Having used this lens extensively with both cameras, I kept feeling that it performed very much better with the Kodak. With this in mind, and with an idea of seeing some resolution comparison between the two cameras, I made these two images.

I've kept it simple, both images were taken at f8, with the default ISO (80 in the Kodak and 200 in the Nikon). I've tried to keep white balance, contrast and sharpening equivalent as far as is possible.

This isn't meant to be a 'serious' comparison, but I thought it was worth posting, not least because it shows the huge difference in view between full frame and the Nikon's APS sized sensor. It would be nice to repeat the performance with one of Nikon's top of the range lenses - but I'll leave that to someone else!

Here I've taken the same shot from the same position - in both cases the lens was set at f8, and at 28mm. The full shot is shown on the left hand side, Kodak at the top, Nikon at the bottom - this gives you a pretty good idea of the difference in view a full frame camera actually gives you. The 4 crops on the right hand side are all 100% crops, the Kodak is in the left hand column, and the Nikon in the right - as the camera difference was the same, the crop gives the same area of the photograph in each case.

The crop of the window is right at the edge of the frame (for the Nikon). It shows fairly dramatically the differences between results from the two cameras - the D100 shows considerably more contrast, less dynamic range, and also (surprisingly perhaps considering their respective reputations) rather more noise.

The crop of the brickwork is rather less clear-cut - taken from the centre of the shot: Again, the Kodak is showing more dynamic range, but the detail in the D100 shot is better, and the Kodak is showing the 'painterly' artifacts which crop up occasionally (although I've sometimes seen this on screen, I've never seen them on a print).

It's worth bearing in mind when looking at these shots, that the comparison is 'pixel for pixel' - the next image has a look at what happens when you compare shots taken of a specific area.

Here I've set the lens to 120mm and f8, and changed my relative position so as to get roughly the equivalent coverage (i.e. by moving forwards using the Kodak). Once again I've tried to make the best of each image in terms of contrast and sharpening. The images on the left are the full photo (Kodak on the top, Nikon on the bottom). The Nikon crop is 100% (bottom left), whereas the Kodak crop is taken of the same area, and then reduced in size to contain the same number of pixels - this is not particularly kind, but I was trying to get an idea of what would be seen on an equivalent sized print.

Here you can see that there is (as one would expect) considerably more detail in the Kodak shot - further sharpening of the Nikon shot seemed to make things worse rather than better.