RGB PHOTOGRAPHIC

DIGITAL CAPTURE SPECIALISTS

PHOTOGRAPHIC HIRE

MEDIUM FORMAT

Hasselblad H Series

H2 Body + Prism Lens / Prime H series 35mm lens f3.5 H series 50mm lens f3.5 H series 80mm lens f2.8 H series 100mm lens f2.2 H series 120mm lens f4 H series 150mm lens f3.2 H series 210mm lens f4 H Series 300mm lens f4.5 Lens / Zoom H series 50-110mm lens f3.5-4.5 Accessories Rechargeable Battery Grip Series Waist Level Finder Series Extension Tube Set CF Lens Adapter Pro Shade Series Cable Release Series Cable Release 15M Ext Remote Trigger Cable HTS 1.5 Tilt / Shift Adapter 36

Hasselblad V Series

503CW Body & WLF 555ELD Body & WLF 903SWC Lens / Prime V 30mm f3.5 V 40mm f4 V 50mm f4 V 60mm f3.5 V 80mm f2.8 V 100mm f3.5 V 120mm f4 V 150mm f4 V 180mm f4 V 250mm f5.6 Accessories PME45 Prism Extension Tube Set (8,16,32+56) Pro Shade 555ELD Shutter Release Cord Winder & IR Remote Series Chimney 10

Mamiya RZ 6x7

PRO II Body Lens / Prime Mamiya RZ 37mm f4.5 Fisheye Mamiya RZ 50mm f4.5 Mamiya RZ 65mm f4 Mamiya RZ 75mm f4.5 Mamiya RZ 90mm f3.5 Mamiya RZ 110mm f2.8 Mamiya RZ 127mm f3.5 Mamiya RZ 140mm f4.5 Macro Mamiya RZ 150mm f3.5 Mamiya RZ 180mm f4.5 Accessories AE Prismfinder Extension Tube Set Pistol Grip Polaroid Back Pro Winder 120 Film Back 8

Pentax 6x7

Mark I Body & Polaroid Mark II Body & Prism Lens / Prime Pentax 67 45mm f4 Pentax 67 55mm f4 Pentax 67 75mm f4.5 Pentax 67 90mm f2.8 Pentax 67 105mm f2.4 Pentax 67 135mm f4 Macro Pentax 67 165mm f4 Leaf Shutter Pentax 67 200mm f4 Accessories Pentax 67 Hand Grip Pentax 67 Extension Tube Set 3 15
+44 (0) 4446 | shoot@rgbphotographic.com

35MM & LARGE FORMAT

Canon DSLR
EOS 1DS Mark III Body EOS 5D Mark II Body Lens / Prime Canon 20mm EF f2.8L Canon 24mm EF f1.4L Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5L Tilt / Shift Canon 24mm EF f2.8 Canon 28mm EF f1.8 USM Canon 35mm EF f1.4L Canon 45mm TS-E f2.8 Tilt / Shift Canon 50mm EF f1.2L Canon 50mm EF f1.4 USM Canon 85mm EF f1.2L Canon 100mm EF f2 Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro Canon 200mm EF f2.8L MkII Canon 300mm EF f2.8L IS Lens / Zoom Canon 16-35mm f2.8L USM Canon 24-70mm f2.8L Canon 24-105mm f4 Canon 70-200mm f2.8L Flash Canon Speedlite 580EX II Canon Speedlite 580EX Canon Speedlite 540EZ Accessories 1.4x Extender 2x EF Teleconverter 15

Nikon DSLR

Nikon D3X Body D700 Body Lens / Prime Nikon 15mm f3.5 Nikkor Nikon 16mm f2.8 Fisheye Nikon 18mm f3.5D AF Nikkor Nikon 20mm f2.8 AFD Nikon 24mm f2.8 AFD Nikon 24mm f2.8D PC-E Tilt / Shift Nikon 28mm f2.8 AFD Nikon 35mm f2.8 AFD Nikon 45mm f2.8D PC-E Tilt / Shift Nikon 50mm f1.4G AF-S Nikkor Nikon 60mm f2.8 AFD Macro Nikon 85mm f1.4D AF Nikkor Nikon 85mm f1.8 AFD Nikon 105mm f2.8G AF-S VR Micro Nikon 300mm f2.8 IFED Nikkor Lens / Zoom Nikon 12-24mm f4 G ED AF-S Nikkor Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 AF G ED DX Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 AF Zoom Nikon 35-70 f2.8 D Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR Flash Nikon SB28 DX Nikon SB29 Ringflash Nikon SB80 DX Nikon SB800 Accessories Tele-Converter TC 20E II Tele-Converter TC 18 12

Large Format Lenses

Digital Schneider 47mm f5.6 Apo Digitar XL 80mm f4 Apo Digitar 120mm f5.6 Apo Digitar Rodenstock 70mm Apo Sironar Digital 90mm f5.6 Apo S Digital 100mm f4 Apo S Digital HR 120mm f5.6 Apo S Digital Macro Film Schneider 38mm f5.6 Apo Super Angulon 65mm f5.6 S Angulon 75mm f5.6 S Angulon 90mm f5.6 S Angulon 150mm f5.6 S Apo Symmar 210mm Apo Symmar 300mm f5.6 Symmar S

Linhof

Linhof M679 M679 CS Body inc Wide/Standard Bellows/Compendium Linhof Sliding Adapter Lens Panel One-Shot Kapture Cable Technika Technika V Body Technika Sliding Adaptor Digital Plate V-Fit Technika Lens Panel One-Shot Kapture Cable 20

