[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1298624337' post='6349']
... A few months ago the Nikkor 85 1.4D would be the most obvious choice ...[/quote]
My only issue with 85/1.4 D is the need to use AF microcorrection. Apart from that it seems almost perfect for the purpose (portraiture), and I have no itch for any other 85mm.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298724285' post='6376']
Yes, make a photo of something flat. If one side is very OOF while the other corners seem to be in focus, an element might be decentered.
[/quote]
Thanks Brightcolours
Would that be possible to check reasonably quickly in a shop..? Say, with a page of text or buildings, then checking the image (magnified) in the camera's monitor. Do people do that? It would save the hassle of checking after buying.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298724285' post='6376']
Yes, make a photo of something flat. If one side is very OOF while the other corners seem to be in focus, an element might be decentered.
[/quote]
That's one potential effect - one or more elements are more or less centered (the center is where it should be) but tilted.
The other one is a more a global loss of contrast caused by an off-center (shifted) element and that's harder to check in shops.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1298732900' post='6380']
That's one potential effect - one or more elements are more or less centered (the center is where it should be) but tilted.
The other one is a more a global loss of contrast caused by an off-center (shifted) element and that's harder to check in shops.
[/quote]
Thanks Klaus
With your rating of Tokina and caution re Ulra Wide Angle lenses in mind, (how) would you consider buying the 11-16mm..? PZ gave it a very good review, but this has me wondering. Has Quality Control dropped badly since that review - seems that way, maybe? With Nikon at the other end of your QC scale, maybe the 12-24 looks an (expensive) better bet?
[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1298742939' post='6381']
Thanks Klaus
With your rating of Tokina and caution re Ulra Wide Angle lenses in mind, (how) would you consider buying the 11-16mm..? PZ gave it a very good review, but this has me wondering. Has Quality Control dropped badly since that review - seems that way, maybe? With Nikon at the other end of your QC scale, maybe the 12-24 looks an (expensive) better bet?
[/quote]
It all depends. Frankly I'm only mail-ordering lenses from well-known shops in order to have to return items without hassles (e.g. amazon).
In this scope I can "gamble" even with third-party manufacturers.
If this is no option for you I would stick with a genuine manufacturer simply because of better QC and better service quality.
I'd probably give the Sigma 8-16mm a try.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1298750105' post='6382']
It all depends. Frankly I'm only mail-ordering lenses from well-known shops in order to have to return items without hassles (e.g. amazon).
In this scope I can "gamble" even with third-party manufacturers.
If this is no option for you I would stick with a genuine manufacturer simply because of better QC and better service quality.
I'd probably give the Sigma 8-16mm a try.
[/quote]
Makes me wonder how much better the 12-24 DG (and the 8-16) would be if sigma just made it a 12mm (or a 8mm in the case of the 8-16) prime. Sigh... curious to see how good the 12-24 II is.
GTW
' />
' /> 
