fisheye is going now on Ebay for over $400.00, so
$175 for the Russian lens (which, as I reported earlier, seems to give
quite satisfactory results) seemed like a good price. I am having fun with
mine.
Hope this is helpful.
Joe
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] The Fisheye Question
Zoltan Michael Takacs wrote:
>I would really appreciate if you could provide me with your most valued >opinion about the Nikkor Fisheye's. Someone just offerred a MINT+++ 16mm AIS >f 3.5, no box, no paper for 430 usd.Is this a good price?Is it a worthy >lens?If yes, how does it compare to the rest of the Nikkor Fisheye bunch...
I think a better question is "How valuable would this lens be to YOU?"
(More below.)
On one hand, I think the seller is overrating the quality of the lens. I
think that technically, to be considered "Mint" an item must come with the
original box and papers, so I don't think this lens truly qualifies for
"Mint" --- and anyway, if something is "Mint" how can it be any better? so
the rating of "MINT+++" is pretty much a stretch of hyperbole.
I've owned this lens in the past, and hardly ever used it. I sold it for a
pretty big loss, because after the original novelty wore off, it was not a
high-demand item. It can be a very difficult lens to learn to use
effectively. While not as stylized (and thus subject to "trendiness") as a
circular fisheye, it does require a lot of discipline to use as a
"straight" lens. By "straight" I mean for normal subjects rather than
using the full-frame fisheye effect in exaggerate a subject's lines,
quirks, etc.
It can produce quite striking results with sweeping vistas if you can find
appropriate subjects.
Personally, I think a far better lens would be a rectilinear 15mm (even
though it's a lot more expensive). Many impossible situations can be
turned into winners with a 15mm.
You really need to borrow or rent a 16mm full-frame fisheye for a few days
and rigorously try it out before committing the money. It is quite a
specialized tool, and a lot of money to spend if you hardly ever use it.
- --
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 18 August 2000
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 12mm/f5.6 Voigtlaender Ultra-Wide Heliar for Bessa-L (M39)
Some spec's are hard to believe at first....but this one is
true....a German friend mentioned a new 12mm rectilinear
(non-fisheye) Voigtlaender lens, according to the German
FotoMag....not having this magazine (yet), I was more than
suspicious, until he sent me a scan of the article....not just a
rumour, but a fat confident press-release....
To take away the first scare, it's 'only' slightly over US$1000, not
cheap, but still remarkably low for what is essentially an extreme
niche lens....
Cosina (the actual factory, Voigtlaender is just a brandname, owned
by a chain of German shops (RingFoto)) has gone through great lengths
to make this lens as high-end as possible....classical symmetrical
(non-retrofocus) design, with a double-aspheric element (is that
new??), overall optical quality at least on par with the 15mm Heliar.
121 degree angle of view, 10 elements, 8 groups, 0.3m minimum focus,
length 38mm, 162 gramm, optional sun-shade with filterholder.
Separate viewfinder (just as the 15mm Heliar), which on itself might
be a cute solution for those shooting with the Rodenstock 35mm on
6x12....same angle of view (but of course a much larger view
vertically!)
{grin}
Me thinks that some of you will have to fabricate new gears for their
homebuild rotating cameras....:))
-- Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
[email protected]
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
From: "Ron Benvenisti" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000
Subject: 14mm 2.8 Lenses
The newly announced Nikon 14mm 2.8 is selling for around $1500. It has
the same optical specs as the Tamron (elements, groups, glass type). I
have heard (from a pretty reliable source) that Tamron makes the 70-300
for Nikon (which also has the same specs and the same Photodo rating -
pretty lousy). I got rid of my 70-300 and got the older 75-300 AF which is
really much better optically (eventhough 75-300 has the push-pull
zoom/focus ring - which I really don't like too much).
I was wondering if perhaps the same was true of the 14 2.8; ie: does
Tamron make this lens for Nikon? The Tamron (around $900 after rebate)
fared much less well on Photodo than did the lower priced Sigma (around
$7-800 - shop around... CameraSphere has it for $709 with no BS - I have
seen it for as little as $659 at the usual crooks who will tell you it is
plastic and doesn't have a case, etc... all BS). [Please report these
morons to the NYC Dep't of Consumer Affairs... see the website I manage at
nyc.gov]. In any case I purchased the Sigma on price, value and
performance specs. The lens is of first-class construction and the images
are professional quality to large blow-up capability. At 2.8 it's a bit
soft at the edges but comes into it's own at 5.6 and beyond. This is a
fine professional quality lens IMHO at half the price of the Nikon. And if
it is true that Tamron is making the Nikon 14 2.8 then the test results
should be the same for both (as they are for the 70-300) which will rank
them below the Sigma.
Any feedback here is welcome.
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 12mm/f5.6 Voigtlaender Ultra-Wide Heliar for Bessa-L (M39)
URL for this beauty:
http://www.cosina.co.jp/12mm/12-main.html
(PS, the Seitz pages on spectraweb.ch seem no longer there....never
had a factory-link....is there one?....search engines seem just as
clueless)
Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> Some spec's are hard to believe at first....but this one is > true....a German friend mentioned a new 12mm rectilinear > (non-fisheye) Voigtlaender lens, according to the German > FotoMag....not having this magazine (yet), I was more than > suspicious, until he sent me a scan of the article....not just a > rumour, but a fat confident press-release.... > > To take away the first scare, it's 'only' slightly over US$1000, not > cheap, but still remarkably low for what is essentially an extreme > niche lens.... > Cosina (the actual factory, Voigtlaender is just a brandname, owned > by a chain of German shops (RingFoto)) has gone through great lengths > to make this lens as high-end as possible....classical symmetrical > (non-retrofocus) design, with a double-aspheric element (is that > new??), overall optical quality at least on par with the 15mm Heliar. > > 121 degree angle of view, 10 elements, 8 groups, 0.3m minimum focus, > length 38mm, 162 gramm, optional sun-shade with filterholder. > Separate viewfinder (just as the 15mm Heliar), which on itself might > be a cute solution for those shooting with the Rodenstock 35mm on > 6x12....same angle of view (but of course a much larger view > vertically!) > >> Me thinks that some of you will have to fabricate new gears for their > homebuild rotating cameras....:)) > > > -- > Bye, > > Willem-Jan Markerink
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: FW: 12mm/f5.6 Voigtlaender Ultra-Wide Heliar for Bessa-L (M39)
----------
tis a handsome looking lens all right but it does not fit the bill for a
conventional non-retrofocus lens does. even a biogon,a relatively huge
conventional classic semi-symetrial lenses(ever see the 75 compared
to any other of its type)would be practically flush with the body.
furthermore as i pointed out previously a conventional wa lens of this
focal length would be absolutely unthinkable w/o a conventional centre
filter of aa least 4x. Next: the back element of a conventional type at
this
focal length would certainly block the through the lense metering. no one
would waste the kind of money involved to producing a lense such as this
that blocked any and all through the lense metering systems. whoever
translated the spec probably left out something like "equals the
performance.etc" anyone care to bet on this?
ralph
....
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000
I now have completed the full review of the ultra-wide AF Nikkor 14 mm
f/2.8 with sample images included. It can be found at my web site
http://www.foto.no/nikon/index2.html under 'Reviews'. The results are
not as everybody would expect. Happy reading.
Regards
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
I couldn't help myself... I picked up a 16mm f/2.8 MC Zenitar to compare
to my 17mm f/2.8 Peleng.
My early observations are that the Zenitar has a huge advantage in
convenience. It's just a tad larger (longer) than a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8,
and has a real AIS mount, complete with auto-stop-down diaphragm and ADR
numbers. The Peleng has a primitive lens mount and must be stopped down
manually. The Peleng also has a very large front element and weighs
probably three times as much as the Zenitar, if not more. The huge front
element of the Peleng has only the smallest petal-type hood built in, so
the lens cap is a press fit over the outside. It is not a very secure
arrangement to cover such a large, protruding and vulnerable front
element. The Zenitar has two slightly larger petals located on the top and
bottom of the lens front, and a cleverly-designed cap that fits on
securely with the familiar spring-loaded tabs that grip the filter threads
(Actually, ridges that simulate filter threads. The lens takes only
rear-mounted filters --three are included.)
