Comments on: The real deal: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED DX

By: jim

jim — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:35:42 +0000

I agree with PHB. I also choose to stay with my D300 and not eager to jump into FX because I like the reach when used with the 200-400mm vr. For landscape I actually shoot 8×10, so moving (up) into FX won’t help me getting better pictures. I predict in 2 years the 30+ megapixel medium backs will be cheap enough to use in 4×5 cameras for stitching. So for the time being a 10-24mm nikon will be nice to carry alone travel photography.

By: Ceedave

Ceedave — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:11:38 +0000

The difference between f2.8 and 3.5 is gonna make you miss a shot? More likely the difference between 10 an 11 mm (in favor of the purported Nikon) or 16 and 24mm (Nikon wins, again) will control whether you get the shot or not. Just handhold more carefully or go up 1/2 – 1 stop in ISO, you’ll be fine. And you won’t miss the end of the sticks, or have to crop out all that background.

I’d have preferred (and paid for) a constant f2.8, but this still looks pretty good to me if it’s sufficiently sharp.

Oh, yeah, and the CA will probably be much better on this lens.

By: Roy

Roy — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:08:49 +0000

I don’t agree at all about DX dying. I try to buy full frame lenses for my D300 because, even though DX lenses are supposed to have better center sharpness, I like edge to edge consistency. I don’t have plans for FX. A DX sensor gives me a 50 percent boost in range, which makes the expensive end tele range much cheaper and lighter. I have only one DX lens, and the reason I have it is the 14-24mm costs more than a house payment.
Having said all that, I would prefer Nikon concentrate on FX lenses, because that’s what I use. I would like to see a 14-24mm f4 for FX. I would buy that.

By: rwpl

rwpl — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:39:48 +0000

Did you noticed the minimum focus distance to be different then 12-24? Which gives +1 that its not a fake.

By: Roman Johnston

Roman Johnston — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:38:36 +0000

Well Ross, seeing how you haven’t replied yet to this thread till now I am assuming that the comments don’t apply to you. I know I was responding to an FX user who just summarily trashed all DX as junk.

So we have one of two scenarios here. Either you don’t understand that the comments weren’t directed toward you, or you have a chip on your shoulder. :~)

My work stands on its own two feet, and I shoot landscapes which by many peoples standards SHOULD be shot with FF. I actually prefer DX with one limitation which is physics which allows only so many MegaPixels to fit in a DX sized chip. If I end up going FF it will only be to get a D700x for the extra MP. Not because of the format.

I am currently debating going FF vs. Medium Format Digital for my large prints my customers want. But till then my DX unit has no disadvantage to FF of the same MP.

Roman

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:16:25 +0000

I don’t quite get this attitude that because I shoot FX, that I’m some macho poser a-hole who thinks DX shooters are plebs. I shoot FX because I shoot a lot in low light, without a tripod, so shooting a D700 makes sense, y’know?

Anyways, my guess is that this is in for the D90 kinda end of the market, I’d guess priced kinda similarly to the old-ish 18-35/3.5-4.5 FX zoom – the 12-24 always seemed a bit crazily high-priced in my opinion. I think that ultimately, FX will filter down to the D80/90 “advanced amateur” kinda stage, although not for a long time yet. I think buying DX might be throwing away cash to a certain extent, but if you’re never intending to upgrade to one of the higher-end bodies, I don’t see the harm in it. I guess on the same front though, the vast majority of “soccer mom” D40/60 users are pretty unlikely to be buying any other lenses once they’ve got their basic 18-55 kit guy on there.

Still, seeing all the DX stuff coming out is a bit frustrating – I’m still waiting on Nikon to finally get their fingers out and bring out some updated wide primes to match up with what Canon have on offer!

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:26:58 +0000

wrong

By: dxuser

dxuser — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:57:27 +0000

Dx is simply a bigger market.
Why do people automatically assume FX has all the advantages.

Try finding the equal of the 18-200 zoom (That would be 27-300) < $800
Or the 18-105 (= 27-155) < $400
Or the Sigma 10-20 (= 15-30) < $500

The 1.5x pays of in trying to get to 500mm.

I could never sell my wife on a $4000 prime much less an $8000

As long as your budget is < 5K I think a DX setup wins for a complete
coverage (15-500)

People should think of DX and FX as two seperate formats that happen to be
compatible.

Nikon has to remain profitable to do all the R&D that give FX people the 14-24FX.
I know I wont want to pay for a 14-24 FX ($2K) to use on a DX. 3/4 of what I pay for I can use.
I would take the 10-24DX (which is almost as wide) and could be built for $600.
Now what they will choose to sell it for is another matter. I will save the extra $1400
to put towards a 70-400 afs when it comes out.

Why I will take it over the Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 10-20? The Quality control on those is
not quite up to nikon. Which means you have to hope for a “good one”.

dxuser

By: KG

KG — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:43:52 +0000

Very well done, but I’m a little suspicious about the “10″ on the nameplate. Otherwise pretty good.

