11-30-2011, 03:14 PM
Hey Ian, I owe you one.
You are right, +10 would make things even more back-focused.
The Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 seems to do this:
Between 16-28mm there is front focus, and +8 to +10 pretty much fixes things.
From 32-35mm there is no front focus but some field curvature. Furthermore, an AF Fine Tune value of 0 seems to be optimum.
There is also nothing between 32 and 35mm. It just goes from 32 to 35.
In real world shots however, the 16-35 is noticeably better than the 18-55 ED II in terms of just about everything.
So, I am glad that VL (and Markus) didn't take up my offer.
Unfortunately, the AF system on my D300 is playing up so I will still need to go in for a service. And whilst I am there I might just get the 16-35 checked out.
As a side note, it wasn't too surprising for me to see that the 16-35 is at least as good (if not better) than the 24mm f/2.8 AI-s and the AFD 28mm f/2.8. Tested only at around 1m, so who knows what the truth is in the real world.
You are right, +10 would make things even more back-focused.
The Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 seems to do this:
Between 16-28mm there is front focus, and +8 to +10 pretty much fixes things.
From 32-35mm there is no front focus but some field curvature. Furthermore, an AF Fine Tune value of 0 seems to be optimum.
There is also nothing between 32 and 35mm. It just goes from 32 to 35.
In real world shots however, the 16-35 is noticeably better than the 18-55 ED II in terms of just about everything.
So, I am glad that VL (and Markus) didn't take up my offer.
Unfortunately, the AF system on my D300 is playing up so I will still need to go in for a service. And whilst I am there I might just get the 16-35 checked out.
As a side note, it wasn't too surprising for me to see that the 16-35 is at least as good (if not better) than the 24mm f/2.8 AI-s and the AFD 28mm f/2.8. Tested only at around 1m, so who knows what the truth is in the real world.