|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Buonuomo2000 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Buonuomo2000  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 E ED VR Pros: Sharp, really sharp, used price Cons: Lacks tropicalization and doesn't focus closely Opinion: Found used for less than 600 euros, a part of me wanted the 180-600 Z for the internal zoom, but for him I had to spend more than three times as much and on top of that change camera body (I still have the d810), and I thought it wasn't worth it. The most important thing to say: it's really sharp, it gives optical results comparable to my 70-200 f/2.8 vrii, which I didn't expect at all: I've heard from some reviewers that some specimens are sharper than others, well this one really is very sharp, I almost feel guilty for having paid so little for such quality. I almost always use it from f7.1, where I can be sure to get excellent photos even at 500mm, not so much because it disappoints me at f5.6, but rather because in nature photography you can't ask a wolf to go back if the first shot turned out badly, so better be on the safe side. Now the cons: 1) the problem of humidity is really there: being telescopic, if it rains on top of the barrel while the lens is extended, the water enters inside the lens when it retracts. My specimen had a bit of condensation when I bought it, and I had to send it in for service to have it removed, to prevent it from becoming moldy. It was a calculated choice because, starting from the very low purchase price, the total expense was about 700 to have the lens refurbished, but I will have to be careful not to use it in the rain. As for you, if you buy it used, be careful, and above all consider that the internal zoom of the new 180-600 is the most important difference between these two lenses, such as to justify the purchase with the same optical quality, if you already use a Z camera. The build quality in general is also not on par with premium lenses, here there is plastic instead of metal; The 70-200 I feel it could fall on the floor and work the same, this one doesn't. 2) the good news is that it can take really good photos on subjects close to the limits of macro, such as butterflies and flowers [I expected that for close things I would have to change lenses, but I didn't]; The bad news is that it doesn't know how to focus well, it seems that the autofocus has been calibrated to search for distant subjects, and for close things you will have to pistol with the manual one. Final grade 8.5/10, they are very good lenses put inside a fragile and non-tropicalized body. It's the compromise to choose if you don't want/can spend 2K for a 180-600. sent on June 04, 2024 |
 | Nikon D810 Pros: Photos indistinguishable from a top of the range of 2024, and you can find it used for a thousand euros Cons: Video Opinion: At the dawn of 2024, mirrorless cameras have a monopoly on the market, so that this camera is used at a ridiculous price and is already being passed off as antiques. The truth is that, in a blind test, the image quality between a z9 and this one is indistinguishable. Of course, the z9 shoots 20fps, but to be honest I don't want twenty 60MB files each to manage for every second of burst, and even the more precise autofocus of mirrorless cameras is not a fundamental improvement, since I have the d810 since 2018 and 95% of the shots are perfectly in focus. The truth is that I don't feel the slightest need to change camera to improve my photography, the nikon has always done everything I asked of it perfectly. Also as far as the viewfinder is concerned, people praise the electronic mirrorless viewfinder, but in my opinion there is still a loooong way to go: the optical viewfinder is much more defined and does not have the "cathode ray tube" effect, which for some reason makes the image quality of electronic viewfinders much more unpleasant than that of screens. While I admit the incontrovertible advantage that you can zoom in on the electronic viewfinder, I'm more inclined to call them "two different things", rather than "one better than the other". Even the history of seeing the exposure from the viewfinder in my opinion is irrelevant, you just need to have a little hand in it and even from the optical viewfinder you don't miss a shot. As for the video side, it's the only real field where a mirrorless camera wins hands down. The d810 sucks quite a bit, now it plays with my phone and can't focus well, while the mirrorless ones now have 4k 4:2:2 as a base, which for me would be a dream. Conclusion: I've been wanting to make the leap to mirrorless for two years now, but I'm still hesitating, 3500 euros to get a z8, whose only tangible difference is the video scope, without a real improvement in usability and image quality? Not to mention that now F-mount lenses have depreciated, so it would take little to sell them, while I could buy for little money all the ones I have always wanted. Is it really worth the change? I haven't decided yet... sent on January 09, 2024 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