ADDITIONAL

Operators
RGB Trained Digital Operators POA

Printers

Epson R2400 A3+ Ink Jet Canon Selphy 6x4 Dye Sub 45 15

Phase One

H/V fit P65+ Phase One Digital Back H/V fit P45+ Phase One Digital Back H/V fit P30+ Phase One Digital Back H/V fit P25+ Phase One Digital Back Phase One 10m Firewire Cable Phase One 4.5m Firewire Cable Phase One RZ Adaptor Plate Phase One Battery 25 3

Tripods

Gitzo G1504 Large Legs & G1570 P&T G1412 Large Legs & G1570 P&T G1412 Large Legs & 1370 P&T G1326 Medium Legs & G1371 P&T G1320 Medium Legs Ground Plate for G1412 Legs Manfrotto 410 Pan & Tilt Head 441 Carbon Fibre & 141 Head 055ProB Medium Legs & 804RC2 055CL Medium Legs & 322RC2 Ball 058 Legs & 229 Head 074 Medium Legs & VF Head 075 Large Legs & 029 P&T Head 075 Large Legs & 229 P&T Head 161 MarkII B Legs & 229 Head 680 Monopod Lateral Arm Quick Release Plate 10 2

Computers & Monitors

MacBook Pro 17 2.4Ghz HD 4GB MacBook Pro 17 3Ghz HD 4GB MacPro Dual 3Ghz Intel Xeon 9GB Eizo 21 CG211 Monitor Eizo 24 CE240W Wide Screen Eizo 24 CG241W Wide Screen Cat 5 DVI & USB Extension Kit 35

Digital Accessories

Wacom Intuos4 Medium Riello UPS Gretag Macbeth Grey Card External Laptop Battery 140w/hr Pocket Wizard Slave Set Sekonic L358 Flash Meter + Transmitter Minolta Spot Meter F Laptop stand Folding Trestle Table 15M Mains Extension Location Station Ezy Tent for notebook computers 75 10

Consumables

Drives / G-Tech G-Tech GDrive Mini 250GB 5400RPM G-Tech GDrive Mini 500GB 5400RPM G-Tech GDrive 500GB G-Tech GDrive 1TB Batteries AA Procell Batteries x10 CR123 Battery PX28 Battery Prints Selphy Prints (each) A4 Ink Jet Prints A3 Ink Jet Prints Other Gaffa Tape 50x50mm (Black or White) Gaffa Tape 50x50mm (Colour) Gaffa Tape 50x50mm (Fluorescent) Rosco Gels 1.27x7.62m Roll Colorama 9 CD / DVD 2.49 1

Drives and Readers

16GB Sandisk Extreme PRO CF Card 4GB Sandisk Extreme IV CF Card 2GB Sandisk Extreme IV CF Card 16GB SD Card Firewire 800 CF Card Reader (40mb/s) USB Multi-Card Reader G-Tech G-Drive Mini 250GB 10

rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: Stanley [1] Re: Date: Mon Feb 02

Chang 20mm

changso@eurekanet.com 17mm
My widest lens is a 20-35f/2.8 Nikkor. Visually, the 20-35 range is quite short, but the image quality is truly, wonderfully crisp and snappy. I don't have a 28mm in zoom range or fixed focal length so the 20-35 makes sense for me. But you have a 28mm in the zoom so a fixed FL 20mm would seem to be logical in your case. If you opt for a wider 17mm, then you might also consider a 24mm to help fill the gap between 17mm and 28mm. I used to have a 24f/2.0 Zuiko and used it a lot when I had it.
From: Newsgroups: Subject: Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 Klaus Re: Schroiff 20mm kschroiff@metronet.de rec.photo.equipment.35mm vs. 17mm
would you mind sharing what you replaced the sigma with? and how's your experience so far with th is new lense?
i'm curious. thanks. I now have the Canon 17-35L. While it is surely no comparison in terms of costs it is also no comparison in regard to the performance. Try http://i31www.ira.uka.de/~klaus_s/reviews.htm for some of my thoughts about the Sigma as well as the Canon. best regards Klaus From: dealfaro@shell16.ba.best.com (Luca de Alfaro) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: 20mm vs. 17mm Date: 6 Feb 1998 For the price and quality the Tokina 17mm ATX has an excellent reputation as one of the best 17mm and is highly recommended. I have the Tokina 17mm, the MF version, not the ATX which is reputedly even better. I am very satisfied with it: it is very solidly built, it has fairly low distorsion (less than I expected), and vignetting is not bad at all. It is a bit soft in the corners wide open, it improves by f/5.6, and by f/8 it's quite good - and f/8 is not so hard to use, since I can shoot sharp photos with it even at 1/15. It is not on par with the sharpness of my Zeiss 28/2.8, but I take very nice slides with it. (and thanks to David Rosen who pointed out in some posts the qualities of this lens). Luca de Alfaro dealfaro@best.com
From: "Leon Newsgroups: Subject: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 van Re: Batenburg" 20mm Leon.van.Batenburg@consunet.nl rec.photo.equipment.35mm vs. 17mm

