A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Oops, I did it again!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 18th 10, 06:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Oops, I did it again!

On 2010-10-18 09:26:37 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Bruce wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I like mine. The build quality problems are with cheap surfaces wearing
off like the glued-on felt that holds the slip-on hood got all torn&
useless long ago and the somewhat rubberized 'powder coat' finish has
peeled off so that it looks quite battered from many years of regular
use. Also, it's got a bunch of dust inside now, which doesn't cause any
obvious apparent blotches but surely must be adding flare.



How many years have you had yours, and what sort of use has it had?


5 years, and it gets tossed in my bag pretty much every day. One of my
most used lenses. The Nikon 14-24 seems too awkwardly large to use in
public, besides it didn't exist 5 years ago, neither did the D700 so
yeah I got it for the D200 and the guy at the camera shop shook his
head asking if I really wanted that lens.

BTW, there's no rear filter slot that I can see.


I have also had mine about 5 years now.
It was packed with a metal template for cutting gel filters.
The slot is on the back of the lens. I have mine next to me as I type
this. Remove the rear dust cap, and if you examine the inner surround,
you will see a "horse-shoe" shaped piece attached on three sides with 3
screws. The open end of the "horse-shoe" faces the lens contact points.
This is the gel filter holder. I will try and dig up the "manual" where
it explains all about it.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/IMG_0278w.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #12  
Old October 18th 10, 06:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Oops, I did it again!

On 2010-10-18 10:13:55 -0700, Savageduck said:

On 2010-10-18 09:26:37 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Bruce wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I like mine. The build quality problems are with cheap surfaces wearing
off like the glued-on felt that holds the slip-on hood got all torn&
useless long ago and the somewhat rubberized 'powder coat' finish has
peeled off so that it looks quite battered from many years of regular
use. Also, it's got a bunch of dust inside now, which doesn't cause any
obvious apparent blotches but surely must be adding flare.


How many years have you had yours, and what sort of use has it had?


5 years, and it gets tossed in my bag pretty much every day. One of my
most used lenses. The Nikon 14-24 seems too awkwardly large to use in
public, besides it didn't exist 5 years ago, neither did the D700 so
yeah I got it for the D200 and the guy at the camera shop shook his
head asking if I really wanted that lens.

BTW, there's no rear filter slot that I can see.


I have also had mine about 5 years now.
It was packed with a metal template for cutting gel filters.
The slot is on the back of the lens. I have mine next to me as I type
this. Remove the rear dust cap, and if you examine the inner surround,
you will see a "horse-shoe" shaped piece attached on three sides with 3
screws. The open end of the "horse-shoe" faces the lens contact points.
This is the gel filter holder. I will try and dig up the "manual" where
it explains all about it.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/IMG_0278w.jpg


BTW: If you just checked the specs on filter size;
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/12-24...-asp-hsm-sigma

You will note they have: Rear Type (gelatin filter)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #13  
Old October 18th 10, 06:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
David Ruether[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 681
Default Oops, I did it again!


"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...

Ever hear of this stuff called 35mm film? I bought the 12-24mm
well before I bought a dSLR.


I once compared *on film* (and FF) the Sigma 12-24mm at 12mm, the
Nikkor 15mm f5.6, and the Voightlander 12mm f5.6. With *these particular
samples* at the test aperture (either at f8, or more likely, at f11), the Sigma
had somewhat soft corners and almost acceptable edges; the Nikkor had
OK corners and good edges; the Voightlander had good corners and very
good edges (at least, best I can remember...;-). I have since checked
various lenses that I still have that performed well on film again on digital,
and would down-rate the 15mm considerably, as well as the 20mm (the
24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm AF lenses performed well on
APS-C digital at f5.6 to the corners at infinity, my usual lens comparison
distance). BTW, my MF Sigma 8mm f4 also performed well at f5.6 on
digital to the edges, and the Nikkor 16mm f3.5MF was, as usual, excellent
everywhere. WHAT a lens that is! ;-)
--DR


  #14  
Old October 18th 10, 07:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
MC[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Oops, I did it again!

