Just picked mine up today just in time for my short trip tomorrow. On the way home, I just took a few snapshots just to get some ideas of what the lens can do.
There are some vignette at 14mm but not too bad, I think. I did not correct vignette in post.
Although, there is a funny language conversion in the page that Tamron may not find so funny.
I was glad to see the point made regarding the difference between distortion and square/plumb/level ... as it is really imperative to keep things squared up when going so wide (vs. it being an issue with the lens). Things looked pretty straight, when shot squarely.
That said, I'm assuming the images are with applied camera corrections made to them.
Although, there is a funny language conversion in the page that Tamron may not find so funny.
I was glad to see the point made regarding the difference between distortion and square/plumb/level ... as it is really imperative to keep things squared up when going so wide (vs. it being an issue with the lens). Things looked pretty straight, when shot squarely.
That said, I'm assuming the images are with applied camera corrections made to them.
Yes, I also assume that usual in camera lens correction was used. I have no idea how google translation would handle Thai to English for those who wants to read the article but at least I think the pictures themselves are very nice and that alone should be enough
---------------------------------------------
charles.K wrote:
Suteetat, congrats!!! Another excellent S series lens
Thanks Charles
The good news is that there is not much more to buy for Z system this year
Not really interested in either 20/1.8 or 24/1.8 prime that Nikon kept changing their release schedule at this time.
70-200/2.8 S will have to be so spectacular and significantly better than 70-200/2.8e FL (much easier said than done).
58/.95........ oh well..... Nikon kept pushing its release date back again and again in favour of the more main stream lens so who knows when it will arrive. I think I will need to rest my credit card awhile
Supposedly Nikon may have a big announcement sometimes in July with some possible surprises! We shall see.
suteetat wrote:
Yes, I also assume that usual in camera lens correction was used. I have no idea how google translation would handle Thai to English for those who wants to read the article but at least I think the pictures themselves are very nice and that alone should be enough
The translation was a bit sketchy in some places ... but, you could follow along well enough. I got about 1/3 through it just looking at the pics, when I realized the write-up would be helpful, as well.
RustyBug wrote:
The translation was a bit sketchy in some places ... but, you could follow along well enough. I got about 1/3 through it just looking at the pics, when I realized the write-up would be helpful, as well.
I just looked at English translation for Tamron..... oppps
Lots of vignetting and corner smearing at f4. Goes to show even the large mount can't make up for not having a large, bulbous front element, which usually improves corner sharpness and brightness wide open. I am glad to see Nikon did not bake lens corrections permanently into the RAW files, though.
My copy is on the way but if anyone wants to send me a full collection of tripod-mounted raw files (with IBIS off) at each major focal length @ f/4 and f/8 then I can process the files with and without the embedded ACR corrections and post the results as animated GIFs for comparison. Actually two sets would be great - one at close distances of a brick wall (to show distortion correction) and another of an infinity scene that has infinity detail at both edges of the frame, to show the effect the lens corrections on the edge acuity.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Lots of vignetting and corner smearing at f4. Goes to show even the large mount can't make up for not having a large, bulbous front element, which usually improves corner sharpness and brightness wide open. I am glad to see Nikon did not bake lens corrections permanently into the RAW files, though.
i'll go with the vignetting (resolvable) but no to the smearing. pretty much on target there.
Yeah, the vignetting looks as bad as anything I have seen from Nikon on a lens in this price range. That drop-off looks to be at least 1 stop, probably closer to two. I don't recall any of the early reviewers calling this out, was I not paying attention?
Hard to say much about corner smearing from the images posted so far. My lens is on the way, had such high hopes... Though there is no way I am buying another 14-24/2.8b no matter how much corners are affected. Life is too short to be lugging 10 pounds of gear and filters for the privilege of 14mm.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Lots of vignetting and corner smearing at f4. Goes to show even the large mount can't make up for not having a large, bulbous front element, which usually improves corner sharpness and brightness wide open. I am glad to see Nikon did not bake lens corrections permanently into the RAW files, though.
I don't see what you guys are talking about. I only see vignetting in the first pic in the thread and it can have a filter or some other cause. It doesn't show up in the other pics
mysh wrote:
I don't see what you guys are talking about. I only see vignetting in the first pic in the thread and it can have a filter or some other cause. It doesn't show up in the other pics
Second pic has it too. And so do both pics posted by sjms, particularly the second one. I don't see corner smearing though.
Distortion correction tends to crop out the extreme corners. Since it was designed with correction in mind, the uncorrected corners may just 'let go' completely. I suspect that even post correction, the extreme corners won't be great wide open at 14mm though...some things just don't change.
Guessing reviewers don't talk about the vignetting because it'll be forcibly corrected in Lightroom or camera JPEGs. Sort of like how the Sony 24-105/4 at 24mm has solid black spots in the final ~.5mm radially, but it gets cropped away by default. The new era of software correction makes it harder to define what intrinsic performance means.
johnvanatta wrote:
Distortion correction tends to crop out the extreme corners. Since it was designed with correction in mind, the uncorrected corners may just 'let go' completely. I suspect that even post correction, the extreme corners won't be great wide open at 14mm though...some things just don't change.
Guessing reviewers don't talk about the vignetting because it'll be forcibly corrected in Lightroom or camera JPEGs. Sort of like how the Sony 24-105/4 at 24mm has solid black spots in the final ~.5mm radially, but it gets cropped away by default. The new era of software correction makes it harder to define what intrinsic performance means....Show more →
+1 @ intrinsic performance
Physics are a tough gig to cheat on.
While moving the optical projection closer to the film plane does wonders for the acutance of the projected image ... HMMM, maybe there's a limit / tradeoff regarding the steeper angles involved (without the bulbous design). Optics always seem to be an issue of compromises. While I'm drawn to the 14-30 range, 14mm may not be playing so well to the strong suit of the uber-close flange distance (intrinsically, that is). It may be that the UWA Zone C pays the penalty for the the gains in Zone A & B (angles involved).
That's not to dismiss the value of the lens / software combo for a lot of folks ... but, for some folks it may incur some trade-offs / compromises they aren't very fond of.
A couple of sunrise shots from this morning with the Z6.
These are from the camera's jpgs, cropped to 16:9 and with small adjustment to contrast & saturation.