> It is not a fisheye, and for my purposes, it > was also not very sharp. (ATX-AF.).
You mean your specimen was not very sharp ;-) (for your purposes, whatever these might be.) My specimen might also not be VERY SHARP in the extreme corners, but it certainly is sharp (considerably better than the accepted 0.03 (or 0.025) mm circle of confusion standard). Saturation, distortion and contrast are very good. Build is excellent. AF is pretty lame though. -ttsalo@iki.fi Tomi T. Salo Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 From: Neuman - Ruether rpn1@cornell.edu Reply to: ruether@fcinet.com To: rmonagha@news.smu.edu Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: tokina 17mm lens On 14 Jan 1999 02:57:35 -0600, rmonagha@news.smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>see related postings at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronwide.html [.] > >David's point is well taken- the 20mm f/2.8 nikkor is a fine lens, but I >find there is quite a bit of difference in 3mm at the ultrawide end, at >least in how much background you get in and how it looks, with a 17mm vs >20 mm (or 18mm vs 21mm). [.]
It appeared to me that the 17mm Tokina was not really very much wider than the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor, perhaps due to FL "fudging" in its rating by the mfgr. For this reason, I also sold my
Nikkor 18mm f3.5 - it was not as good as the 20mm f2.8, and the coverage was greater by only a miniscule amount. BTW, I recently acquired a 20mm f3.5 AIS Nikkor - it was clearly not as wide as the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor, though the mfgr. and rated FL were the same. Also, BTW, my 15mm Nikkor IS clearly wider than the 20.! ;-) David Ruether ruether@fcinet.com rpn1@cornell.edu http://www.fcinet.com/ruether From Nikon Digest: Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 From: Ben Harper ben_harper@uky.campus.mci.net Subject: RE: Sigma 18-35 Aspheric [v04.n200/9] Miguel, I owned a Sigma 18-35 Aspheric. It is light and dramatically wide. I took it to France on a week's vacation and it traveled well, produced nice, handheld exposures and was a very nice lens. It requires, however, 82mm filters, which, at the time, didn't seem to be such a problem. I bought a used B&W UV filter for it to protect the front element, which was long overdue, but 82mm filters aren't cheap and represent a large investment in relation to the cost of the lens. Every time, though, that I wanted to use it I found I needed filtration of some type.either to adjust for tungsten fluorescent light or polarizing to intensify colors, and kept getting frustrated by the 82mm ring. My daughter, however, indicated a desire for a wide-angle lens for Christmas. It was now or never. I boxed up the Sigma, instructions, lens hood and B&W filter, and gave it to her for Christmas. For myself, I bought a Tokina 20-35 f/2.8, w/ 77mm, which I have all the filtration I need for now. We are both very happy. Good luck with your choice. Ben Harper rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@cl-sys.com [1] Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) Date: Wed Jan 20 09:06:49 CST 1999 You can see a photo made with this lens on the web site. Look for an architectural shot of a glass facade (actually it's the College Football Hall of Fame.) It was made with a Sigma 14 and my shoulder against the glass. Generally the lens is very prone to flare (almost unusably so in some lighting situations.) It is also a bit low in contrast compared to better ultra wides. It is affordable, though, compared to many and can make some interesting photographs. Good shooting. Fred Maplewood Photography http://www.maplewoodphoto.com

From: Evan Miller evrmiller@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Sigma 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) Date: 22 Jan 1999 Jay Lichtman wrote:
> > > > > Is this lens any good? I was playing with it while waiting in line at B&H yesterday, and the image was nice and bright and crisp. Does anyone have real results to report? -Jay
I had a chance to shoot some photos through this lens at the Sigma booth at the photo show last October in the Jacob Javits convention center in NYC. I shot on Fuji 800 print film at all apertures to f8. The indoor lighting was very irregular, bright displays, arc lights on the ceiling and dark shadows all over the place. My examination of the negatives shows very fine detail right to the corners, even at f2.8, better than the f3.5 lens I had and sold a couple of months ago. There is some darkening in the corners, without much change after f4, so it's hard to determine how much vignetting there is vs. the lighting effects. There is a carpet strip near the bottom of the frame that shows slight barrel distortion, probably real but could have been a mislaid carpet strip at the show. The old lens had zero distortion, it was perfect for architectural work. The f2.8 shows some flare around the bright ceiling lights, but no large blotches of flare that the old lens was prone to. Overall I get the impression the f2.8 is sharper and less flare, but maybe the same level of vignetting and not as good for linear distortion. I still plan to get one, I had the f3.5 but sold it a couple of months ago. Evan Miller rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: "J Jones" jdj56@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc [1] Re: Cheap ultra-wide for EOS Date: Mon Mar 15 15:01:15 CST 1999 I have the Vivitar 19-35, and have been quite pleased. As with any lens, you get what you pay for, so yes there is a bit of softness in the outer regions of the frame, but for my style of photography it has performed finely. To see an example of this lens and my style, click here: http://home.talkcity.com/PicassoPl/d_moriarty/creative.html The photo titled "Limberlost" was taken with the Vivitar @ 19mm. Jason Jones Rogue's Hollow Fine Art Photography http://home.talkcity.com/PicassoPl/d_moriarty/home.html rec.photo.equipment.35mm From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether) [1] Re: Advice please: fixed wide angle lenses Date: Wed Mar 17 22:32:40 CST 1999
On 17 Mar 1999 23:22:41 GMT, "no-uce" no-uce@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>I want to buy a wide angle lens, 20 to 28 mm. I will be buying a body >also -- probably a Canon or Nikon. My subjects are usually landscapes, or >people in front of landscapes. I don't like autofocus, so it doesn't matter >if the lens has it or not (if it does have it, I guess USM would be nice). > >What is important to me is image quality, including good quality at wide >aperature. The most I can afford for the lens is about $500. > >I would appreciate any constructive suggestions or advice, pointers to >specific magazine article or web pages, etc. Thanks in advance.

