Nikon 24-120 f4 samples

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by eNo, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. eNo

    eNo Guest

    eNo, Dec 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. eNo

    Rich Guest

    On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, eNo <> wrote:
    > I've posted a few on my blog:
    >
    > http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120
    >
    > ~~~
    > eNohttp://esfotoclix.com


    Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
    are (hopefully) dead.
     
    Rich, Dec 28, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. eNo

    eNo Guest

    On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, eNo <> wrote:
    >
    > > I've posted a few on my blog:

    >
    > >http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120

    >
    > > ~~~
    > > eNohttp://esfotoclix.com

    >
    > Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens?  P.S.  Blogs
    > are (hopefully) dead.


    Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
    Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
    die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
    peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
    indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
    sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
    I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. ;)
     
    eNo, Dec 28, 2010
    #3
  4. eNo

    eNo Guest

    On Dec 28, 1:05 pm, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    > > eNo wrote:
    > >> I've posted a few on my blog:

    >
    > >>http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120

    >
    > > Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens?

    >
    > He does show full pixel crops for the portrait of the girl at the
    > Christmas tree.
    >
    > <cringe>Ken Rockwell</cringe> seems to think the 28-300 is just as good
    > of a lens for less money and more range with a very small difference in
    > speed. Did you consider that option? It seems unlikely... he tends to
    > exaggerate. Photozon.de has a detailed test of this lens and it sounds
    > just sort of OK with significant vignetting and corner softness although
    > better than the older versions as Rockwell points out. I suppose this is
    > the new kit lens for D700's, so it's good that they upgraded it but too
    > bad it isn't really a stellar performer. I used my old 28-200 on a D700
    > a couple times and the barrel distortion was crazy but I suppose that's
    > fixable in software easily enough.


    No lens is perfect, so yes, the 24-120 has noticeable distortion and
    vignetting when shot at wide angle. You can really notice the latter
    in the sample side-by-side comparison (vs. 16-85 on DX body) shots I
    posted at:

    http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=1356

    As for the 28-300, it's *not* constant f4, and it's the FX 18-200. I
    used to own that, at which time I learned first hand what exhorbitant
    wide-to-long zoom range can do to image quality. I found the 16-85 on
    DX to be superior, even when stopped down and at wide angles (for my
    landscape work), and I hoped the 24-120 would give me an equivalent
    capability for FX. So far so good, with a few tolerable compromises.
    When I want maximum IQ under demanding lighting or other
    circumstances, I'll pull my primes or my constant f2.8 zoom artillery.

    ~~~
    eNo
    http://esfotoclix.com
     
    eNo, Dec 28, 2010
    #4
  5. eNo

    Dave Cohen Guest

    On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
    > On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, Rich<> wrote:
    >> On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, eNo<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've posted a few on my blog:

    >>
    >>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120

    >>
    >>> ~~~
    >>> eNohttp://esfotoclix.com

    >>
    >> Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
    >> are (hopefully) dead.

    >
    > Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
    > Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
    > die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
    > peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
    > indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
    > sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
    > I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. ;)


    You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if
    they were as good as the one's you show.
    There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say
    something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the
    effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on
    the other four.
     
    Dave Cohen, Dec 28, 2010
    #5
  6. eNo

    peter Guest

    On 12/28/2010 6:40 PM, Dave Cohen wrote:
    > On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
    >> On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, Rich<> wrote:
    >>> On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, eNo<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've posted a few on my blog:
    >>>
    >>>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120
    >>>
    >>>> ~~~
    >>>> eNohttp://esfotoclix.com
    >>>
    >>> Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
    >>> are (hopefully) dead.

    >>
    >> Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
    >> Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
    >> die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
    >> peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
    >> indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
    >> sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
    >> I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. ;)

    >
    > You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if
    > they were as good as the one's you show.
    > There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say
    > something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the
    > effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on
    > the other four.


    I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
    peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
    others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Dec 29, 2010
    #6
  7. eNo

    peter Guest

    On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote:
    > On 12/28/2010 6:40 PM, Dave Cohen wrote:
    >> On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
    >>> On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, Rich<> wrote:
    >>>> On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, eNo<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've posted a few on my blog:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120
    >>>>
    >>>>> ~~~
    >>>>> eNohttp://esfotoclix.com
    >>>>
    >>>> Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs
    >>>> are (hopefully) dead.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence.
    >>> Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon
    >>> die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the
    >>> peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good
    >>> indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7
    >>> sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though
    >>> I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. ;)

    >>
    >> You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if
    >> they were as good as the one's you show.
    >> There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say
    >> something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the
    >> effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on
    >> the other four.

    >
    > I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
    > peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
    > others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.
    >


    Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...."

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Dec 29, 2010
    #7
  8. eNo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:52:12 -0500, peter <>
    wrote:
    : On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote:
    : > I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
    : > peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
    : > others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.
    :
    : Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...."

    We just thought you were trying to have it both ways. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 2, 2011
    #8
  9. eNo

    peter Guest

    On 1/1/2011 11:07 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:52:12 -0500, peter<>
    > wrote:
    > : On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote:
    > :> I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel
    > :> peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As
    > :> others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image.
    > :
    > : Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...."
    >
    > We just thought you were trying to have it both ways. ;^)
    >
    > Bob


    Not always an invalid assumption. ;-)


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Jan 2, 2011
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stanley Krute

    D2H - Nikon samples on digitalreview.ca

    Stanley Krute, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
    Stanley Krute
    Oct 30, 2003
  2. Paolo Pizzi

    Nikon D70 samples (ISO 200 & 1000)

    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    836
    Mike Latondresse
    Feb 18, 2004
  3. Lung Fish

    Nikon D70 Samples Online?

    Lung Fish, Feb 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    305
    Lung Fish
    Feb 25, 2004
  4. JimL

    Gmini 120 - 120/240 adapter?

    JimL, Apr 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    556
  5. Xtx99
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    585
    Dave L
    Jan 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page