tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6797646636934720387.post1904848523132511979..comments2010-02-07T11:47:38.002-08:00Alexander S. Kunznoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6797646636934720387.post-37473028708490977402010-02-07T11:47:38.002-08:002010-02-07T11:47:38.002-08:00Yeah I was just looking at my old Vivitar 70-210mm on my film camera and realized it when I looked at the weird markings. Here&#39;s a newer Vivitar picture that looks similar to my old Vivitar (70mm has wider tick marks than 210mm): http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/5550/7021002ga9.jpgKevinKevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17102207203432835637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6797646636934720387.post-42866710175763026622010-02-07T11:43:56.913-08:002010-02-07T11:43:56.913-08:00Just to let you know I currently use the Canon 10-22mm for wide angle and it&#39;s OK, not spectacular. I&#39;ve been looking at other alternatives too and still hesitant about today&#39;s wide zoom offerings on DX.<br /><br />I was curious and looked at 10-24mm on Photozone.de:<br />http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545?start=2<br /><br />Compared to Sigma 10-20mm:<br />http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=2<br /><br />Both are OK. Neither beats the 14-24mm f/2.8G on FX. I&#39;m still waiting for FX cameras to drop to below the $2K range. Maybe in another year?KevinKevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17102207203432835637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6797646636934720387.post-14064122902321559532010-02-07T11:36:41.466-08:002010-02-07T11:36:41.466-08:00Haha Kevin, it never occurred to me that ZOOM is actually the reason for these markers missing. LOL! Duh, Alex... :-)Alexanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05701941082067373381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6797646636934720387.post-10175008153673121142010-02-07T11:30:57.971-08:002010-02-07T11:30:57.971-08:00Hi Alex, sorry my mistake. I mean my Nikkor *prime* lenses have distance+aperture tick marks (both my D and G lenses). I just realized that none of the Nikkor zooms have that, which makes sense because DoF changes with zoom.KevinKevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17102207203432835637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6797646636934720387.post-27229018049592564172010-01-29T13:38:05.409-08:002010-01-29T13:38:05.409-08:00There&#39;s is no difference on the mount. I compared with the 70-300VR. On the contrary - the 70-300VR has a rubber lip on the mount, the 12-24 hasn&#39;t.<br /><br />I can&#39;t tell if the weather sealing for the zoom is any better, but it&#39;s quite natural for me that a lens with a 2x zoom range will move less air and thus suck in less dust than a lens with a 3x (or even more) zoom range.<br /><br />Last not least... distance markings? No way... it has no aperture markers, and thus no IR offset markers either.Alexanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05701941082067373381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6797646636934720387.post-73342056201797549582010-01-27T15:34:52.022-08:002010-01-27T15:34:52.022-08:00Nothing beats testing/renting before buying :)<br /><br />I don&#39;t have the 12-24mm BUT my understanding is that gold ring lenses have a few extra properties: 1) weather seal on the mount (the extra rubbery thing protruding out from the lens that covers up the metal/metal contact 2) better weather sealing if you zoom in-out (harder for dust to get inside 3) more accurate distance markings, useful for IR or manual. All of my Nikkor gold have these.<br /><br />Does your gold ring 12-24mm have these properties? I&#39;m a bit curious as I don&#39;t have the 12-24mm.KevinKevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17102207203432835637noreply@blogger.com