I bought a Sigma a few weeks ago, thinking that I'd trade it in for the Nikon when they become available. After shooting with the Sigma, I've decided to keep the lens -- and the extra $1000. I have some sample images on my web page at http://members2.clubphoto.com/les101933 Look under "recent photos" and "Nature pictures" for some sample images taken with the Sigma and scanned on a Nikon LS-30. Hope this helps. --Les From Hasselblad Mailing List: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com Subject: Re: Why not wider than 40mm? Steve, I happen to have an elaborate set of tables on view angles. This question is a confusing one, as different formats and print sizes come into play, as has been pointed out. If we look at the diagonals, a 40mm MF lens has a coverage of 93 degrees or so. A 21mm lens on a 35mm has a similar diagonal angle of view. If we look at the horizontal angle, or wider aspect of the rectangular 35mm format, the MF 40mm has about 74 degrees, and the matching 35mm lens would be roughly a 24mm. If we look at the vertical angle, the MF 40mm has an angle of 74 degrees, still, as it is square, but the 35mm lens would have to be a 16mm to achieve the same angle of view. On practical terms, this says that the Hasselblad is at its best taking pictures of square objects, in which case a 40mm MF lens is as wide as a 16mm lens on a 35mm cam. For a wide subject, the 40mm MF lens is only as wide as a 24mm on a 35mm camera. Math aside, in practice, the 40mm gives an expansive view. The early 40mm has more distortion. The SWC has very low distortion, and has worked well in all models. Peter. From Hasselblad Mailing List: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com Subject: Re: Why not wider than 40mm? Bernard, I refined the calculations a bit, and include a summary, the calculations and the source for the calculator. Summary follows:
I appreciate your concern over why I came up with "93 degrees or so" when you say "88mm." Of course I am thinking you meant "88 degrees," and see your point that it does make a difference. The first calculation I sent you was based on a 60mm x 60mm usable negative size. I adjusted this to 57mm x 57mm frame size, and came up with a view angle of 90.44, about halfway between 93 and 88. Hasselblad's data may be based on the real focal length longer than 40mm, which may be something other than 40mm, or using a negative size smaller than 57mm square. Refining the calculation, I still get a diagonal equiv to a 21.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. You were right that 93 degrees was an overestimate; 90.44 is closer, by calculation, if not observation. For the 40mm, I get a vertical and horizontal of 70.94, again more than 67. For 35mm equivs, I get 25mm on the wider aspect, 17mm on the narrow, reading from the chart below. I include view angles for other Hasselblad lenses. Peter Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 From: Bob Scott desmobob@capital.net To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Subject: Re: Ultra wide angle lens options

Scott Carlton wrote in message.
>Hi, has anyone used the Sigma 17-35 EX HSM lens to comment on it? I'm not much >of a Sigma fan but for the price compared to a Canon 17-35L lens, makes it all >the more attractive. > >Thanks!
From Nikon MF Mailing List: Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz Subject: Re: Lens Tests - 16mm fisheye A while ago there was a discuttion on the 16mm fisheye. I recently did a test of some wide angle lenses, which you may be interested in. I tested the AIS 16/2.8, 20/2.8 and AIS 20/3.5. The 16/2.8 has some marks on the barrel and a dent which indicates a heavy impact. The retaining ring shows signs the lens has been adjusted in the past, so my lens may not be the best sample. Otherwise it is in good condition, with clean glass. The AIS 20/2.8 and 20/3.5 are both in near mint condition. The test: I used an FE2, mounted on a tripod, with Fuji Velvia film. Each lens was shot at f4, f5.6, f8 and f11. At smaller apertures I figure diffraction will equalise these lenses. I never shoot ultrawide angles wide open because they are usually soft and I prefer greater DOF with these lenses. The lenses were focused at infinity. I shot a scene of a bay with a power line running across it - the power pylon and thin lines across the frame provide an excellent test for sharpness, and the clear blue sky gives useful information on illumination. Slides were viewed on a Leica P150 projector with the Hector 85/2.8 lens (not the best way to critique slides, but it's all I have.) AIS 20/2.8: slight light fall-off at f4, gone by f5.6. A little soft and lacking contrast at f4, very good out to the corners at f5.6 and really crisp at f8. An excellent wideangle lens. It shows slight barrel distortion in the central area which flattens towards the edges - not very noticeable. AIS 20/3.5: At f4 this lens is nearly wide open. There is noticeable light fall-off at the corners, less at f5.6 none at f8. At f4 central sharpness is quite good, the corners show noticable softness. Contrast is quite good. Overall sharpness improves by f5.6 with good central sharpness giving way to slight softness towards the corners. Corner sharpness is good at f8 and f11 although they never seem truely crisp - central sharpness is excellent. I've read that this lens has field curvature which causes softness at the corners when focused at infinity, and it performs better at medium-close range. My experience agrees with this. Barrel distortion is similar to the 20/2.8, perhaps a tad stronger. AIS 16/2.8: sharp in the center at f4, quickly becoming soft towards the corners. It improves with stopping down, and at f8 is quite acceptable. F11 may give best overall sharpness. I'm not very impressed by the this expensive lens at wider apertures - maybe my sample isn't very good? However it is hard to be objective - I probably expect to see more detail with this lens because it gets more scene in the picture. Fisheyes don't suffer from light fall-off like other wideangles.