By: Roman Johnston

Roman Johnston — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:25:51 +0000

Looks like an interesting lens. Oh and for the FX players out there with all that attitude….lets you and I go shooting together me with my piddley DX D300, and you with your FX and go shoot some landscapes. Lets find out if it is the FX or the person handling the camera that makes MORE of a diffrence. I am in the Pacific NW area, so drop me a line if you want and lets see if your mouth is writing checks your ass can’t cash….you might be a photographic genius…or not, but the truth would be revealed.

Roman

By: Micah

Micah — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:34:53 +0000

No offense taken. Just didn’t get what you were trying to say. Slightly clearer now.

Cheers.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:23:35 +0000

Also about the weight issue you brought up. I weigh 220 pounds, so 35mm and analagous cameras and lenses don’t bother me until you get to the 500 /4.0 or larger lenses, and I frankly prefer heavier lenses, I find they balance better.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:57:21 +0000

Never said I was pro. Actually the 14-24 “best wide-angle lens in the world” is a semi-qualified comment. I neglected the qualifiers out of laziness, allow me to correct that now. Its best at the 14mm end and losses quality as it progresses to the longer end of the focal length range. However, at 14mm there is no lens for a 35mm system (which I am taking as the category, so I am not considering medium and large format lenses, which are in their own classes) with a superior maximum f-stop including primes. Also at 14mm and progressing until about 20mm the lens is the as sharp as or sharper than all other lenses. Dxo comparisons, MTF, and semi-controlled, as well as real world tests all conclude that. It also has slightly less distortion that every other 14mm lens (which is partially a product of how recently it was designed, as that has been improving greatly in the last few years). It also has ridiculously sharp corners for a wide angle lens, they really don’t drop much at all from the center of the frame. Combine with that the wonderful color reproduction and contrast due to Nikon’s new coatings, including nanocrystals, and you get something which is only out sharped and contrasted by the zeiss 21mm distagon, which is almost 4 times the price for a prime of the same maximum aperture. It is also worth noting that the 21mm is just outside of the ‘business end’ of the 14-24, which really is the 14-20mm range. The 14-24 is also is extremely well built, completely sealed, and has AF, which is nice.

As I said before I am not a Pro, though I do make a little money on the side doing this. the 14-24, conveniently 28-70/2.8 is not terribly expensive, cost me almost all of the money I made through high school, and the D700 was a late graduation present. Before that I was a slide film shooter on my F100. So I do not like DX, and while I have admittedly limited experience, I tested a D300 and 12-24 from my local shop and was very unimpressed with DX wide-angle glass. I was not overjoyed with the 17-55/2.8 considering its cost, though it is a solid performer.

looking back on the original comment I commented on the “Nikon is dumping DX lenses on us like crazy! This only confirms that the real pros are moving to FX (or back to film)” comment by Joe. I realize that he was being a bit coy, which I missed. (Sorry, I’m an engineering student, interpersonal communication isn’t my strong suit). I wished merely to point out that the 14-24/2.8 is an outstanding lens, and that I do not believe that this 10-24 will approach half of its image quality, and while I am very aware that the photographer takes the picture not the camera (or lens, in this case), that lenses are investments, that pay back as often as you need them to for 10 years or longer, and I would hope that professional, or serious amateurs, like myself, would appreciate that and pick the stellar glass (14-24/2.8) over its lackluster counterparts (12-24/4 and 10-24/3.5-4.5)

Did not mean to offend

Jeff

By: Onsite Minnesota Photography, Minneapolis

Onsite Minnesota Photography, Minneapolis — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:14:03 +0000

but then you’d have to shoot olympus

I love my 14-24mm

By: weera

weera — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:35:38 +0000

I’ll buy this one instead of Sigma 10-20 for sure if it’s real

By: RS

RS — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:36:01 +0000

The Zuiko 7-14 it’s a better wide lens.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:33:40 +0000

I agree with Tom… I feel that nikon have a good collection of lenses for DX body but lack of FX lens… e.g. 70-200, 17-35, decade old (adv.) fisheye are due for renewal but not launch yet. This is a great reason why I still hold by my purchase of FX gear. Without those lenses, there is no reason for me to invest on FX.

Hope nikon heard this comment and get up his ass to move those updated lenses to the market.

By: Tom Parker

Tom Parker — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:20:15 +0000

Since when did owning an FX camera mean you have a bigger dick? Just curious. The images I capture with a D300 and DX-format lenses are as good as anybody’s, period. It’s distressing to realize how many FX owners are screaming weenies.

By: NikonMan

NikonMan — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:11:21 +0000

ooops sorry

10mm & 12mm on DX is the same as 18mm & 15mm on FX not 18 &14

By: NikonMan

NikonMan — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:54:48 +0000

It’s due to the exta width you get from the 10mm v’s 12mm.

2mm may not seem like much, but the difference is the same as the difference between 18mm and 14mm on FX / film

The smaller front element of the 10-24 is partally due to the reduced aperature at 24mm, there will also likely be distortion differences between the two lenses (amoung other differences)

add all these together and you get quite a shift in the ratio of filter vs front element sizes