Does Distortion Suck?

Answer: It used to suck.

Back in film days, when your lens had distortion, your images had distortion.

Today, you can remove distortion with software and get virtually perfect results.  Unlike sharpness or chromatic aberration fix-ups, distortion is removed without adding its own artifacts.

Many people use the lens correction filter in Photoshop to remove distortion.  The problem with this approach:  you can't always tell how much distortion exists in an image.  Distortion varies by lens and focal length.  You need to use different filter settings on each shot!  That's too much work for me.

There is a more consistent and superior way to remove distortion. Use DxO Pro. This software is different.  It is not a Photoshop filter.  It is pre-processing software that fixes your image before you put into iPhoto, LightRoom - or whatever organizing software your use.

The engineers at DxO calibrate 100's of lens with the majority of leading DSLRs. They measure distortion at all focal lengths and include this matrix of values in the DxO Pro software. To correct distortion, DxO reads the camera,  lens, and focal length data that is included  in every picture taken by a modern digital camera (EXIF data).  Removing distortion only requires DxO to invert the distortion that they measured when they calibrated your lens.  Brilliant and very accurate!  Not only is it consistent, but DxO can also fix distortion that's much more complex than that which can be fixed in Photoshop.

Does distortion suck?  Only if you let it.

Does Chromatic Aberration Suck?

The answer is: Sometimes. It depends how bad the defect is...

Chromatic aberration (CA) is the green and purple fringe (or halo) that appears around contrasting objects - usually near the edges of a picture. Thirty years ago, when everyone used fixed focal length prime lens, chromatic aberration was evil. It appeared only in inferior lenses.

In the digital era, where zoom lens rule, chromatic aberration is relatively common. The image below is a good example of chromatic aberration gone bad. It was taken with a $1000.00 Nikon 12-24mm DX zoom lens. Yech!

"CA be fixed with software"

Experts say: "CA is not a problem anymore. It can be fixed with software."

Yes, but only if the CA is 1 or 2 pixels wide in a 100% enlargement. If the CA is as bad as that produced with the 12-24mm DX zoom lens, you are out of luck. In this image, some of the CA was 8 pixels wide. Software will either miss it, distort it or remove other details.

Look at the image below. It shows how software can fail to fix really bad cases of CA.

Note how the image has become deformed and distorted by the software's failed attempt to remove CA.

Sorry folks, but nothing has changed in 30 years. CA is the sign of an inferior lens. The best lenses don't have CA. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise!

CA that is more than 2 pixels wide just sucks.

Does the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens suck?

(An abridged version of this posting got me permanently kicked off of www.nikonians.com. Beware: They may kick you off for reading this posting)

Last week I decided to upgrade from a Sigma 10-20mm to the venerable Nikon 12-24mm DX wide angle lens. I mean, how could I avoid it? With hundreds of glowing recommendations on www.nikonians.com, it has to be a stellar lens, right? I liked the Sigma lens which goes waaay wiiiiide to 10mm. But come on - the Nikon is just better.

So off I went to my local camera store and traded in my Sigma 10-20mm. I eagerly returned with a brand new Nikon 12-24mm DX lens, packaged in its unique gray box with "Made in Japan" engraved on the lens barrel. Cool.

The net cost of my upgrade: $CDN 1050.00. Twice the cost of Sigma lens. But you have to pay for quality - so no worries.

The next morning I snapped some quick test images that would confirm just how great my lens truly was. I was thrilled.

Later that day...

I loaded the images onto my Mac. I was prepared to be impressed. Instead I was shocked. Every image I took that morning has large amounts of chromatic aberration (CA). Blue, green and purple fringing near the edges of every image. Here are the initial test images.

I dutifully posted my findings on www.nikonians.com. Some people said they had similar experiences but most suggested that I must have bad copy of the lens. "Just get another one, and everything will be fine"

BTW: There is a zealot of a moderator on www.nikonians.com, named Brian Tilley, who told me the Nikon 12-24 is absolutely the best but I should have expected excessive CA if I had read the Nikonians review of this lens. What a moron.

If you Google for "Nikon 12-24 lens review", you will find some references to excessive CA - mostly from professionals. But these people just don't like the Nikon 12-24 because it is made of plastic, right?

Back to my local camera store. I showed them my test images. They said: "That's terrible. Please try another copy. Go outside and try it now if you wish?"

BTW: The store is www.henrys.com in Kanata ON, Canada. They were terrific and helpful. Many thanks!

I took some pictures with Nikon 12-24 DX lens sample #2, and then with sample #1 - just to be sure. To my surprise, sample #2 was just as bad as sample #1. I asked the helpful salesperson in the store, "Do you still have the Sigma 10-20mm lens I traded in 2 days ago?" He said, "Yes. Why not test it too?"

I quickly tested the Sigma against the two Nikon samples. The Sigma showed minor CA in one test and none in the other. It was clearly better than either of the Nikons. Here are the test images of all three lenses.

So what did I do? I returned the Nikon 12-24 DX lens, got back my Sigma 10-20mm lens and $1050.00.

There you have it. A negative experience with the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens. It's something you will not see on www.nikonians.org. But don't ever say it on www.nikonians.org. They will probably delete your account.

Why Do Nikonians Suck?

Well first of all, if you are a member of the website www.nikonians.org, it is likely that you do not suck. But, I am sad to report, the organization that runs www.nikonians.org probably does suck.

I have been booted off www.nikonians.org at least 3 times since September 2006. Why? They actually never say. My account is simply deleted along with most of my posts.

My suspected crime (again I don't know for sure): I occasionally say some uncomplimentary things about Nikon Products. For the most part, Nikon makes great stuff. I own at least $5000 worth of it. But some products, like the 12-24mm DX lens, are not very good.

I know one thing: I have never said bad things about www.nikonians.org users. I just give my honest opinion about Nikon Products. That appears to be grounds for banishment.

My Latest offense: I found that the $1000 Nikon 12-24mm DX lens I bought was a dud. When I returned it to the store and got another copy I found that lens was also a dud. So I posted my images here and my findings on www.nikonians.org.

What did I get for my trouble? User JackAubrey was permanently deleted from www.nikonians.org.

No warning. No explanation... No problem! I will repost my findings here over the next few days.

So why did I start this blog? To simply remind people that www.nikonians.org is biased. Sure, you already knew that from the name. But I think it is important to recognize that some information is being deleted without warning. Information that could help you make better buying decisions.

Before you spend $1000's on Nikon gear, check around to make sure your are getting the whole picture. Please don't believe everything you read on Nikonians.

For example: There are many bad reviews of the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens on the web. Just Google for them. The only thing is: you won't find any bad reviews of the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens on www.nikonians.org.

So who knows? You might even see some balanced coverage on this blog. I sure hope so.

Jack