> Russian MC Zenitar-K 16/2.8 was reported (from different sources) > to be a nice stuff. It is available in Russia NEW for the price of > some $80 (i'is not a joke -just $80!)
Does anybody know of a good source for Russian made lenses and cameras? I was checking a link posted here a couple of days ago, (http://www.zenit-foto.ru) and the prices are *really* low. Now, if you go to a place like Kiev USA, they have these items, but with a *huge* markup, about %300 in some cases. I'd love to get the Pentax mount lenses made by zenit, and even a Horizon panoramic camera ($165, as listed in the Russian site!) but it looks like this site is only prepared to sell to dealers. Juan J. Buhler | Senior Animator @ PDI | http://www.dsp.com/jbuhler [Ed. note: Thanks to Roland for sharing these tips!.] From Nikon Mailing List: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm F/4 AI Lens. Was: Nikkor 20mm Lenses - Comments
> > > > > > My main criteria is the fact that I would like to keep my filter size to 52mm and thus I am limited to either the 20mm F/4 or the 20mm F/3.5 AI/AIS. I have read that the 20mm F/4 is probably the worst 20mm Nikkor lens out there, even worst than the first F/3.5 Nikkor 72mm version.
Probably the best review of these lenses is at: http://www.foto.no/nikon/lens_surv.html The 20/3.5 (52mm filter) is available in AI and AIS forms. The AI version has a more stretched out focus scale so focusing is slower, but more accurate, and the DOF lines are correspondingly further apart and easier to use. Optically they are the same. I have always been very pleased with the results from my 20/3.5. My shooting style is to use this lens at around f8-f11 for good DOF and sharpness. At wide apertures light fall-off at the corners is noticeable, and sharpness is not great either, but I never use the lens wide open so it's not a problem.
I often use my regular Hoya polariser - it is not a slim line or wide angle filter - and it only causes the extreme corners to go dark. This is hidden by slide mounts so I don't worry about it.
> > > > I would recommend considering the 20/3.5 AIS version which, although lacking CRC as with the 20/2.8, is very close in performance. It is reputed to be inferior at closest focus, and suffer some additional vignetting wide-open
Actually I think the lens performs better at close range, at infinity the corners are rather soft, probably due to field curvature. I recently compared it to the AIS 20/2.8, which was noticeably sharper at infinity at all apertures, with less vignetting. The AIS 20/2.8 also focuses closer due to CRC. Even though the 20/2.8 is better I find the 62mm filter size inconvenient - all my other lenses are 52mm size. The small size of the 20/3.5 (and 20/4) is fantastic - what other lens has such a wide field of view in such a small package? Used at medium range and at medium-small apertures (this covers most of my shooting anyway) I think both lenses are very close. Some alternatives: 24mm f/2.8 - not quite as wide, but shares the 52mm filter size and probably has better performance at wide apertures. 16mm fisheye - the only way to get a wider angle of view in a small package. A fun lens, but not often very practical. Very expensive and rather soft away from the center until stopped well down. Hope this helps, Roland [Ed. note: not an endorsement as I haven't dealt with Vlad, but fyi.] From Nikon Mailing List: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 From: kenweissblum@iname.com Subject: Re: Russian fisheyes revisited I bought a 17 mm fisheye directly from Vladimir (gritsuk@mail.ru) he was excellent to deal with. I'm very content. Ken Weissblum kenweissblum@iname.com From Nikon Mailing List: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 From: "C.L.Zeni" clzeni@MINDSPRING.COM Subject: Re: Russian fisheyes revisited After some more searching (thru ebay this time) I found that Belshop and Vladimir Gritsuk are one and the same. In addition, he has a web page where you can purchase the lens on line, paying via credit card handled thru CCnow. CCNow has a proper website, a functioning phone number,

the whole schmear. Price for the lens, with Fedex delivery from Belarus, is $258.00, considerably less expensive than the $400 being asked locally. This includes the Nikon mount, case, filters, etc. The web page is at http://www.geocities.com/belshop/ I've ordered one.we'll see how it goes. I used my Amex card just in case something goes pffft. Craig Zeni A Bit Skeptical, North Carolina. From Nikon Mailing List: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net Subject: Re: 20mm Lenses - Comments I've been shooting with a Nikkor 20/3.5 AI-S lens since I bought it new in 1982. Wonderful lens, one of my favorites. I know the later ones with the CRC rear element are supposed to be a little sharper close up, but I've never found this one to be deficient at all. It's small and light, wonderful for traveling, and returns excellent results. My usual Nikon travel kit is the 20, 50 and 70-300, toss in an 85 or 105 for a faster medium tele too. Godfrey From Pentax Mailing List: Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 From: Joseph Tainter jtainter@mindspring.com Subject: Zenitar 16mm./f2.8 Fisheye (long) Here's a copy of a review I just posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm. I don't want to try Pentax's forebearance by reviewing other lenses here, but several people have been asking about this lens. "There's been interest in this inexpensive lens in various places. Mine arrived Monday and I went right out to shoot the last ten shots or so of a roll of Agfa RSX 200. Given the interest I thought I'd post my impressions. "The lens is heavy and solid, and appears to be all metal (except, of course, for the focusing ring). I have the Pentax k-mount version. (It also comes in Pentax screw-mount and Nikon.) The rear end is not finished to the cosmetic niceness of Japanese lenses, but appears sturdy and quite serviceable. It slips on and off my PZ-1p nicely. "The focusing ring is smooth and a little stiff. That's probably heavy grease. The aperture ring (f2.8 - 22) could be improved. It is rougher than Japanese lenses, and goes slightly beyond f22. There's no click beyond f22 and the aperture doesn't close further. The aperture diaphragm (six blades) closes smoothly, but the blades seem rather short. Between f3.5 and 5.6 the aperture is not a smooth hexagon, but rather is jagged. The points of the blades stick out a bit. This does not appear to affect image quality or exposure (at least on my slides). I've never had a fisheye before, so perhaps the short aperture blades are normal.