The Zenitar fit, but would not lock, on my Nikon bodies. Instead of
sending it back, I broke out the trusty Dremel tool and achieved a tight
locking fit. (The slot that the body's lens lock pin fits in was coming
just a tiny bit shy of where it needed to be for the pin to pop in. I
don't think I took more than a couple of thousandths off the leading edge
of the slot before the pin was able to engage properly.)
I have the day off tomorrow, so I'll shoot a roll of T-Max 100 in a casual
comparison. I'll be looking for light fall-off, flare, contrast and
sharpness differences. I'll shoot a few frames of Provia through both so
I'll have an idea of color performance too.
I'm really hoping the Zenitar is a decent performer. The Peleng certainly
is, but is somewhat inconvenient to carry and use. After tomorrow, it may
be for sale.....
Good shooting,
From panoramic Mailing List:
.....
Coastal Optical Systems has tested the Peleng 8mm fisheye on the Nikon D-1
and measured field mapping, relative illumination and field of regard.
The experimental data for the Peleng was compared to six other
commercially available fisheye lenses (Nikon 8mm, Nikon 6 mm, Coastal 7.45
mm, Coastal 4.88 mm, and two different Sigma 8mm)
The results were presented in San Diego at the SPIE annual meeting. The
paper can be downloaded at:
http://www.coastalopt.com/ne080400.htm
The 4.88 mm focal length Coastal fisheye listed above is specifically
designed to provide a 185 degree circular image on the 14.9 mm Nikon D-1
and Kodak DCS digital cameras.
Jay Kumler
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
Take my personal experience: You should never ever buy this lens!
I've bought this lens, and regret very much!!!
i just felt i've dumped my money into rubbish bin.
its advantage is only that it's metal
forget about the mounting, coz u shouldn't buy it, although there isn't
any
problem with my N6006 (F601)
i'm sure u'll regret if you buy it.
....
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
Hi,
Look http://www.geocities.com/belshop/index.html for a description of
the lens. I personally cannot make any comments because I've never had
the lens.
Regards,
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
Mike Forkash [email protected] wrote
It is a totally manual lens, so there is no electronic bus at all.
Peleng is a preset lens, i.e. lacks the automatic aperture but instead has
a ring which allows quick opening and closing of the aperture to the
preset value. I have never used it on anything autofocus, though, but the
Nikon mount worked fine on a F3, and a M42x1 screw mount worked fine (with
a FD mounting ring) on my Canon F1N. IMO Peleng isn't a serious lens
(rather soft in my experience, prone to flare and with very poor contrast)
but then again how many "serious" applications are there for a circular
fish-eye...? It is fun to use if you like the effect, but it gets old
pretty quickly.
My Peleng was rather difficult to dismount from the camera as the entire
front of the lens would unscrew itself from the rest every now and then...
It could have been my sample, because the factory has no quality control
in the western meaning on this word, i.e. they seem to work on the
principle that "if it looks like a lens, it is a lens. Ship it!" Test the
very lens you are buying before committing your money (or get a firm
money-back guarantee from the seller.) If you are paying for it more than
140-150 US dollars - including the mount - you are overpaying, IMO. I
bought mine in Poland for approx. 80 dollars. Apparently it costs
approx. 240 bucks - including s/h - directly imported to the US from the
Ukraine, but some places ask much more than that.
Michael
[Ed. note: you don't often hear of a vivitar ultrawide zoom beating Canon
primes...]
2 suggestions from a canon user - try to find a Vivitar 17-28mm
zoom - cheap and sharp - at lease 5 times sharpers than the Canon 17 (or
even the 20 for that matter). The 14 is fabulous - I still regret selling
mine.
And did you know voightlander now makes a 12mm rectiliniar
lens????????????
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
Dear Mr. Wulff!
I need your advice. I am an architectural historian. I have a Linhof 4
x5" that I seldom use. I need mainly 35 mm slides for my lectures and
recently my publishers are looking for visual material submitted on CD.
Having a Nikon 2000 slide scanner I use mainly my Canon F1N that I adore.
My Canon FD 17mm lens was recently stolen. 24mm is not enough. Now what
should I do?
Buy a second hand canon FD 14MM lens, or opt for the Cosina Voigtlander
Heliar 15mm? (THe Canon 17mm lens was not great.)
In terms of weight and price it comes to the same. Only measuring light
will be a nightmare with the Bessa and putting to the floor I would not
enjoy the detachable prism of the F1N.
IN addition to that having a Bessa and some other 100 gramm lenses my
shoulders would be relived. Of course, my Sonnars adopted to Canon are
unavoidable for tele shots. For interiors, however, and some general shots
I could leave the SLR at home. I am ofter on journeys visiting buildings
where I cannot use trypod, so the Zeiss Biogon with its f8 aperture is out
of my scope.
What is your opinion?
Many thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Rudolf KLEIN
[Ed. note: Mr. Rorslett is a noted nikon lens tester and
photographer/author, esp. in biological photography...]
[email protected] wrote:
Keep it. This is the *only* 20 mm nikkor which is suitable for shooting
straight into the sun, with negligible ghost and flare. By adding the
ultra-thin K1 ring (from the long discontinued K-ring set), you can make
incredible close-ups with a very steep and exciting perspective.
Regards
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
You are right, there are more versions that I thought it was.
According to this site:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/nikonfmount/lens2.htm
The different between AI and AI-S are:
1. AI-S has 3 screws on the back of the lens.
2. Both the minimum indicators have orange colors
3. An AI-S lens is best recognized by its:
lens type signal notch
-the little milled notch next to the lens locking indentation. This
indicates that the aperture stop down action is linear as opposed to
pre-AI-S lenses.
Based on those characteristics, the lens that I've just bought is an AI-S.
So it is not collectible at all:)
Anyway, what does the S stands for? Shoe?
Jon
Rick Walker wrote:
From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610)
Jon,
I wasn't following this thread so therefore I will add additional
information to what Rick has written below.
Now your version was made in both Ai and AIS mount. Your lens was a
redesign of the earlier 20mmF3.5 in 72mm. Both lens had an 11 element
group. It is the sharpest of the 20mm lens prior to the 20mmF2.8 version.
It doesn't have CRC. (Close Range Correction) Only the 2.8 version used
this feature. It is a fine lens I and really won't go for the 2.8 unless
you are using it to made money as a professional. Just use it and test it
out. I feel you will be more than happy. If your friend allows to test
both the 2.8 against the 3.5, then I say go for it and let me know the
outcome.
Otherwise, enjoy your "cheap and inexpensive" Nikon super wide angle lens.
Evan Dong
...
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000
Roland [email protected] writes
The BJP has reviewed it and from what I remember they were very
impressed by it.
Quick dig through the 'archives' (pile of mags on the floor) 6th Sept
2000.
Apparently the lens is very good wide open to f/8, slight drop off at
f/11 beyond which it drops off quite quickly.
--
Preston, Lancs, UK.
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Hi Nikkonians,
I will now keep my promise to compare Peleng 17/2.8 with Zenitar
16/2.8. I have included Nikkor 18/3.5 - in spite of the different
format.
I shot a series of pictures a cloudy day - the place is the graveyard
in Vissefj�rda, Sm�land. The light conditions were about the
same all the time. I do not think it will cause any differences in
the pictures. My F3T was mounted on a tripod. I shot with cable
release the same scenario. The film is Fujicolor Superia 200ASA (It
takessome time to get slides developed - that's why I chose negative
film.)
