Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/04/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>> >> Felix, >> >> Do you like the lens? >> >> Leo > Leo > > I really do. I am very found of wide lenses and this lens is the best > wide zoom i've seen for decades and that starting from 14mm and f2.8. It > is far better than Nikkor 12-24mm for DX cameras. Is far, far, better > than 14mm Canon f2.8 and better than Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 second > harvest -the first one was very, very, bad-. It's not worse than > legendary Hologon 16mm f8 and much better than Voigtl?nder 12mm f5.6. > And I'speaking about some wide that actually I own and use. In my > opinion this zoom is worth to buy the Nikon D3 for the lens not only for > the camera. > > Just to back my words have a look to following pictures. *Every of them* > have bee taken with Nikon D3 and Nikkor 14-24mm f.28. > > http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=810631 > > http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=808979 > > http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=809235 > > Regards > > Felix > > I think you'd call this an ultra wide zoom. The 12-24 is a DX lens and is really an 18-35. This having established itself in the film 90's as the most popular and useful lens for photojournalists and lots of other type folks with cameras. This 14-24 does not replace that lens! It really is a 14-24! 14mm is way wider than 18mm. And 35mm had much more reach than 24mm. And 14-24 f2.8 in a full frame fast lens and weights 1,000g. 465g is what the 12-24 DX weights its a stop slower and again designed for a smaller format. So calling it a better lens is like calling the 38 Biogon a "better lens" than a 50 Summicron. Its not even apples and oranges Apples and pears. It's petunias and permanganates. Mark William Rabiner markrabiner.com