Posts Tagged ‘16’
Don’t confuse this with the kind you experience in waiting-rooms and such. This fan is weak. About as strong as a table fan, costing ten bucks or so. If that was the case, then it would be good enough to get 4 stars, maybe even 5. But That’s not the case. This thing is way more expensive than the quality merits. At this price, all you’re getting extra is the remote (not because you want it, but because you need it to make it work), and the ability to mount it on a wall. For my needs, the wall-mounting was important, so I gave it the 3rd star, otherwise it deserved only 2 on a price/performance ratio.
If you are a member at Costco, it’s 3/4 of this price over there.
Windchaser OCWR161 16 Inch
I knew the moment I heard about this lens that I’d need to get one. The chief problem I have with every other FX/film-sized wide angle lens is that they are either immense, heavy and extremely expensive; or quite mediocre* and not as wide as I’d like (and a few lens-generations old by now, as well). I had no doubt, given the excellence of nearly every recent Nikon lens, that it would be superb in terms of color, sharpness and focus performance – and only really wondered, before I’d seen it in person, whether its size would be appropriate for my use as a casual amateur photographer.
It is, almost, perfect.
First, though, having shot with it a fair bit now on both FX and DX, I can see that to convey an understanding of this lens and how it fits into the Nikon lineup it’s helpful to have some understanding of the difference between the design requirements of FX and DX lenses. This is something I’ve been writing about a bit in my recent reviews as I keep noticing the misperceptions implied by a lot of comments I’m noticing. I’m seeing comments already in reviews of this lens, for example, that it is bigger than it needs to be as a wide-angle f/4 zoom. I see comments in reviews of DX lenses that they should have been designed as FX lenses, so that they could work on both formats. And I see comments about nearly all zooms that they should have been designed with larger max apertures, even if it would have made the lens slightly more expensive.
All these comments reveal a lack of understanding about the inherent physics of optics and the design and manufacture of lenses.
For an FX lens to have exactly the same optics on FX as an equivalent DX lens would have on DX, the FX lens would need to be 3.4 TIMES BIGGER than the DX lens. This is because the FX format is 1.5 times larger in linear terms, meaning that the identical lens would need to be 3.4 (1.5^3) times larger in volume. If made of exactly the same materials it would weigh 3.4 times more than the DX len
Nikon 16 35mm f