I have scanned the negatives in Nikon Coolscan III to as big files as
possible (about 26MB TIFF format) and worked on them in PhotoShop -
enlargements of two spots, one in center and one in the periphery -
all glued together. The pictures were then converted to JEPG to make
the files as small as possible. I use 79 dpi for the files shown -
close to the "pixel border" - just to look at on the screen!
No method of sharpening the pictures is used of course - and no
change of the color or brilliance.
(I will come back later with the shots in the sun to check flare
Roland! Its autumn here - foggy, humid, warm� I do not remember
last time when I saw the bright sun!)
My conclusions?
The Peleng is a hefty piece of glass - almost as grandmas crystal
vase(650 g) with a huge easily damaged front lens - diam. 75 mm. The
lens sticks out about 85 mm with the Nikon adapter. You just don't
put it in your pocket! The Zenitar is smaller (350g). Front lens
diam. 60 mm and it sticks out 45 mm (no adapter needed) - fits well
to the pocket!
Both are multicoated. The Peleng comes with an impressive leather
case - the Zenitar a little case of woven black nylon. Both with 3
B&W rear filters. The Peleng has a stop down ring - Zenitar only the
ring for aperture settings. (No big problem since they are both non
AI and purely manual - like PCNikkors.) Both feel good and solid. The
Peleng has a front cover that is very loose - falls off all the time
and makes you nervous! The Zenitar has a snap on cover that fits
nicely and makes you feel better � ;-)
The pictures?
Judge for yourselves! I think the Peleng is a tiny bit sharper and
more contrasty but I hate those vignetting in the corners - the
Zenitar pictures have no dark corners.. Both perform quite well for
the price. The Nikkor - no comment - it is included just for fun -
as to compare apples and pears � But the vignetting full open
surprised me a bit. I forgot - sorry! - to test f4 on the Nikkor!
There is a risk for bias in this amateurish investigation - the
Zenitar belongs to me - the Peleng is borrowed back from a friend I
sold it to � ;-)
Here you will find the result - please start with the file "A GUIDE -
READ THIS FIRST".
http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/
At last - thanks to Roland Vink for tips off list!
Best wishes
Gunnar �berg
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
From: "Gunnar �berg" [email protected]
Gunnar,
Thanks for doing such a nice job showing the test results! I have both
lenses, and my informal tests had results similar to yours....
My Peleng was noticeably sharper than the Zenitar, but I thought the
Zenitar
seemed to have an edge in contrast in my TMX test negatives. I may get a
chance to do some shooting tomorrow. If so, I'll make sure I shoot a few
frames of Provia with both lenses so I can compare color results with
yours.
Good shooting,
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000
[email protected] wrote:
The now-discontinued Tokina ATX 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (metal body) and the
latest 19-35mm version (polycarbonate body) appear to offer better
optical performance than the ATX Pro f/2.8. These are inexpensive
lenses ($250) and may be a good way to find out whether a wide angle
zoom suits you best, or which fixed focal length lens you might want.
Both these lenses have some distortion that renders them unsuitable for
architectural photography. However they are ideal for landscapes where
their excellent sharpness and contrast will be apparent.
--
From Panoramic Mailing List;
Both lenses were tested by the German Foto Magazin:
For both the overall results were quite good, however both
suffer from significant vignetting even when stopped down:
about 2 f-stops for the 15mm and about 3 f-stops for the 12mm.
Distortion isn't a big issue (0.3/0.4% for the 15mm and 0.3/1.6%
for the 12mm).
Marco
Marco Pauck -- [email protected] -- http://www.pauck.de/marco/
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Rudolf KLEIN wrote:
Regarding the 12mm Heliar. The Dec. Shutterbug has a good
article and rates it very well. They do say that the lens is
sharpest wide open at f/5.6 or f/8 and should be stopped
down only when neccesary for more depth of field, which
would be rare. They also mention that there is inevitably
true wide angle distortion, where solid objects near the
edge of the picture are pulled out of shape and the camera
should be leveled carefully.
Rod S.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
"John G. Silver" [email protected] wrote:
I hope it's not too late to stop you, but this lens is a gamble at best.
Unless you are extremely fortunate and find a good example, you would be
far better buying the new Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. This is a well made
lens with non-rotating filter ring and a very good optical design.
The Tokina is not in the same league as a Nikkor AF-S, Canon L or
Minolta G, but it is a sharp and contrasty lens with less distortion
than the Cosina.
It's made by Cosina and also sells as a Vivitar or a Soligor. Judging
by comments on this newsgroup over the last few months, and reviews
elsewhere, you'd be very well advised to avoid all three in favour of
the Tokina.
--
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
The "really cheap but pretty good" one that sold under $200 USD is out
of production and hard to find. The alledgedly optically identical
new model, which sells right at $200USD is different primarily in it's
polycarbonate construction. I believe the non-rotating filter ring
was absent from the previous model, although I'm not sure.
I have this lens, it's a decent performer. Nice and contrasty, and
fairly sharp, it's pictures do have snap. Although it makes a
god-awful noise when focussing, it's fairly quick, not surprising at
this focal length I guess though.
I'd rate it a good deal, and a worthwhile lens if you don't use this
length enough to justify something *really* good.
Lisa
Postscript:
Lisa
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
Lisa Horton [email protected] wrote:
There's some confusion here. The "good" 19-35mm that's based closely on
a recent 20-35mm design is from Tokina. The confusion arises because, a
couple of years ago, Tokina marketed the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor 19-35mm
under the Tokina brand.
The rebadged Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor and the Tokina home-grown products
are about as different as can be. There is a huge difference in image
quality as well as build quality. No one should risk buying the former
while the latter are available for very little more money.
--
From Minolta Mailing List:
--- In [email protected], jay.piper@m... wrote:
I have this lens in Canon EOS. Very well built, lots of metal. DoF is
huge, of course. A bit prone to flare as you might expect. It was
bought specifically for indoor architecture photographer (virtual
reality) and is excellent for getting floor-to-ceiling shots in
vertical format. Excellent value for money. Only niggles: focus ring
is very loose in manual focus; doesn't lock into place when I mount
it on my EOS1n (!).
Chris.
From Sigma Lens Mailing List:
Wanted to pass along a few early thoughts on the new Sigma 20mm 1.8
lens. I picked up this lens in a Canon mount and have shot it with an
Eos 1-V. The lens is extremely sharp and has excellent contrast. The
build quality is the same as all the other EX lenses, which is to say
very good. I am not a huge fan of the plastic body and that is
further complicated by my extreme dislike of the stardust speckled
finish Sigma uses on the Ex lenses. So it is not the most attractive
or professional looking lens in my bag. That aside it is a fast
autofocus lens(rear focus) and it is smooth and quiet in the AF mode.
It has a puch ring for fast af-manual mode change. It is this
actuation which I would list as my second dislike about the lens.
There is a AF/Manual switch as well but the ring shift was a little
rough and not as silky smooth as the lens focus actuation. Perhaps
one of the biggest real world problems with this lens is the 82mm
filter size. Granted the lens has a great 94.5 degree angle of view
Sigma could have fit this into a 77mm size at worse. Many of their
competitors are achieving the same great results with 72mm filter
sizes. I make this a point because if you pay $330 for the lens a
slim hi enf filter make run you 1/3 the cost of the filter. And that
is for a UV. Forget about adding a circle. The 1.8 speed is very nice
for interior shooting.
In a nutshell I would highly recommend the lens based on performance
lone. If the finish is not an issue for you and you either have 82mm
filters or do not intend to use more than 1 filter I would make this
a solid buy. You will save perhaps 20-25% off the name brand versions
and get solid performance in return. The price you pay is on the
resale side (longterm) and in the filters (short-term).
From Sigma Lenses Mailing List:
I almost bought this lens, and ultimately went with the Canon 20/2.8
due to te filter size. I shoot mostly lanscapes with it and the extra
1.5 f/stops werent a big issues, as I stop down most of the time.. But
it does look like a nice piece of hardware..
