| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 |
|
|||||||
| Ultra wide advice please - Page 2 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10th, 2016 01:08 |
|
11th Post |
Robert
|
Eric wrote:I had forgotten you had my 10-20......that WAS a good lens. Not in my shed... have you tried searching the lawn, maybe it didn't make it back to the shed? Or did you turf it out last year??? 
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 10th, 2016 06:32 |
|
12th Post |
jk
|
He probably lost it in the bathroom when he was cleaning it at the end of the season. Are you sure it didnt go down the plughole Eric? 
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 15th, 2016 13:49 |
|
13th Post |
amazing50
|
My Sigma 12x24 is an FX that gives good results on a D610 so on a DX most of the edge problems are reduced quite a bit.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 14th, 2016 12:03 |
|
14th Post |
highlander
|
In the end I went for the 12-24 and I'm impressed and happy I tried both in the shop, couldn't tell much difference unless pixel peeping, went for the one I figured I would use the most Took it to Mull a few days later and it pretty much stayed on the camera all week
____________________ Blog https://blythestorm.com Website http://www.blythestormphotography.com |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 14th, 2016 12:52 |
|
15th Post |
jk
|
highlander wrote:In the end I went for the 12-24 and I'm impressed and happy 
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2018 18:35 |
|
16th Post |
amazing50
|
A lot of lens dissatisfaction can be caused by attached accessories, like that filter shown in your post. A lot of them degrade the image because of the extra surfaces, defects etc. Without careful testing of a lens with a specific accessory there is no way of knowing the extent of the accessory degradation.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 18th, 2018 02:46 |
|
17th Post |
Robert
|
You are right there Mike, I experienced ghost images, like watermarks in one set of images, eventually I nailed it to the UV filter which I had been advised to use in front of the lens. I had five 52mm UV filters at that time, frame the 'best' coated Nikon and Hoya to no-name cheapies. I replicated the conditions and tested them all, in fact some of the cheapies did a better job than the 'best' but they all degraded the image significantly. With the exception of my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 which I am unable to remove the filter for fear of damaging the lens, I got rid of all my UV filters at that point. I have suffered very occasional marking on the front element as a consequence but I have yet to see any degradation of an image as a consequence of the slight marks. Unfortunately I seem to have deleted that set of images from about 2010, probably during one of my culls! One 'accessory' which I do recommend is to use the lens hood, that can increase the contrast in an image, especially when using wide lenses.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jul 29th, 2018 13:50 |
|
18th Post |
amazing50
|
The only one I use consistantly is on the Laowa Venus 15mm f4 macro, which will focus down to about 1 cm and is difficult to clean. For dirty situations I will put one on.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 1st, 2018 03:31 |
|
19th Post |
novicius
|
amazing50 wrote:The only one I use consistantly is on the Laowa Venus 15mm f4 macro, which will focus down to about 1 cm and is difficult to clean. For dirty situations I will put one on. Could You tell us about the LAOWA 15 f4.0, as I am looking into that one , since I can not afford Nikon`s PC-E 19 f4.0. I have seen a report about it , but it did not mention the quality when Rise/Fall was applied , apart that 3mm was the max for full frame. How is it at Infinity with Rise/Fall applied ?
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1303 Current time is 10:28 | Page: 1 2 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > Ultra wide advice please | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0528 seconds (60% database + 40% PHP). 80 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0528 seconds (60% database + 40% PHP). 80 queries executed.