View Single Post
  #22  
Old April 12th 13, 06:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
me[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Quandary - DX or FX?

On 12/04/2013 4:06 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
On 11/04/2013 22:20, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.04.11 06:30 , David Taylor wrote:

[]
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...24_3p5-5p6_n15



Passed it on but I don't thing he'll go for a zoom, and the review in
that link is not exactly praise for sharpness.


Yes, you can pay more and get better performance, but does your friend
need that? I find the versatility of the 10-24 mm more than justifies
its price, but others may have different priorities.


I use a Sigma 10-20 on DX. It's actually pin sharp, even at widest 10mm
end it's still pretty good. But at 10mm it has a lot of moustache
pattern distortion. At 12-14mm it's at it's best. When it matters, you
need to remember to set zoom at or above 12mm, and then no correction is
generally needed.
It produces nice "sun star" flares too (if a flaw can be a feature):
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o...l/65739526.jpg
I don't believe that there's /significantly/ better UWA zoom in DX or FX
format until you get to the Nikkor 14-24 on an FX camera. (the Sigma
8-16 looks interesting and a good sample is undoubtedly better than the
only equivalent f/l zoom for FX, the Sigma 12-24 which is optically very
weak)
I use UWA a lot - and wouldn't bother with a fixed focal length UWA
lens, except perhaps a tilt/shift.
From a compositional POV, you can't really blur out backgrounds, and
with the need to have a foreground subject, you can't "zoom with your
feet" either, so (far more than at normal focal lengths) the ability to
zoom is usually critical for composition.