From Nikon Mailing List:
I owned the 15 for a few years and tried the 14 once.
The 15 required that you have a decent staff of assistants to gobo the
lighting, because the 15 has a horrendous flare and ghosting problem if
any light hits the lens. I did eventually make a 12" x 18" matte box for
it that helped. It is not a lens for casual outdoor photography.
I tried the 14 once for a few shots. It seems to share the 15's unique
lack of geometric distortion common to almost all Nikkor wide angles, and
also seems to lack the flare problems. I wasn't able to get a sharp image
out of it, however that may have been because I was shooting indoors at
1/4 sec which I usually can pull off with those lenses.
So, go try the 14 and make sure it's sharp and free from flare and ghosts.
If it is it is superior to the 15.
What looks like a built in hood on both of these lenses is not. Those are
front element protectors in case you put the lens down on a table or
concrete. They are way to small to prevent out-of-image light from
hitting the bulbous front element. The problem with the 15 is that once
any light hit the front element that it bounced around and hit your film
as a big fat blue blob opposite the source of the light.
I posted more of my drivel at http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm
Ken Rockwell
From: "Max Perl" [email protected]
The 18/2.8 is a mistake in the Nikon line. The 20/2.8 is much better in
all respects. I had the 18/2.8 and shifted it very fast to the 15/3.5. I
know this is not the 20/2.8 but I have seen many many pictures taken with
this lens.
The 18/2.8 has a lot of color frigning in the corners. Especially wide
open color frigning is very visible. Edges have these green and red lines.
I don't think my lens was a bad sample because I have heard this from more
people (own experience, photo dealers, Bjorn's R�rslett's web page ect.).
I have never tried the old 18/3.5 but this lens should be better than the
18/2.8.
It is not always ashp. lens designs are better than conventional ones.....
Max
"Webmarketing" [email protected] skrev
From: [email protected] (R. Peters)
Keep in mind that this is a test of ONE particular lens--not all of
them and not even 3 or 4 samples. The next lens tested could have
been entirely different. The results may be similar for a batch of
the same lens...or they may not be.
I bought a 19mm Vivitar 3.8 new for $108 plus shipping from NY, new
with warranty cards. I use this focal length so rarely that if I had
to pay $300 or more for a used 19 or 20mm lens, I couldn't justify
having a 19 or 20mm lens. If you can justify 3X the price for a
Canon or Pentax,19 or 20mm lens, by all means, go for it.
You may be right, it may not perform as well as an OEM lens. But,
the price is right and, surpisingly, the transparencies I get from
mine are quite acceptable for general use. Mileage may vary.
bob
"Jriegle" [email protected] wrote:
From Minolta Mailing List:
Hi,
The last issue of FOTO 7-8/2001 publishes test data on two new WA
lenses from Sigma: 24/1.8 and 20/1.8 EX DG. Both are pretty sharp
(like Minolta 24/2.8), both show very strong astigmatism (unlike
Minolta 24/2.8 or 24-50/4), and both have strong wave-form
distortions. They have internal focus and non rotating fronts. They
are also large (77mm and 82mm filters, respectively) and heavy (about
500g).
I heard Minolta AF 24/2.8 is not distortions free either, and 20/2.8
is too expensive for me. What I used to shoot might be called nature
and travel photography and I often feel I need something wider than my
Minolta 28/2. What would you suggest? Maybe Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 or
Minolta AF 24-50/4? The latter is not very wide but I don't like
swithing lens frequently. And it might complement 70-210/4 very well
since both accept 55mm filters.
Thank you,
From Minolta Mailing List;
What about used Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 II ? Not bad at all optically, sturdy
construction (distinguishable for most Tokina designs), very convenient
zoom range, but definitely cannot be considered as distortion-free.
Very affordable when found used (150-200 $).
Alex
From Minolta Mailing List;
Thank you all for replies. Here is what's been mentioned, ordered by
prices:
Hmm.. I've looked it through again and realized that performance goes
probably the opposite order! Actually Tokina is very tempting, or old
Minolta zoom although it's not 'true' WA. No, I can't decide yet.
Thanks anyway,
From Minolta Mailing List;
I think the old Tokina AT-X II 20-35/3.5-4.5 is better than the Sigma
18-35. The Sigma has major barrel distortion at 18mm while the Tokina no
measurable amount of distortion through out the range. and a used Tokina
can usually be picked up for something in the $200 or so range. If you
went just by the Photodo rating the best wide zoom is the Tamron
20-40/2.7-3.5. Better than the Minoltas even. However it has some
distortion right at the 20mm range. Mainly it is pretty sharp for a wide
zoom.
Kent Gittings
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
These are the introduction dates for 1950's SuperWides
Best regards, Stephen William Foyle
[Ed. note: another user's view, and a warning on sample variations...]
"Vlad P" [email protected] wrote:
It's a pity you didn't make this statement at the beginning of your
posting.
To those who are interested in this Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix lens,
it is junk. It has appalling build quality and huge sample variation.
If you are lucky enough to get a good one the lousy build quality may
mean it doesn't stay good for long.
The best examples of this lens can produce acceptably sharp results when
stopped down to f/8 or so, however the barrel distortion at 19mm, and
the pincushion distortion at 35mm, are appalling. The distortion at the
wide end is so bad that it makes you think you just bought the world's
first zoom fisheye lens.
For only about 20% more $ you can buy the latest Tokina Model AF193
19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens which is well made, has minimal sample variation,
produces consistently sharp and contrasty results and has well
controlled distortion. There is still some distortion, and it is
noticeable if you do architectural photography or compose with straight
lines near the edges of the frame, but it is very well controlled
compared to that of the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix product.
The choice between the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix and the Tokina
AF193 is a no-brainer. Go with the Tokina AF193, unless you only shoot
for 4"x6" prints from a minilab, when you may not be able to tell the
difference. But I know I will.
I have tested four examples of the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix lens
and two of the Tokina, and on the basis of the results I bought the
Tokina without any hesitation.
--
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001
"Marko B." [email protected] wrote:
Heavy. It is not a lens for shooting straight lines or buildings with
at this end. But neither is the 10x more expensive Nikkor 17-35/f2.8.
It is a difference of degrees - no wide zooms are without distortion.
The Tokina AF193 is a small miracle when it comes to sharpness and
contrast, though, esp. if you consider the affordable price. It is
also well built.
Vagabond
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Hi Roberto,
Look at this site - I have published some pictures taken with
this lens.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/files/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%2 9+/
(please copy and paste all of this long URL! )
I find the 18/3.5 rather extreme.Quite sharp if stopped down 1-2
steps. Beware of the vignetting full open!
For my kind of shooting I like more the 20/3.5 - extremely good for
shooting in the sun! My 20/2.8 is bulkier,heavier, more expensive but
I do not need the high speed 2.8 - I do like my 20/3.5 better!
Picture quality is about the same but I have not got the experiences
of comparing lenses as some of the giants on this wonderful list....
:-)
Summary: I would go for 20 mm/3.5 if I had not won a fortune on
lottery ...
Kindest regards
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001
"db1" [email protected] wrote:
The Vivitar is junk, or worse. It has appalling build quality and
sample variation is huge. It also appears under the Cosina, Soligor and
Phoenix brands, so make sure you avoid all of these. It briefly
appeared, a few years ago now, as a Tokina. However Tokina dropped it
from their range when they made their own 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which is an
excellent performer for not much more money than Vivitar.
The Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 was discontinued late in 2000 and the
replacement is a 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 which is optically near-identical,
but has a polycarbonate barrel to save weight. The 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5
had metal construction, and in my opinion it is a slightly better buy.
The 20-35mm and 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Tokinas have excellent sharpness and
contrast. Whilst there is some barrel/pincushion distortion (not
uncommon in super-wide fixed focal length lenses but particularly common
in zooms) it is far better than the Vivitar, whose distortion must be
one of the worst of any modern lens.
