Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/04/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: LUG ot: sorry, I meant the 14-24.
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Thu Apr 17 18:26:22 2008

>> 
>> 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
> Mark William
> 
> I don't know anything about petunias nor permanganates. My wife does as
> she has a nice garden.
> 
> But I know something about lenses -having in my cabinet more or less 200
> different from any known manufacturer- and I *know* that a 12-24mm on a
> DX camera see a different field than a 14-24mm on a FX camera.
> 
> But, important but, I have seriously tested sharpness, vignetting and
> distortion in both lenses. And this at different apertures and focals
> and you can believe me the later is much better than the former. I'm
> awaiting for my D300 a new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 that is said to be better
> than Nikkor 12-24mm f4. I don't know. The 12-24mm wwas satisfactory for
> me. When it arrives I'll tell you I promiss just it could be an orange
> or an apple.
> 
> Warm regards.
> 
> F?lix
> 


Felix you're testing the sharpness of two lens each one designed for a
different format.
Do you test a Hasselblad lens against a Leica lens?
You'd need to make the same size print and judge output.
A larger format optic is designed around not having to be blown up as much.

So for the 14-24 full frame to be sharper than the 12-24 which only has to
cover APS-C format is a hard pill to swallow.
Also its a 2.8 lens  a stop faster and also an ultra wide.

Less of a chance an ultra fast ultra wide is going to be sharper than a
plain less fast wide. An f4.
An ultra fast ultra wide angle zoom I'd expect to be lots of things if its
from a reputable lens group like nikon.
Super sharp no.


Also a Tokina lens expected to be better than a Nikor lens that's written
where? That's an even tougher sell. I don't know anyone whose going to
believe that.



Mark William Rabiner
markrabiner.com




Replies: Reply from leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams) ([Leica] Re: LUG ot: sorry, I meant the 14-24.)
In reply to: Message from felixmaturana at telefonica.net (FÂelix LÂopez de Maturana) ([Leica] Re: LUG ot: sorry, I meant the 14-24.)