Understanding Lens Test Charts (Page 4): Yeah. . . .I sort of thought about that. WIll do as your your recommendation.

wolfiebear Loc: 10,200 elev. in the Rockies

Yeah. . . .I sort of thought about that. WIll do as your your recommendation.

mrd Loc: Eastern NC

Wolfiebear, The F11 looks OK but the F4.5 is very poor on left side even at a quick glance you see it is darker than the right. The F22 left side is still not good though it is better than the F4.5. If you are striving for (as good as you can get quality in your images "Go with your strongest feeling, make the decision for quality and move on you won't regret it.)

wolfiebear Loc: 10,200 elev. in the Rockies

The darkness on the left sides means nothing, as I had no floods, and only uneven lighting from windows. But I'm just going to put this lens on the back burner for now.

I have a couple of NIKON 28-80's that are crisp and clear, and a nice 70-210. I had just hoped for the 35-135 range this one had, but oh well. Time to play more and worry less about this lens.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

wolfiebear wrote:

The darkness on the left sides means nothing, as I had no floods, and only uneven lighting from windows. But I'm just going to put this lens on the back burner for now.

I have a couple of NIKON 28-80's that are crisp and clear, and a nice 70-210. I had just hoped for the 35-135 range this one had, but oh well. Time to play more and worry less about this lens.

the 35-135 is a problematic focal length. even nikon's is at best mediocre. you might try a different focal length or go for the 135mm f2 dc af lens made by nikon - it is a lovely lens and you will get great results with it.
good luck!

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Yeah, the prime will get you better results, but at a hefty cost... Not something I think she wants to put out that kind of money for, although she would take one if someone else paid for it....

wj cody wrote:

the 35-135 is a probelematic focal length. even nikon's is at best mediocre. you might try a different focal length or go for the 135mm f2 dc af lens made by nikon - it is a lovely lens and you will get great results with it.
good luck!

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Screamin Scott wrote:

Yeah, the prime will get you better results, but at a hefty cost... Not something I think she wants to put out that kind of money for, although she would take one if someone else paid for it....

i believe they go for around $600 - $700 on the secondary market. i've always thought worth eating peanut butter for 6 months to get one.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

She was looking for a bargain lens. I think she said she paid $75 for the 35-135... Far less than the prime goes for...You & I may spend that kind of money for a lens, but most on this forum may not...Plus she wanted the convenience of a zoom lens. & as we know, zooms from that era didn't measure up like they do now...

wj cody wrote:

i believe they go for around $600 - $700 on the secondary market. i've always thought worth eating peanut butter for 6 months to get one.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Screamin Scott wrote:

She was looking for a bargain lens. I think she said she paid $75 for the 35-135... Far less than the prime goes for...You & I may spend that kind of money for a lens, but most on this forum may not...Plus she wanted the convenience of a zoom lens. & as we know, zooms from that era didn't measure up like they do now...

'tis true. sad to say.

wolfiebear Loc: 10,200 elev. in the Rockies

I am just newly taking PIX again after years and years ands years. . .and trying to figure out what is what. This lens was merely $48. No biggie. I also bought a new TOKINA 16-28 F2.8 for more than $600 that I am not that impressed by it either.

For about $40 each, I got a couple of NIKON 28-80's. They seem pretty decent.

But so far, my favorite lens is a +/- 55 year old retrofitted 135mm 3.5 PALINAR preset lens that I got for $39. Ah-hahahah
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

wolfiebear wrote:

I am just newly taking PIX again after years and years ands years. . .and trying to figure out what is what. This lens was merely $48. No biggie. I also bought a new TOKINA 16-28 F2.8 for more than $600 that I am not that impressed by it either.

For about $40 each, I got a couple of NIKON 28-80's. They seem pretty decent.

But so far, my favorite lens is a +/- 55 year old retrofitted 135mm 3.5 PALINAR preset lens that I got for $39. Ah-hahahah
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I think you need to accept that modern (digital) photography is not just about hardware - it includes camera firmware/software and/or PP software to achieve best results. Modern zooms usually give superior performance to retro 35mm zooms when attached to a digital camera because of this. Camera manufacturers often include firmware to adjust aberations in their own brand lenses (which lenses the cameras can recognise). This may be reason to stick to brand when buying a lens.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Many of those same corrections are present in post processing & that includes 3rd party brands... Yes, it's normally better to buy lenses of the same brand as your camera, but that's not a steadfast rule... I use a lot of 3rd party & older manual focus lenses on my DSLR's. That said, many of the most used are older "Pro" level lenses...

Delderby wrote:

I think you need to accept that modern (digital) photography is not just about hardware - it includes camera firmware/software and/or PP software to achieve best results. Modern zooms usually give superior performance to retro 35mm zooms when attached to a digital camera because of this. Camera manufacturers often include firmware to adjust aberations in their own brand lenses (which lenses the cameras can recognise). This may be reason to stick to brand when buying a lens.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Screamin Scott wrote:

Many of those same corrections are present in post processing & that includes 3rd party brands... Yes, it's normally better to buy lenses of the same brand as your camera, but that's not a steadfast rule... I use a lot of 3rd party & older manual focus lenses on my DSLR's. That said, many of the most used are older "Pro" level lenses...

I am aware that DxO market software to correct specified lens-camera combos - but does this apply to other editing progs?

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Lightroom has lens correction software in the "develop" module... I've used it on shots taken with a 10-20mm Sigma lens...

Delderby wrote:

I am aware that DxO market software to correct specified lens-camera combos - but does this apply to other editing progs?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Screamin Scott wrote:

Lightroom has lens correction software in the "develop" module... I've used it on shots taken with a 10-20mm Sigma lens...

Didn't know that - thanks.

Quickflash Loc: Loganville, Ga

Wolfie, as mentioned, if you have Lightroom, and you use the lens correction features, I think you'll find that your problem will disappear by clicking on Chromatic Aberration, which seems to be more of an issue than focus. I think your tests show that your lens is fine with that small correction.
As far as the grey market is concerned, that does not mean you were 'screwed' at all. It just means that you bought it, basically without a warranty, but has nothing to do with the quality of the lens. Try making that correction and you will probably be enjoying that lens for years to come!
That's my 2 cents.