The Tokina costs 20% more than the Vivitar. It is worth every penny.
There is also a much more expensive Tokina 20-35mm with an f/2.8
constant maximum aperture. It's a good lens but isn't quite as sharp or
contrasty as its cheaper sibling. However barrel/pincushion distortion
is kept very low and this means it is suitable for architectural
photography, which the cheaper Tokina is not.
I don't know anything about the Sigma lens you mentioned. I've owned
six Sigmas at various times since 1975, and they have all been poorly
made and/or difficult or impossible to get repaired. I recently had to
sell my last two Sigmas (a 70-210mm f/2.8 APO AF and a 24mm f/2.8 AF)
with the faults declared but unrepaired.
I will never buy another Sigma. Who knows? You might be more lucky.
I hope this is useful.
--
From: David Littlewood <[email protected]>
Lisa Horton
Wide angle lenses are always prone to curvilinear distortion unless a From: [email protected] (dan) Sigma has just released a 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 From: Tony Polson <[email protected]> Hi David, Of course it survives on advertising placed by "bait and switch" -- From: David Albrecht <[email protected]>
---
I don't get Amateur Photographer, but for what it is worth, I usually
By comparison their reviews put the Nikkor 18-35 at: From: Tony Polson <[email protected]> One fault that Photodo (Sweden) appear to share with Photozone (Germany) I was lucky; my lens was the good one. Tony Polson
From: [email protected] (Jim K.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Vivitar 19mm/3.8
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001
This may have already been stated, but it's a cheap way to experiment
with super wide angle if you're not independently wealthy (instead of
avoiding the lens altogether) Since I use Nikon equipment...here's
the long and short of this dilemma for me.
Vivitar 19mm - approximate retail = $100
Nikon 18mm - approximate retail = $1,200
Nikon 20mm - approximate retail = $600
(your mileage may vary)
The decision comes down to the Vivitar (or something like it), or
scrapping the idea of super wide angle altogether.
Jim
"Acemon" [email protected] wrote:
>I question much sample variation in a single focal length lens that has
>metal barrel construction. I would expect more variation from cheap loosely
>assembled plastic lenses.
>
>In any case, sample variation that is bad enough to be quite noticeable from
>lens to lens is a sure sign of terrible quality control. If that's the case,
>would try the lens before you buy or just avoid it altogether.
>
>J
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica
[email protected] (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>Tony Polson wrote:
> >
> >Alas, I can't guarantee that everyone will see the difference, but this
> >is the main reason why my outfit includes nine fixed focal length lenses
> >but only three zooms, one of which is consumer grade.
> >Tony Polson
>
> What do you use the consumer grade for mostly, Tony, and why?
Hi Lewis,
I have an 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED AF Nikkor which I bought for curiosity.
I already have 20mm, 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 AF Nikkors and a 35mm f/2 AF
Nikkor, but I was curious to see if the 18-35mm could be a useful
substitute for any/all of these when travelling light.
I previously had an inexpensive Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF which I
bought solely to find out which fixed focal length lenses between 20mm
and 35mm I wanted to buy (answer: all of them!) but I found it to be an
excellent lens, with the exception of noticeable (but hardly excessive)
barrel/pincushion distortion. It was also very well made with a metal
barrel and an 'expensive' feel to the focusing and zoom rings.
Last year four friends and I tested the Tokina against four examples of
the Cosina/Vivitar 19-35mm AF/MF zooms. The Tokina was so far ahead it
would have been good value at twice its price. The Cosina/Vivitar
lenses are just junk, with huge variation in optical and build quality
and the best was barely acceptable even as a cheap buy. Here in the UK
the Tokina cost only about 20% more, which is probably the best 20% more
that anyone could ever spend.
It was a reluctant sale, and then I immediately made the mistake of
buying the 18-35mm Nikkor out of sheer curiosity. So far, I've broken
the flimsy and pretentious shaped plastic lens hood and I've not been
impressed with the perceived build quality. It is exceptionally light
and appears flimsy. So far the results are OK, but I haven't done
anything really demanding; we are virtual prisoners in our village due
to the epidemic of foot and mouth disease in sheep and cattle here in
the UK.
I don't expect to keep this lens; I just wanted to see how well it
worked in comparison to the Tokina. I also thought that it might just
be a good substitute for the fixed focal length lenses for less
demanding work, but on the basis of results so far I don't believe it
will be.
My other zooms are the 35-70mm f/2.8 AF and the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF. They
are both superb performers. I would have added a 20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D
Nikkor if it wasn't for Bj�rn R�rslett's review which mentioned
noticeable colour fringing. That would be unacceptable to me, so I am
avoiding this lens until I get the opportunity to borrow one for a
really thorough test.
My fixed focal length lenses are the wide angles I mentioned above plus
the 85mm f/1.8 and 180mm f/2.8 AF Nikkors. I also occasionally use a
Tamron Pro 1.4X teleconverter with the 180mm or 80-200mm to get near
300mm for those very rare occasions when I need a long lens. I do some
freelance sports photography but I am issued with 300mm f/2.8 and
80-200mm AF-S Nikkors for that, although I use my F100 body.
My favourite lens is the 85mm f/1.8 for the best combination of
sharpness/contrast and bokeh of all the lenses I own. It might be
slightly surpassed by the sublime 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (that's one I don't
own), but I strongly prefer the shorter focal length for portraits.
I'm always tempted by good examples of the 70-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E
which has the best bokeh (by far) of any Nikon zoom lens I have used.
Its bokeh is nearly as good as the 85mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor, and it is even
sharper than that lens. It deserves every bit of its status as a "Nikon
Legend". I've bought two and sold them; maybe I'll keep the third.
;-)
Best regards,
--
Tony Polson
From: "BG250" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Vivitar 19mm f3.8
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002
This lens has poor sharpness and contrast at the widest two stops. However,
sharpness doesn't decrease much in the corners and illumination is pretty
even across the frame (at least for such a wide lens). The lens is pretty
good in the f8 - 11 range. Since the depth of field is so long and the focal
length allows for hand holding at slower speeds, the lens is pretty usable
in the mid aperture range. B&H has the lens for something like $105. It is
worth a try. I've gotten some fne shots using the lens in the f8 - 16 range.
As you may have seen, lenses of this focal length by the camera makes are
pretty expensive even used.
bg
...
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002
From: "maxxum9" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f2.8 EX Aspherical Lens
Pop Photo tested both the Sigma and Tamron 14mm F2.8 lenses in their
Oct 99 issue. If I recall correctly Sigma is tested better than
Tamron. Also for reference only Photodo site has tested both Sigma
(3.1) and Tamron (2.5) and again Sigma is better than Tamron.
I have and still own the Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX lenses for about a year.
It is fully compatible with the Maxxum 7 (no chip modification
required). This is a solid lens and the construction is better than
the 14mm F3.5 version. It also produces excellent pictures if you
can avoid the flare.
I have not encounter any problem yet and is wondering what type of
problem other is having with this lens.
Also Minolta does not offer anything non fisheye wider than 20mm
(prime) or 17mm (zoom) therefore if you need 14mm third party is the
only choice.
I was hoping Minolta will introduce a DSLR with 1.5 factor so I can
use the Sigma 14mm and get a effective focal length of 21mm. Before
I bought the Sigma, I also looked at the Tamron but at 20% more $ and
worse quality (according to photodo and Pop Photo test plus comment
from user group), I decided to go with the Sigma. I've been
extremely happy with it.
Hope this help.
Regards,
Ed
--- In Minolta@y..., "Maisch, Manfred" manfred.maisch@e... wrote:
> Tamron does and according to a recent German "Fotomagazin" test, the Tamron
> is superior.
> Manfred
...
