Nikon 12-24 f4 - sharpness? see attached image

ripclaw

ripclaw

Messages
106
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
No
Hey all,

I've been playing with my Nikon 12-24 f4 DX for a while now and somehow I just don't feel happy at all with its sharpness. Have a look at the attached picture, it's taken at 18mm with the 12-24 at f8 and the D90 kit lens 18-105 at f8 as well. The 18-105 certainly has more CA and exposed a bit too bright out of the box, but look at the stones, they feel much sharper with the kit lens. Now I wonder, am I expecting too much from the 12-24 or is my lens borked and should be sent to Nikon for service?
(the piece of the image is taken from the center, btw., not from a corner)

Michael

3874429065_88e5210b0d_o_d.jpg
 
The 12-24 does look quite soft to me , but never having had one not sure how sharp they normally are.

The 18-105 has got quite good reviews from what I have seen, seems to be a good lens.

I recently had a shot of a Tokina 11-16, the sharpness of that almost took my eye out :)
 
The thing is the 12-24 is three times as expensive as the 18-105 so I kind of expected a bit more from it. Not sure if servicing it would even do anything to improve it?
 
I think softness is often a problem with the ultra wide angle lenses.

I had a couple of Sigma 10-20mm lenses and they were no where near as sharp as I wanted them , or indeed expected them to be. I bought a 2nd one as people often said it is hard to get a decent one, well I bought 2 and had no plans on buying another!!

I have never really seen any images from the 10-24 so have nothing to compare it to , but if I had spent three times as much on that than the 18-105 then yes I would not be happy at all :(
 
Agreed - we had the 12-24 f/2.8 on issue a while back and it was fine - don't use it now that we have FX cameras though (personal choice - I have a 14mm which is OK-ish, but suffices for the one time a year that I need something that wide)...
 
I rarely need an UWA, but when I do I just hire a 14-24 of Stewart... I don't have £1200 for a lens I use a few times a year. I expected better from the 12-24 though I must admit. I'll be interested to see what anyone with the new little 10-24 makes of it.
 
V8burble said:
I rarely need an UWA, but when I do I just hire a 14-24 of Stewart... I don't have £1200 for a lens I use a few times a year. I expected better from the 12-24 though I must admit. I'll be interested to see what anyone with the new little 10-24 makes of it.
Click to expand...

OT, but isn't that false economy? Rather than hiring used lenses, why not buy a used 14-24 which will cost much less than £1200.

A 14-24 you could sell for what you paid so in effect you'd get a free rental?

Rent it two or three times a year and its going to get pricey for something you'll never own...?
 
Some of the added deatail on the brick work visible on the 18-105 is I think attributable to the difference in the exposure level you mention. It loks like its simply pulling out detail that wsn't bright enough in the 12-24
 
I know what you mean - at times my 12-24 doesn't seem to produce the results I expect but in reality, it is producing the goods and to be honest I think I'm wanting more than it can actually provide - It's not full-frame glass and it's not on a full-frame body. Plus, it's attached to a D200 so noise, resolution etec all have to be figured into the equation; would like to know what it looks like with a D300.

Anyway, here's a shot I did for a full page in a mag (ISO400, f/9, 1/60th sec and focus on the centre):



Here's a crop (don't know what percentage it is) and it has had some small amount of sharpening applied in LR:


Don't fret too much about resolution etc - I use mine for DPS pics in magazines and you can't tell any flaws unless you begin to crop real tight in. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top