I was wondering if perhaps the same was true of the 14 2.8; ie: does Tamron make this lens for Nikon? The Tamron (around $900 after rebate) fared much less well on Photodo than did the lower priced Sigma (around $7-800 - shop around. CameraSphere has it for $709 with no BS - I have seen it for as little as $659 at the usual crooks who will tell you it is plastic and doesn't have a case, etc. all BS). [Please report these morons to the NYC Dep't of Consumer Affairs. see the website I manage at nyc.gov]. In any case I purchased the Sigma on price, value and performance specs. The lens is of first-class construction and the images are professional quality to large blowup capability. At 2.8 it's a bit soft at the edges but comes into it's own at 5.6 and beyond. This is a fine professional quality lens IMHO at half the price of the Nikon. And if it is true that Tamron is making the Nikon 14 2.8 then the test results should be the same for both (as they are for the 70300) which will rank them below the Sigma. Any feedback here is welcome. From Panoramic Mailing List: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 From: Willem-Jan Markerink w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: 12mm/f5.6 Voigtlaender Ultra-Wide Heliar for Bessa-L (M39) URL for this beauty: http://www.cosina.co.jp/12mm/12-main.html (PS, the Seitz pages on spectraweb.ch seem no longer there.never had a factory-link.is there one?.search engines seem just as clueless) Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some spec's are hard to believe at first.but this one is true.a German friend mentioned a new 12mm rectilinear (non-fisheye) Voigtlaender lens, according to the German FotoMag.not having this magazine (yet), I was more than suspicious, until he sent me a scan of the article.not just a rumour, but a fat confident press-release. To take away the first scare, it's 'only' slightly over US$1000, not cheap, but still remarkably low for what is essentially an extreme niche lens. Cosina (the actual factory, Voigtlaender is just a brandname, owned by a chain of German shops (RingFoto)) has gone through great lengths to make this lens as high-end as possible.classical symmetrical (non-retrofocus) design, with a double-aspheric element (is that new??), overall optical quality at least on par with the 15mm Heliar. 121 degree angle of view, 10 elements, 8 groups, 0.3m minimum focus, length 38mm, 162 gramm, optional sun-shade with filterholder. Separate viewfinder (just as the 15mm Heliar), which on itself might be a cute solution for those shooting with the Rodenstock 35mm on 6x12.same angle of view (but of course a much larger view vertically!)

From: evanjoe610@aol.com (Evanjoe610) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 12 Oct 2000 Subject: Re: Nikon 20mm/3.5 Manual. Is this a good lens? Jon,
I wasn't following this thread so therefore I will add additional information to what Rick has written below.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Version= 21mmF4.0 Filter 52mm Version= 20mmF3.5 Filter 72mm Version= 20mmF4.0 Filter 52mm Version= 20mmF3.5 Filter 52mm Version= 20mmF2.8 Filter 52mm
Now your version was made in both Ai and AIS mount. Your lens was a redesign of the earlier 20mmF3.5 in 72mm. Both lens had an 11 element group. It is the sharpest of the 20mm lens prior to the 20mmF2.8 version. It doesn't have CRC. (Close Range Correction) Only the 2.8 version used this feature. It is a fine lens I and really won't go for the 2.8 unless you are using it to made money as a professional. Just use it and test it out. I feel you will be more than happy. If your friend allows to test both the 2.8 against the 3.5, then I say go for it and let me know the outcome. Otherwise, enjoy your "cheap and inexpensive" Nikon super wide angle lens. Evan Dong. Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Cosina 12mm tests? Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net writes
>Has anyone done a review of the new Cosina (Voigtlander) 12mm >rectilinear? I am interested in this lens but I suspect the vignetting >will be awful. > >Roland
The BJP has reviewed it and from what I remember they were very impressed by it. Quick dig through the 'archives' (pile of mags on the floor) 6th Sept 2000. Apparently the lens is very good wide open to f/8, slight drop off at f/11 beyond which it drops off quite quickly. -John Preston, Lancs, UK. Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk From Nikon MF Mailing List: Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 From: "Gunnar berg" famlak@hem2.passagen.se Subject: Peleng versus Zenitar (v. Nikkor) Result. Hi Nikkonians,
I will now keep my promise to compare Peleng 17/2.8 with Zenitar 16/2.8. I have included Nikkor 18/3.5 - in spite of the different format. I shot a series of pictures a cloudy day - the place is the graveyard in Vissefjrda, Smland. The light conditions were about the same all the time. I do not think it will cause any differences in the pictures. My F3T was mounted on a tripod. I shot with cable release the same scenario. The film is Fujicolor Superia 200ASA (It takessome time to get slides developed - that's why I chose negative film.) I have scanned the negatives in Nikon Coolscan III to as big files as possible (about 26MB TIFF format) and worked on them in PhotoShop - enlargements of two spots, one in center and one in the periphery - all glued together. The pictures were then converted to JEPG to make the files as small as possible. I use 79 dpi for the files shown - close to the "pixel border" - just to look at on the screen! No method of sharpening the pictures is used of course - and no change of the color or brilliance. (I will come back later with the shots in the sun to check flare Roland! Its autumn here - foggy, humid, warm I do not remember last time when I saw the bright sun!) My conclusions? The Peleng is a hefty piece of glass - almost as grandmas crystal vase(650 g) with a huge easily damaged front lens - diam. 75 mm. The lens sticks out about 85 mm with the Nikon adapter. You just don't put it in your pocket! The Zenitar is smaller (350g). Front lens diam. 60 mm and it sticks out 45 mm (no adapter needed) - fits well to the pocket! Both are multicoated. The Peleng comes with an impressive leather case - the Zenitar a little case of woven black nylon. Both with 3 B&W rear filters. The Peleng has a stop down ring - Zenitar only the ring for aperture settings. (No big problem since they are both non AI and purely manual - like PCNikkors.) Both feel good and solid. The Peleng has a front cover that is very loose - falls off all the time and makes you nervous! The Zenitar has a snap on cover that fits nicely and makes you feel better ;-) The pictures? Judge for yourselves! I think the Peleng is a tiny bit sharper and more contrasty but I hate those vignetting in the corners - the Zenitar pictures have no dark corners. Both perform quite well for the price. The Nikkor - no comment - it is included just for fun - as to compare apples and pears But the vignetting full open surprised me a bit. I forgot - sorry! - to test f4 on the Nikkor! There is a risk for bias in this amateurish investigation - the Zenitar belongs to me - the Peleng is borrowed back from a friend I sold it to ;-) Here you will find the result - please start with the file "A GUIDE - READ THIS FIRST". http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/ At last - thanks to Roland Vink for tips off list! Best wishes Gunnar berg Ronneby