From Manual SLR Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Amazing New CV Stuff
Hi Folks,
Courtesy of a CameraQuest spy at Photokina, a few minutes ago I learned
of some rather amazing things about the new Voigtlander SL lens lineup.
To this point in time, the widest lens available for a Nikon F mount SLR
was the 13mm Nikkor. The widest Nikon or classic Contax rangefinder
lens was 21. Soon all of them can shoot with a 12 !
Next year Voigtlander will be marketing the 12/5.6 and 15/4.5 in Nikon F
mount, for mirror lock up. I am told these lenses will fit the Nikon F,
Nikon F2, F3, and F4. A special finder will be made to replace the
pentaprism on the F or F2. scale focus of course.
now the really neat stuff comes to play.
Voigtlander will make an adapter to mount the F mount 12's and 15's on
Nikon Rangefinders (and classic Contax RF's too, since they have the
same outside mount and back focus).
to go one stop further, the same adapter can be used to mount ANY Nikon
F mount lens on Nikon or Contax rangefinders -- scale focusing only, of
course, no rangefinder coupling.
and of course, if you buy the Voigtlander R2S or R2C, you will be able
to use any of these lenses with TTL metering.!
it's amazing these lenses are being made at all, just amazing.
Stephen
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 12mm/f5.6 Voigtlaender Ultra-Wide Heliar for Bessa-L (M39)
From: Bjorn Rorslett [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Full review of AF 14 mm f/2.8 Nikkor ED-IF
Bjorn Rorslett
Visit http://www.foto.no/nikon/ for UV & IR Colour Photography and other
Adventures in Nature and Digital Phootgraphy
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000
From: "Bob Scott" [email protected]
Subject: 17mm Peleng vs. 16mm Zenitar fisheye
Bob Scott
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000
From: Jay Kumler [email protected]
Subject: Re: Peleng 8mm fisheye on a digital camera
From: "anfield" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Peleng 8mm Fish-Eyes
this lens is poor in resolution
poor in color rendition
very severe flare (5mm of the periphery of the circle)
the circle is incompletely recorded on the 35mm film
the lens coating gets dislodged after few days of use, just by its
original metal caps
From: Vladimir Mishchenko [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Peleng 8mm Fish-Eyes
Vladimir
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Peleng 8mm Fish-Eyes
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have any (serious) comments about this lens? I'm thinking of
> buying one for my N90s and I would like to know if they are
> compatible/won't screw with the Nikon electronics.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mike
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: Andjo [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:
From: Rudolf KLEIN
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 9:26 AM
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: Bjorn Rorslett [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm/3.5 Manual. Is this a good lens?
> I thought the 52mm filter will give it away, but it is a 52mm version with Original
> AI from Nikon.
> The owner has 18-35, 20-35, 20/2.8 (both manual and AF) and 20/3.5. Basically he
> almost has all Nikon lens but the 400mm+ range. We've been friends for 20 years and
> he changed my religion from Canon to Nikon since Canon was leaving the FD lens
> behind.
>
> I also notice that all of his (old) lenses do not have any dust or black spec,
> while everytime I order new manual lens from B&H, they always appear. So I guess
> Nikon's QC was better in the old days.
> Anyway if you think this lens is no good, lemme know. He promises I can trade it
> for his 20/2.8 for $200 more:) But so far I like the results, but who knows if it
> could have been better with the 2.8 version.
Bjorn Rorslett
Visit http://foto.no/nikon/ for UV & IR Colour Photography and other
Adventures in Nature and Digital Photography
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm/3.5 Manual. Is this a good lens?
> >From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
> >Date: 10/9/00
> >
> >Nikon 20mm/3.5 Manual. Is this a good lens?
> >I have the opportunity to acquire it for US$200. Is this a good price?
> >
>
> Nikon made three versions of lenses with this focal length/aperture combination
> - the pre-AI 20mm 3.5 UD, the 20mm 3.5 AI, and the 20mm 3.5 AIS. The pre-AI
> lens is physically large, very collectible, and reasonably sharp. It was
> Nikon's first lens of this type (super wide angle), so later lenses did improve
> somewhat. The 20mm 3.5 AI and AIS lenses are the same optically. They're both
> very sharp and compact, much smaller than the pre-AI lens. To give you a feel
> for relative size, the pre-AI lens has a 72mm filter while the AI and AIS
> lenses take 52mm filters.
>
> Any of these lenses would be a steal at $200, especially if the lens is in good
> shape. The AI and AIS lenses are much better from a user point of view, but
> the pre-AI lens is important historically and therefore rates a pretty high
> price.
>
> Rick
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 12 Oct 2000
Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm/3.5 Manual. Is this a good lens?
1st Version= 21mmF4.0 Filter 52mm
2nd Version= 20mmF3.5 Filter 72mm
3rd Version= 20mmF4.0 Filter 52mm
4th Version= 20mmF3.5 Filter 52mm
5th Version= 20mmF2.8 Filter 52mm
From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cosina 12mm tests?
>Has anyone done a review of the new Cosina (Voigtlander) 12mm
>rectilinear? I am interested in this lens but I suspect the vignetting
>will be awful.
>
>Roland
John
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000
From: "Gunnar �berg" [email protected]
Subject: Peleng versus Zenitar (v. Nikkor) Result..
Ronneby
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000
From: "Bob Scott" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Peleng versus Zenitar (v. Nikkor) Result..
Subject: [NikonMF] Peleng versus Zenitar (v. Nikkor) Result..
> Hi Nikkonians,
> I will now keep my promise to compare Peleng 17/2.8 with Zenitar
> 16/2.8
Bob Scott
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Recommendations for Nikon ultra wide angle lens
> I've been looking at several options for an ultra wide angle lens -
> either zoom or prime. This would be for a Nikon N80, so MF wouldn't be
> an option. The lens would be used for landscapes primarily and would
> be enlarged to 8X12. My budget is $600-$700 max, so the Nikkor 20-35
> f2.8 and 17-35 f2.8 would be too pricey. Here's my list:
>
> Nikkor 18-35mm f3.5-4.5
> Nikkor 20mm f2.8
> Nikkor 24mm f2.8
>
> less seriously considering
> Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4.0
> Tokina ATX Pro 20-35mm f2.8
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000
From: Marco Pauck [email protected]
Subject: Re: lens test, advice
> Rudolf KLEIN wrote:
>
> Is there any test results for the Heliar 12mm?
> Is the Heliar 15mm lens good in terms of distorsio? I am an architect
>and this is a crucial feature.
- 4.5/15mm in issue 4/1999
- 5.6/12mm in issue 12/2000
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000
From: Rod Sage [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: lens test, advice
> Is there any test results for the Heliar 12mm?Is the
> Heliar 15mm lens good in terms of distorsio? I am an
> architect and this is a crucial feature. I would
> appreciate very much if you could answer my
> question. Prof. Rudolf KLEIN
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lisa's Gallery of Rogues.
> I'll just dump the WA I used and am ordering a Cosina/Vivitar 19-35 zoom. I
> saw a good report on this in a Practical Photography magazine.
> Does anyone know who makes these lenses and is it available with different
> names?
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
From: Lisa Horton [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lisa's Gallery of Rogues.
Allow me to correct myself. The lens I'm talking about is allegedly
optically identical to the former 20-35, a step above the cheap old
19-35. It's cheaper than it's predecessor due to its polycarbonate
construction they say.
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lisa's Gallery of Rogues.
> Allow me to correct myself. The lens I'm talking about is allegedly
> optically identical to the former 20-35, a step above the cheap old
> 19-35. It's cheaper than it's predecessor due to its polycarbonate
> construction they say.
Lisa,
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: User comments on older 14mm f/3.5 Sigma in MD ( or AF if same
lens)?
