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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 6th 05 11:54 PM |
oops | N8urePix | Photographing Nature | 0 | December 6th 04 06:09 PM |