> > > > > Is there any test results for the Heliar 12mm?Is the Heliar 15mm lens good in terms of distorsio? I am an architect and this is a crucial feature. I would appreciate very much if you could answer my question. Prof. Rudolf KLEIN
Regarding the 12mm Heliar. The Dec. Shutterbug has a good article and rates it very well. They do say that the lens is sharpest wide open at f/5.6 or f/8 and should be stopped down only when neccesary for more depth of field, which would be rare. They also mention that there is inevitably true wide angle distortion, where solid objects near the edge of the picture are pulled out of shape and the camera should be leveled carefully. Rod S. Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Lisa's Gallery of Rogues. "John G. Silver" jonsil@tpgi.com.au wrote:
> I'll just dump the WA I used and am ordering a Cosina/Vivitar 19-35 zoom. > saw a good report on this in a Practical Photography magazine. I
I hope it's not too late to stop you, but this lens is a gamble at best. Unless you are extremely fortunate and find a good example, you would be far better buying the new Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. This is a well made lens with non-rotating filter ring and a very good optical design. The Tokina is not in the same league as a Nikkor AF-S, Canon L or Minolta G, but it is a sharp and contrasty lens with less distortion than the Cosina.
> Does anyone know who makes these lenses and is it available with different > names?
It's made by Cosina and also sells as a Vivitar or a Soligor. Judging by comments on this newsgroup over the last few months, and reviews elsewhere, you'd be very well advised to avoid all three in favour of the Tokina. -Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 From: Lisa Horton geek@gatorgames.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Lisa's Gallery of Rogues. The "really cheap but pretty good" one that sold under $200 USD is out of production and hard to find. The alledgedly optically identical new model, which sells right at $200USD is different primarily in it's polycarbonate construction. I believe the non-rotating filter ring was absent from the previous model, although I'm not sure. I have this lens, it's a decent performer. Nice and contrasty, and fairly sharp, it's pictures do have snap. Although it makes a god-awful noise when focussing, it's fairly quick, not surprising at this focal length I guess though. I'd rate it a good deal, and a worthwhile lens if you don't use this length enough to justify something *really* good. Lisa Postscript: Allow me to correct myself. The lens I'm talking about is allegedly optically identical to the former 20-35, a step above the cheap old 19-35. It's cheaper than it's predecessor due to its polycarbonate construction they say. Lisa Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
a few weeks after I have given the zoom a thorough test. However it's worth making the comment that the 20mm f/2.8 is a very fine lens with outstanding sharpness and contrast even wide open. It is one of Nikon's best optics. It's a little soft at the corners at f/2.8 but this has mostly gone by f/4 and it is sharp across the frame by f/5.6. Distortion is very low but it is noticeable in architectural photography. It takes the form of 'wavy line' distortion which is neither barrel nor pincushion, but an unhappy combination of both. I suggest this is probably due to barrel distortion by one element or group of elements being incompletely compensated for by the pincushion distortion of another element or group of elements, or vice versa. Either way, it is there, although it is only noticeable with straight lines parallel and near to the edge of the frame. To put this comment in perspective, I would not expect the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED AF-D Nikkor to have control of distortion that even approaches that of the 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor, whose level of overall distortion is low for a fixed focal length lens. I'm particularly interested in the comparison between the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED AF-D Nikkor and the Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens that I've just sold. The Tokina is a very fine lens and it sells for only half the price of the Nikkor or less. Is the Nikkor really worth double? I intend to find out.

-Tony Polson

From: torx@nwrain.com (R. Peters) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 Subject: Re: Vivitar 19mm f3.8 WOW!! Keep in mind that this is a test of ONE particular lens--not all of them and not even 3 or 4 samples. The next lens tested could have been entirely different. The results may be similar for a batch of the same lens.or they may not be. I bought a 19mm Vivitar 3.8 new for $108 plus shipping from NY, new with warranty cards. I use this focal length so rarely that if I had to pay $300 or more for a used 19 or 20mm lens, I couldn't justify having a 19 or 20mm lens. If you can justify 3X the price for a Canon or Pentax,19 or 20mm lens, by all means, go for it. You may be right, it may not perform as well as an OEM lens. But, the price is right and, surpisingly, the transparencies I get from mine are quite acceptable for general use. Mileage may vary. bob "Jriegle" jriegle@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>See the lens test, click the link. > >http://home.worldnet.att.net/~jriegle/viv19mm.htm >

>Regards, John

From Minolta Mailing List: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 From: "Alexander Koz" alexanderkoz@excite.com Subject: affordable wide-angles Hi, The last issue of FOTO 7-8/2001 publishes test data on two new WA lenses from Sigma: 24/1.8 and 20/1.8 EX DG. Both are pretty sharp (like Minolta 24/2.8), both show very strong astigmatism (unlike Minolta 24/2.8 or 24-50/4), and both have strong wave-form distortions. They have internal focus and non rotating fronts. They are also large (77mm and 82mm filters, respectively) and heavy (about 500g). I heard Minolta AF 24/2.8 is not distortions free either, and 20/2.8 is too expensive for me. What I used to shoot might be called nature and travel photography and I often feel I need something wider than my Minolta 28/2. What would you suggest? Maybe Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 or Minolta AF 24-50/4? The latter is not very wide but I don't like swithing lens frequently. And it might complement 70-210/4 very well since both accept 55mm filters. Thank you, Alex. From Minolta Mailing List; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 From: "Alex Zabrovsky" alexz@nogatech.co.il Subject: RE: affordable wide-angles What about used Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 II ? Not bad at all optically, sturdy construction (distinguishable for most Tokina designs), very convenient zoom range, but definitely cannot be considered as distortion-free. Very affordable when found used (150-200 $). Alex From Minolta Mailing List; Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 From: "Alexander Koz" alexanderkoz@excite.com Subject: Re: affordable wide-angles Thank you all for replies. Here is what's been mentioned, ordered by prices:

