Somewhat disappointing, I agree. I wonder whether it's more attractive on the DX frame.
It surely will be better on DX, but then you already have the 16-85 available, which has much more useful focal range. Which is a main feature, in those all around travel lenses.
regards
Vitantonio Dell'Orto
www.exuviaphoto.com
www.sarnavandrarhem.com
Comparing this lens with the Canon 24-105/4L, it seems to me,
Nikon overdid it a bit by going for a 5x zoom. Albeit distortion
at the 24mm end is slightly better than the Canon, it is worse
in the complete other range. So, using this lens for architecture
type shots will mean that you have to correc tdistortion all the time.
Nevertheless ... would I live in Nikon-land, I would certainly consider
this lens as a walkaround lens on FX.
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1293296854' post='5187']
Comparing this lens with the Canon 24-105/4L, it seems to me,
Nikon overdid it a bit by going for a 5x zoom. Albeit distortion
at the 24mm end is slightly better than the Canon, it is worse
in the complete other range. So, using this lens for architecture
type shots will mean that you have to correc tdistortion all the time.
Nevertheless ... would I live in Nikon-land, I would certainly consider
this lens as a walkaround lens on FX.
[/quote]
The question may be whether the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR is really so much worse. I doubt so actually.
Well, the 24-120 resolution results are rather disappointment for me. I expected not a miracle but something better, something on a higher level. It seems to me either this 5x zoom design is very hard to make (at affordable price...) or simply Nikon didnt put too much effort in designing it. After the old 24-120/3.5-5.6 being heavily criticized, the new 24-120/f4 is not quite a cogent argument from Nikon to those critics.
I´m eagery waiting for the 28-300 test if this universal zoom meets the role of a walkaround lens a bit better (with much higher flexibility in one lens).
ilkka_nissila
Unregistered
Markus, what do you base the "EV" scale in the vignetting graph on? The description says that the tone curve affects this, but the tone curve has nothing to do with stops or EV values. The tone curve is just a nonlinear mapping of the data. EV values are based on the subject luminance differences and vignetting analysis should be based on comparing the darkening in the image to a values in a known gray patch scale with known densities that is included in the image. Otherwise the y scale on the graph should read "[a.u.]" as in arbitrary units. This kind of fundamental error invalidates the entire vignetting data on the site.
[quote name='ilkka_nissila' timestamp='1293403597' post='5214']
Markus, what do you base the "EV" scale in the vignetting graph on? The description says that the tone curve affects this, but the tone curve has nothing to do with stops or EV values. The tone curve is just a nonlinear mapping of the data. EV values are based on the subject luminance differences and vignetting analysis should be based on comparing the darkening in the image to a values in a known gray patch scale with known densities that is included in the image. Otherwise the y scale on the graph should read "[a.u.]" as in arbitrary units. This kind of fundamental error invalidates the entire vignetting data on the site.
[/quote]
We obtain the vignetting data straight from camera JPEGs (unlike the MTFs). Your argument is technically correct but the data reflects the real world user experience on the system where images simply underly a certain tone curve. A real world approach is hardly a fundamental error though. :-)
Frankly its also irrelevant - the results remain cross-comparable within a testing system.
12-27-2010, 07:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2010, 10:01 AM by mst.)
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1293433853' post='5219']
We obtain the vignetting data straight from camera JPEGs (unlike the MTFs). Your argument is technically correct but the data reflects the real world user experience on the system where images simply underly a certain tone curve (just like film). A real world approach is hardly a fundamental error though. :-)
Frankly its also irrelevant - the results remain cross-comparable within a testing system.[/quote]
Even if we followed a linear approach - the results wouldn't be pure anyway. The micro-lenses as well as the characteristic of the photo-diodes of the sensor "pollute" the results, of course. Ultra-wides don't vignette quite as bad as the data suggests but who cares how a lens behaves without a camera ...
' /> 
' />