Images from the DX 12-28 mm
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"; Henri Cartier-Bresson
|
-
#1. "RE: Images from the DX 12-28 mm" | In response to Reply # 0
Thu 25-May-23 02:36 PMThanks for that. Impressive results and what a beach - are you pleased with it?
W i l l
Nikonian - Cambridge, UK and Bogor, West Java
www.willsymonds.blogspot.com
https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=123586Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
-
#3. "RE: Images from the DX 12-28 mm" | In response to Reply # 0
Fri 26-May-23 12:22 AMTwo more. Detail and contrast are good at both ends of the range; my impression is the lens needs a bit more contrast and sharpening than the 16-50. The sun was near the upper left of the frame in the second image: there is a flare spot but I have seen worse at 12 mm.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"; Henri Cartier-Bresson
-
#4. "RE: Images from the DX 12-28 mm" | In response to Reply # 3
Sat 27-May-23 02:30 PM"...my impression is the lens needs a bit more contrast and
>sharpening than the 16-50."
Les, that is what I was thinking when I saw the first one's you posted but didn't want to critique your image... but yes, much softer and less contrasty than the 16-50. But then, the 16-50 Z lens is possibly an anomaly as an
exceptionally sharp and contrasty kit lens; same can be said for the 50-250 Z which blew my mind when I was just standing and shooting at the morning dew, hand held.
I wonder how the full frame 14-30 f/4 would do handheld in comparison on the Z50 even though the 14-30 doesn't have VR.Kent in VA
Instagram: @kent_lewis_perezcano
"A poor worker always blames his tools" Anonymous
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#5. "RE: Images from the DX 12-28 mm" | In response to Reply # 4
Sat 27-May-23 05:51 PMThe 14-30 is three times the price of the 12-28, so it ought to be meaningfully better.
All of the images I have put up were wide open, and a smaller aperture may help. But I agree - so far my summary is that the 12-28 is (at best) no better in the overlapping range than the 16-50 so it is only the 12-16 range that the 12-28 offers. Of course, the same was true of the F-mount 12-24/4 vs the 16-80/2.8-4.
The 16-50 is under-appreciated, IMO. It is excellent by any standard, and as kit lenses go, outstanding, and it would be a pity if the 12-28 is dismissed as "no better than the kit lens"."Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"; Henri Cartier-Bresson
-
#6. "RE: Images from the DX 12-28 mm" | In response to Reply # 5
Sun 28-May-23 01:06 PM | edited Sun 28-May-23 01:09 PM by nkcllewis>The 14-30 is three times the price of the 12-28, so it ought
>to be meaningfully better.
>
It's also about 3 times heavier and 3 times bigger...
If I needed to go wider than the 16-50 kit lens on my Z50 for a special job or assignment, I would consider renting or borrowing the 14-30 f/4 and using a tripod. Other than that, your 12-28 stopped down a bit should suffice, I would think. I mean, if your subject and composition are good, most people will not care if the image is "soft".
I agree, the 16-50 is under appreciated. Unless one absolutely needs a faster lens, the 16-50 will suffice for most any assignment and easily sharp enough to enlarge an image and certainly to sell an image.Kent in VA
Instagram: @kent_lewis_perezcano
"A poor worker always blames his tools" Anonymous
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
-
-
G
Handling is a bit different from previous similar lenses, because of the zoom by wire. The lens has no markings for focal length, but it resets to 12 mm when you turn the camera off, so you know where you are starting from. The zoom ring is relatively broad and has a different knurl from the focus ring, so it is easy to identify by touch if you are using the lens for photography. Motion of the zoom ring is smooth, and there is no obvious delay between moving the ring and zooming. Clockwise from behind the camera zooms in and anticlockwise zooms out, and there is only about 1/8 of a turn between 12 mm and 28 mm. There is no hard stop at either end of the zoom range.
I have found I need +1 stop exposure compensation - just like using film.
Close focus is a feature of the lens and makes it quite flexible; at close range you can get some subject isolation despite the small-ish apertures and out of focus areas are quite good, to my eye, with only slight outlining.
I have not included the pictures I took of brick walls, but distortion appears minimal with automatic corrections turned off. I can't yet comment on flare or coma. Vignetting is minimal with corrections turned on.