> > > >

I am just a beginner, so my quality "threshould" may not be that high, I also do not have more expensive lenses/cameras -- therefore my comparasings may not be up to the standards of other people.
It's a pity you didn't make this statement at the beginning of your posting. To those who are interested in this Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix lens, it is junk. It has appalling build quality and huge sample variation. If you are lucky enough to get a good one the lousy build quality may mean it doesn't stay good for long. The best examples of this lens can produce acceptably sharp results when stopped down to f/8 or so, however the barrel distortion at 19mm, and the pincushion distortion at 35mm, are appalling. The distortion at the wide end is so bad that it makes you think you just bought the world's first zoom fisheye lens. For only about 20% more $ you can buy the latest Tokina Model AF193 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens which is well made, has minimal sample variation, produces consistently sharp and contrasty results and has well controlled distortion. There is still some distortion, and it is noticeable if you do architectural photography or compose with straight lines near the edges of the frame, but it is very well controlled compared to that of the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix product. The choice between the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix and the Tokina AF193 is a no-brainer. Go with the Tokina AF193, unless you only shoot for 4"x6" prints from a minilab, when you may not be able to tell the difference. But I know I will. I have tested four examples of the Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor/Phoenix lens and two of the Tokina, and on the basis of the results I bought the Tokina without any hesitation. -Tony Polson Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 From: retoricus@hotmail.com (Vagabond) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Opinion about Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 "Marko B." marko.b@-REMOVE-altavista.net wrote:
>Any on line reviews of this lens? How is the distortion at 19 and 20?
Heavy. It is not a lens for shooting straight lines or buildings with at this end. But neither is the 10x more expensive Nikkor 17-35/f2.8. It is a difference of degrees - no wide zooms are without distortion.

Back to Canon. My recollection of the "Amateur Photographer" review of wide angle zooms earlier this year is that the Canon 20-35mm did not perform especially well. I no longer have that issue, and would be grateful if anyone could supply more details. What I do remember is that the three joint best buys were the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED. I am lucky enough to have owned two out of these three and to have used and helped test the third (the Tokina f/2.8) so I can happily endorse what "Amateur Photographer" said in their review. Based on Lisa Horton's requirement for lower distortion than she gets from her Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (which is otherwise a very fine lens and unbelievable value for money), the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro looks like a very, very good option. It's about the same price as the Nikon 18-35mm and the Canon 20-35mm, has no greater distortion (and much less than its cheaper sibling) and offers the holy grail: a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8. Provided it works well on Lisa's Canon bodies, which is always a major consideration with an independent lens, I would strongly recommend it to Lisa. This is exactly what I did. Now what was it you objected to again, David? <g> -Best regards, Tony Polson From: David Albrecht <dNaOvSiPdAcMa@writeme.com> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Ultrawides & barrel distortion? --I don't get Amateur Photographer, but for what it is worth, I usually like to reference www.photozone.de lens test section which abstracts the results from multiple magazine tests. Note that this is different than their user survey results. Their rankings are: Canon EF 2.8 17-35mm USM L 3.26 (5 reviews) = good Canon EF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm USM 3.12 (5 reviews) = average Tokina AF 2.8 20-35mm AT-X Pro 3.07 (5 reviews) = average Tokina AF 3.5-4.5 19-35mm 2.67 (2 reviews) = sub-average By comparison their reviews put the Nikkor 18-35 at: Nikkor AF 3.5-4.5 18-35mm IF ED D 2.83 (2 reviews) = average Note that the Nikkor 2.8 17-35 and 20-35 rate more highly. In fact, the
20-35 heads the list. Photodo rates the same list: Canon EF 2.8 17-35 USM L @ 3.2 w/Distortion: -4.43% - 1.13% Canon EF 3.5-4.5 20-35mm USM @ 3.4 w/Distortion: -4.55% - -0.89% Tokina AF 2.8 20-35mm AT-X Pro @ 2.5 w/Distortion: -3.03% - 1.97% Tokina AF 3.5-4.5 19-35mm @ 3.3 If distortion is that important to me I generally figure that I should be using a single focal length lens which usually has on the order of half the distortion of a zoom equivalent. Dave From: Tony Polson <no.email@please.com> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Ultrawides & barrel distortion? Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001Hi Dave, Thanks for posting this. I'm not in the thrall of *any* of the review sites on the Web, least of all Photodo, and I don't believe that any "review of reviews" can be particularly useful. I've resorted to testing every lens that I buy. But I *do* tend to trust Dr Stewart Bell's lens test data that is published in "Amateur Photographer". This magazine is perhaps unique in that it derives most of its advertising income from sellers of used equipment, both dealers and individuals. Therefore there is no sign of bias towards, or away from, particular manufacturers. When the magazine gets things wrong, as every magazine does sometimes, they are quick to publish a retraction, correction or apology in order to set the record straight. I believe that the "review of reviews" you quote does not include the test data that is published in "Amateur Photographer". I've already said a lot about why I don't trust Photodo's results. Suffice it to say that, as a travel and landscape photographer, their results are of little interest to me, as I most often use the smaller apertures at which Photodo doesn't even bother testing lenses. This is probably the very worst of a long list of things that Photodo get wrong. Badly wrong! One fault that Photodo (Sweden) appear to share with Photozone (Germany) is that the overall ratings do not take any account of the range of focal lengths of a lens. A 17-35mm zoom is judged on exactly the same criteria as a 80-210mm zoom, a 500mm telephoto or a 50mm standard lens. This is like comparing apples with oranges.