> Any users who can share impressions of this lens that is now
> being 'closed out' - sharpness, quality at f/5.6 and wider and
> stopped down, build and ergonomics? I am thinking about the MD
> version, would like one ultra-wide for interiors, star trails,
> landscapes - Thanks,
--
http://met.open.ac.uk/met_vr/
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Sigma 20 mm 1.8 AF DG
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: "Leo" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sigma 20 mm 1.8 AF DG
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001
From: ken rockwell [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Nikon 15mmF3.5 Manual Focus OR 14mmF2.8 AutoFocus
La Jolla, Calif
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Nikon Wide Angles
> Tony, if the 20mm suffers from soft corners and wavy line distortion,and I
> agree that it does, it is hardly one of Nikon's best optics. You also say
> it has "outstanding sharpness" wide open. That's not consistent with soft
> corners. Actually, this lens is one of Nikons's best values even though it
> isn't a stellar performer. If you compare it to a stellar performer like
> the 18mm f2.8 it doesn't fare well but it's about half the price so it
> represents a great value. To describe it as a great lens, though, would be
> inaccurate, as you point out in other parts of your post.
>
> However, it will obviously outperform any zoom lens with 20mm in the range
> as you point out correctly.
>
> Just trying to temper enthusiasm with some consistency. Good shooting.
>
> Fred
> Maplewood Photography
>
> Tony Polson [email protected] wrote
> > "Turner Nonnan" [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Which one have better optical quality? and what are your comments?
> Thank
> > > you.
> > > AF 20mm f/2.8 D
> > > AF ED 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D
> >
> > I have owned the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor for several months and have just
> > bought the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED AF-D Nikkor. I will post my comments in
> > a few weeks after I have given the zoom a thorough test.
> >
> > However it's worth making the comment that the 20mm f/2.8 is a very fine
> > lens with outstanding sharpness and contrast even wide open. It is one
> > of Nikon's best optics. It's a little soft at the corners at f/2.8 but
> > this has mostly gone by f/4 and it is sharp across the frame by f/5.6.
> > Distortion is very low but it is noticeable in architectural
> > photography. It takes the form of 'wavy line' distortion which is
> > neither barrel nor pincushion, but an unhappy combination of both.
> >
> > I suggest this is probably due to barrel distortion by one element or
> > group of elements being incompletely compensated for by the pincushion
> > distortion of another element or group of elements, or vice versa.
> > Either way, it is there, although it is only noticeable with straight
> > lines parallel and near to the edge of the frame.
> >
> > To put this comment in perspective, I would not expect the 18-35mm
> > f/3.5-4.5 ED AF-D Nikkor to have control of distortion that even
> > approaches that of the 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor, whose level of overall
> > distortion is low for a fixed focal length lens.
> >
> > I'm particularly interested in the comparison between the 18-35mm
> > f/3.5-4.5 ED AF-D Nikkor and the Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens that I've
> > just sold. The Tokina is a very fine lens and it sells for only half
> > the price of the Nikkor or less.
> >
> > Is the Nikkor really worth double? I intend to find out.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tony Polson
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Vivitar 19mm f3.8 WOW!!
>See the lens test, click the link...
>
>http://home.worldnet.att.net/~jriegle/viv19mm.htm
>
>Regards, John
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: "Alexander Koz" [email protected]
Subject: affordable wide-angles
Alex.
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" [email protected]
Subject: RE: affordable wide-angles
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: "Alexander Koz" [email protected]
Subject: Re: affordable wide-angles
Sigma 24/2.8 $ 150/. (used/new)
Tokina 19[20]-35 150/200
Minolta 24/2.8 250/350
Minolta 24-50 250/350
Minolta 20-35 ./450
Sigma 17-35 ./450
Alex.
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: affordable wide-angles
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
From: "Stephen William FOYLE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List]Robert Frank 1950's SuperWides
1950 Carl Zeiss Jenna 25f4 Topogon Contax Mount
1953 Nikon 25f4 W-Nikkor Contax/Nikon Mount
1953 Angenieux 28f3.5 R11 Retrofocus Exakta Mount
1954 Carl Zeiss Oberkochen 21f4.5 Biogon Contax Mount
1957 Angenieux 24f3.5 R51 Retrofocus Exakta Mount
1958 Leitz 21f4 Super-Angulon LTM and M Mounts (Schneider Design)
1959 Isco 24f4 Westrogon Retrofocus Exakta Mount
1959 Nikon 21f4 Nikkor-O Contax/Nikon Mount
195? Leitz 28f5.6 DoNotRememberName) LTM Mount
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cosina 19-35mm lens - opinion, anyone?
> I have 19-35 Vivitar
> I bought a couple of month ago for Nikon mount.
>
>snip
>
> I am just a beginner, so my quality "threshould" may not be that high,
> I also do not have more expensive lenses/cameras -- therefore my
> comparasings
> may not be up to the standards of other people.
Tony Polson
From: [email protected] (Vagabond)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Opinion about Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5
>Any on line reviews of this lens? How is the distortion at 19 and 20?
>For that money i'm not expecting any miracles.
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Nikkor 18 mm/3.5 AIS
Gunnar �berg in Ronneby
Sweden
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: vivitar or sigma
> hi all,
> i am considering buying a 19-35mm lens for my Pentax SF-1, either a Vivitar
> or a Sigma. Any thoughts and or opinions?
Tony Polson
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ultrawides & barrel distortion?
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001
<[email protected]> writes
>I don't shoot wide angle a lot, so I have a modest ultrawide zoom, the
>Tokina 193 19-35. It's pretty sharp and contrasty, but it seems to
>have quite a bit of barrel distortion at the edges. Sometimes that's
>useful compositionally, but more often it's not. My question is, is
>this endemic to ultrawide zooms, or just inexpensive ones? If I
>actually forked out for a better lens, would I see signifigantly less
>of this distortion? TIA,
>
>Lisa
lot of effort is put into correcting it. This is particularly so if the
lens is highly asymmetric, as SLR wides generally have to be to keep
clear of the mirror. The position of the diaphragm in relation to the
optical elements is important.
With fixed focal length lenses, these problems can be solved reasonably
well, at least in high quality lenses, and these are mostly low on
distortion. With zooms, there is the additional problem of having
several groups of elements moving relative to each other through the
zooming range, plus the need to also keep other distortions down
(spherical aberration, coma, chromatic aberration etc.).
Thus most wide zooms have some curvilinear distortion, even good ones.
The better ones may have little or no distortion at some points in the
zoom range but a noticeable amount elsewhere. I checked my Canon 17-35L
recently and found it had very little distortion except between 30 and
35 mm, where barrel distortion became noticeable (I haven't measured it
precisely, but it looks to be around 1-2%). Reports on other examples of
this lens have shown significant pincushion at the wide end, which I did
not observe. It thus seems that there is a fair amount of sample
variation as well.
I guess you will just have to try to avoid placing any high vertical
walls or other straight lines near the edge of the picture if it offends
you. For the price of the Tokina, it's hard to expect perfection in
every aspect.
--
David Littlewood
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ultrawides & barrel distortion?
Date: 1 Sep 2001
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/15_30_ex.htm
B&H is listing it for $549.00 (Out of Stock).
I don't have any idea how the new Sigma will perform,
just mentioning it to add to your confusion :)
Rumour has it that Canon _may_ be announcing a new ultrawide zoom this fall.
See "The new season will be hot ? [06/15/2001]" on this page:
http://eosseries.ifrance.com/eosseries/lenscanon/news_en.htm
May the Light be with you.�
-----
dan
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ultrawides & barrel distortion?
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001
I fully understand your point of view, and am aware of your careful
approach to making postings based on fact. I respect them both.
However it is clear that there is significant sample variation in all
wide angle zooms, of any brand.
Hopefully, in the case of the Canon the variation is not on the scale of
that found in the Cosina/Phoenix/Soligor/Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm lens,
which is truly appalling. If marketed as the world's first zoom
fisheye, which in effect it is, it would garner many more sales. <g>
But even the highly regarded Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor varies
significantly, as Bj�rn R�rslett makes clear in his review.