Bruce wrote:

"Michael Benveniste" wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot

at the rear, not threaded front screw-on types.

12-24mm with 82mm Polarizer:
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/12-24.jpg



What possible use is a polariser on a lens of this focal length range?
Even at 24mm on APS-C, there are very few shots where a polariser
would give a useful result.


What? Are you serious? What do you think a poloriser does (or does
not do)?

MC
  #15  
Old October 18th 10, 08:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Michael Benveniste[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default Oops, I did it again!

"MC" wrote:
Bruce wrote:
What possible use is a polariser on a lens of this focal length range?
Even at 24mm on APS-C, there are very few shots where a polariser
would give a useful result.


What? Are you serious? What do you think a poloriser does (or does
not do)?


My guess is that Mr. Polson is referring to the uneven polarization
of skies that occurs with wide angles. That's the most common use
for polarizers; so much so that it is often mistaken for the only use.

I've never used the combination I displayed -- I own that 82mm polarizer
to use with my 300mm f/4 AF. For any focal length where I _could_
use the polarizer on the Sigma without hard vignetting, I'd be better
off using my 17-35mm f/2.8.

The only filter I've ever used with this lens is a Hitech graduated
neutral density in a Cokin holder. Lee has recently started shipping
a special kit for the Nikon 14-24mm for just such uses.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain


  #16  
Old October 18th 10, 08:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Doug McDonald[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default Oops, I did it again!


What possible use is a polariser on a lens of this focal length range?
Even at 24mm on APS-C, there are very few shots where a polariser
would give a useful result.


What? Are you serious? What do you think a poloriser does (or does
not do)?



The OP has a point. Even at 24mm on an APS-C sensor, the angle is so wide
that a polarizer is usually useless for darkening the blue sky or distant
haze reduction. At shorter focal lengths it is less than useless for
that purpose if there is lots of sky.

Under certain circumstance it would be useful for reflection reduction.
Outdoors under clouds, standing in front of a lake, yes, it might work
nicely. Indoors looking at a water pool, yes, it would work.

The problem is that at very wide angles the polarizer angle would
need to be set differently for different areas of the scene, in many cases.

Doug

  #17  
Old October 19th 10, 11:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 803
Default Oops, I did it again!

On 10/18/2010 9:12 AM, Bruce wrote:
"Michael wrote:
wrote:

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot at
the rear, not threaded front screw-on types.


12-24mm with 82mm Polarizer:
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/12-24.jpg



What possible use is a polariser on a lens of this focal length range?
Even at 24mm on APS-C, there are very few shots where a polariser
would give a useful result.


How many landscape shot have you exhibited, never mind sold.

--
Peter
  #18  
Old October 19th 10, 11:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 803
Default Oops, I did it again!

On 10/18/2010 11:17 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Michael wrote:
wrote:

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot at
the rear, not threaded front screw-on types.

12-24mm with 82mm Polarizer:
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/12-24.jpg



What possible use is a polariser on a lens of this focal length range?
Even at 24mm on APS-C, there are very few shots where a polariser
would give a useful result.


Polarizers reduce specular reflections from foliage resulting in far better
(more saturated) rendition of the green of the foliage. It's a big
difference. Very useful. The shots in the big, glossy, color landscape
magazine are almost all taken with a polarizer. It even works with wide
angles.

Shh! Brucie is not interested in anything he can't bluster about.
Of course you're right.

--
Peter
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The True Oops! L. Credit Where Due T.[_4_] Digital Photography 0 June 2nd 07 06:13 PM
Oops. I was wrong. David J. Littleboy Digital Photography 9 April 4th 07 04:13 AM
oops sorry so much pug brian Photographing Nature 0 November 7th 05 12:54 AM
oops N8urePix Photographing Nature 0 December 6th 04 07:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.