Earlier this year, I participated in a long series of lens tests which
used a variety of bench testing, chart shooting and standardised 'real'
photographs to evaluate and compare over 140 lenses. I helped with
testing the Nikon and independent brands and was marginally involved
with Contax (Zeiss Japan) and Leica M tests. But several of my friends
who use Canon gear remarked on the variability of the 17-35mm f/2.8 and
deemed the overall results of its lens test to be disappointing. Sadly
I cannot disclose any of the results, so you will have to trust me.
Personally I have never used the lens, but I know the individuals very
well. I would trust implicitly their report of the tests. You yourself
posted on here about an unusual pattern barrel/pincushion distortion in
your example, and others replied describing a different pattern. I know
your style of writing enough to trust implicitly what you reported, and
the others who replied described a pattern that was present in two of
the three Canon 17-35mm lenses tested.
Let me make this clear: I am not in any way trying to criticise Canon;
I am a great admirer of Canon EOS gear and would have bought into that
system last year if I'd known more about it. As it is, my familiarity
with Nikon won the day. The point I am making is that the Canon has
production line variability just like every other manufacturer.
> The website that gives
> visitors' opinions is statistically doubtful, as there is no attempt to
> standardise the expectations. Clearly the purchaser of a �1000 lens has
> a higher expectation than the purchaser of a �400, and may well
> therefore make a harsher judgement.
I couldn't agree more.
Of course I assume you are talking about 'PhotographyBEWARE.com'; I am
fiercely critical of this site because of the lack of editorial control
and filtering. This allows almost any idiot to spout all kinds of crap
about almost any photographic item irrespective of whether he/she has
ever touched it, or used it, let alone owned it. It is probably the
most misleading photo site on the Web.
merchants. You are encouraged to buy your camera, lens or what have you
by 'simply clicking on this link' or some suchlike.
Another misleading site is the authoritative-looking Photodo.com with
its narrow, subjective and surprisingly warped rating system. Although
I am very critical of Photodo I still reserve my deepest disdain for
'PhotographyBEWARE.com'. That's mainly because Photodo doesn't try to
tempt you towards any hyperlinks to suspect photo dealers.
Back to Canon. My recollection of the "Amateur Photographer" review of
wide angle zooms earlier this year is that the Canon 20-35mm did not
perform especially well. I no longer have that issue, and would be
grateful if anyone could supply more details. What I do remember is
that the three joint best buys were the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, the
Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED. I am lucky
enough to have owned two out of these three and to have used and helped
test the third (the Tokina f/2.8) so I can happily endorse what "Amateur
Photographer" said in their review.
Based on Lisa Horton's requirement for lower distortion than she gets
from her Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (which is otherwise a very fine lens
and unbelievable value for money), the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro
looks like a very, very good option. It's about the same price as the
Nikon 18-35mm and the Canon 20-35mm, has no greater distortion (and much
less than its cheaper sibling) and offers the holy grail: a constant
maximum aperture of f/2.8.
Provided it works well on Lisa's Canon bodies, which is always a major
consideration with an independent lens, I would strongly recommend it to
Lisa ... This is exactly what I did.
Now what was it you objected to again, David? <g>
Best regards,
Tony Polson
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ultrawides & barrel distortion?
like to reference www.photozone.de lens test section which abstracts the
results from multiple magazine tests. Note that this is different than
their user survey results.
Their rankings are:
Canon EF 2.8 17-35mm USM L 3.26 (5 reviews) = good
Canon EF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm USM 3.12 (5 reviews) = average
Tokina AF 2.8 20-35mm AT-X Pro 3.07 (5 reviews) = average
Tokina AF 3.5-4.5 19-35mm 2.67 (2 reviews) = sub-average
Nikkor AF 3.5-4.5 18-35mm IF ED D 2.83 (2 reviews) = average
Note that the Nikkor 2.8 17-35 and 20-35 rate more highly. In fact, the
20-35 heads the list.
Photodo rates the same list:
Canon EF 2.8 17-35 USM L @ 3.2 w/Distortion: -4.43% - 1.13%
Canon EF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm USM @ 3.4 w/Distortion: -4.55% - -0.89%
Tokina AF 2.8 20-35mm AT-X Pro @ 2.5 w/Distortion: -3.03% - 1.97%
Tokina AF 3.5-4.5 19-35mm @ 3.3
If distortion is that important to me I generally figure that I should
be using a single focal length lens which usually has on the order of
half the distortion of a zoom equivalent.
Dave
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ultrawides & barrel distortion?
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001Hi Dave,
Thanks for posting this.
I'm not in the thrall of *any* of the review sites on the Web, least of
all Photodo, and I don't believe that any "review of reviews" can be
particularly useful. I've resorted to testing every lens that I buy.
But I *do* tend to trust Dr Stewart Bell's lens test data that is
published in "Amateur Photographer". This magazine is perhaps unique in
that it derives most of its advertising income from sellers of used
equipment, both dealers and individuals. Therefore there is no sign of
bias towards, or away from, particular manufacturers. When the magazine
gets things wrong, as every magazine does sometimes, they are quick to
publish a retraction, correction or apology in order to set the record
straight.
I believe that the "review of reviews" you quote does not include the
test data that is published in "Amateur Photographer".
I've already said a lot about why I don't trust Photodo's results.
Suffice it to say that, as a travel and landscape photographer, their
results are of little interest to me, as I most often use the smaller
apertures at which Photodo doesn't even bother testing lenses. This is
probably the very worst of a long list of things that Photodo get wrong.
Badly wrong!
is that the overall ratings do not take any account of the range of
focal lengths of a lens. A 17-35mm zoom is judged on exactly the same
criteria as a 80-210mm zoom, a 500mm telephoto or a 50mm standard lens.
This is like comparing apples with oranges.
The 'average' and 'below average' ratings at Photozone are therefore
meaningless. Confining zoom lenses to 'average' and below means there
are very few levels at which they can be compared.
I was amused to see that the 20-35mm AF-D Nikkor came top. I have been
involved in testing three of these lenses (on an optical bench, using
lens test charts, and in standardised general photography) including the
one I own. Two out of the three had colour fringing, for which this
lens is well known, and the third didn't. The distortion figures varied
so widely that at first we thought we'd mixed up the results with those
of other, completely different lenses. Then the three were re-tested
and similar results were obtained.
It's worth pointing out that different magazines use different focusing
distances to check distortion, so comparisons are almost meaningless.
They can demonstrate clearly that wide angle lenses such as the 19-35mm
f/3.5-4.5 Cosina/Phoenix/Vivitart Series 1/Soligor show bad distortion
at every focal length and focusing distance, but they cannot tell you
much about the better lenses. (Any lens is better than this one!)
In conclusion, it would appear that "review variation" is almost as much
of a problem as "sample variation". I'll stick to my recommendations.
--
Best regards,
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001
From: "Franka T. Lieu" [email protected]
Subject: Re: KMZ have outdone themselves!
I did once compare the three different 20mm, the 20/3.5 MIR-20/20M ,
the Arset 20/2.8( for Nikon Mount ) and the Pentax K mount Mir 47K
20/2.5
In term of color balance, they are just about the same, but I do note
that the Arset seems to give more saturated color ( check under a 10X
on light table )
Resolution wise the 20/3.5 is best, followed by the Arset then the
Mir-47. Light fall off is visible on all of them, and corrected when
stop down beyond 5.6. Distortion is best corrected in the 3.5 lens,
followed by the 2.5 and the Arset is the worst of the bunch. All of
them exhibit flare
Overall picture Quality ( subjective ) I would say the 3.5 is the
best while the Arset and the Mir-47 a tie.
Note that the Arset is the only one that would allow any filter to
put in front of it ( 62mm ), and I've found the Nikon hood for their
own 20mm will work for it too.
However, when you compare how much these are selling against any of
the 20/2.8. You would not be complaining at all.