|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Blade9722 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Blade9722  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Sony FE 28mm f/2 Pros: Excellent sharpness, resistance to backlight, blurred and tonality. Minimum dimensions Cons: None, perhaps the fact that distortion changes as the focus plane changes Opinion: I compared it with the Nikkor 24-120 f / 4 VR on D600, set to 28mm. Nikon's zoom is optimized at low focal lengths, and has a higher yield than many vintage fixed wide-angle lenses. At f / 4, Sony outperforms the whole frame. The difference is reduced by stopping at f / 5.6, up to canceling at f / 8. Not only that, at f / 2 the Sony has a sharpness comparable to the Nikon af / 4. Even against the backlight Sony behaves better, despite the Nikon is already excellent. Add a nice blur, contrast and bright colors, and small size, I would say that it is a fixed wide-angle serious, without weaknesses in performance. The only flaw, on Capture one for Sony the distortion is not completely correct when the focus is close. Rated 10 sent on January 24, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G ED Pros: Lightweight, excellent image quality across the picture, exceptional backlighting, relatively inexpensive Cons: Lack of stabilization Opinion: A lightweight lens, with excellent sharpness, constant throughout the frame. Returns contrasted images and saturated colors. Distortion is well corrected by the camera or Nikon software. Exceptional Backlight Resistance. You feel the lack of stabilization, sometimes I have to discard shots at 1 / 15s 18mm. To have this feature you should buy the 16-35, but it is much heavier and more massive. Staying stabilized I would give him a 10, so I vote 9 sent on June 27, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4 G ED VR Pros: Sharpness, stabilization, flare resistance, contrast and saturation Cons: Vignetting and distortion Opinion: A great lens, it gives contrasted, crisp images and saturated colors from f / 4. Stabilization is effective at other Nikon optics. The 24mm edge yield is significantly higher than that of the fixed AF-D. Good resistance to the backlight A bit of vignetting, and distortion that is not fully corrected. Autofocus in the standard. It is now bulk-packable at a low price. A versatile lens, suitable for any FF kit. Vote 9 sent on June 27, 2017 |
 | Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Pros: Sharpness and contrast, fast and silent autofocus, good construction, relatively light. Good performance if combined with the TC 1.4x APO teleconverter. Low distortion Cons: The stabilizer does not seem up to that of the Nikon 55-300. My sample is back-focus, corrected on camera (-15). Focus breath evident. Stabilizer fragile and subject to breakage. Improved customer support Opinion: It is my first bright canvas, and I am satisfied with it. Returns well-contrasted sharp images, with saturated and captivating colors. The yield with the teleconverter, especially for the contrast, is superior to the Nikon 70-300 VR for FF. The autofocus is quiet and fast, more than the Nikon 70-300 VR (in a test bench, 0.6s for the sigma, 0.7s for the sigma with TC, 0.8s for the Nikon). The stabilizer seems to me lower than that of 55-300, at 200m and 1 / 60s I sometimes discard some shots, something that rarely happened with the Nikon equivalent 450mm. I had to correct the back focus with a -15 in the room. The focus breath is evident, the focal drops to 135mm with the close subjects, but in practice it is not limiting. Distortion, even without correction, is almost imperceptible. Rating 9rnrn ***** REVIEW UPDATE ****** Last summer comes the firmware update for the D600 camera, which adds the compatibility to the AF-P step by step motorized optics. As a result of this updateor, the goal stops working. Contact AD service, which for the sum of 100 € updates the lens firmware, and autofocus calibration. Then for months I can not use it for health problems. When I take it in hand, check the calibration, and nothing seems changed, the correction of -15 is still needed. I report in AD service for the calibration, when I am returned, I notice that the stabilizer no longer works. Another 200 € expense, the reason for the break is attributed to the fact that I did not put the stabilizer OFF before removing the lens, thesis that does not hold in my opinion because in any case I turned off the camera body, and from the noise we understand that this is disabled. In my opinion, even reading on the web, the stabilizer is fragile. However it works now, and the on-camera correction is -3, at least the calibration was successful. sent on June 27, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR Pros: Fast AF, effective stabilizer Cons: Noisy stabilizer, adequate sharpness, but less than expectations, especially for the fame that was made in the forum Opinion: I had it for a short time, replaced the 55-300 in the transition from FX to DX. In spite of what is described in the forums, the yield is the same as the 55-300 (maybe maybe the DX was a little better). The Sigma 70-200 f / 2.8 OS with teleconverter is superior, especially in contrast. Autofocus is much faster, in a testbench the 55-300 used 1.4s, this 0.8s. The stabilizer is effective, although it seems lower than that of the 55-300. On the other hand it is quite noisy. Ultimately, an honest optic, with a valid autofocus, which I think in forums is a bit overvalued. Voting 8 sent on June 27, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Pros: Focal excursion, stabilization, acceptable, great price performance ratio Cons: No one important Opinion: He does his work extensively, the image quality is in line with the 18-55 VR but with a wider focal length. You can find them in bulk packs at a competitive price, but without hindrance. The stabilizer is effective, average autofocus. A product with no acute but also with no particular weaknesses. Great price performance ratioVoto 8 sent on June 27, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR Pros: efficient stabilizer, good light output, zoom range, good price performance ratio Cons: AF a bit 'slow, focus also breath the minimum focal length Opinion: Used for 6 years and then D7000 to D5000. Excellent stabilizer, I always got perfect shots with 1 / 60s at 300mm focal length (450mm equivalent) and often acceptable to 1 / 30s, there are three stops all. Moreover, unlike the FX 70-300 in which the stabilizer produces a vibration or audible squeak, this is silent. The AF speed is about half of 70-300 FX, in a bench test employed approximately 1-1.5s to hook, where the one for full frame around 0.6s.rnLa optical performance is good, the average of goals from kits, but not less than 70-300. Good zoom range, especially the comfortable 55mm, although the breath focus become 65mm when focheggia short distance. Rating: 8 sent on March 13, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR Pros: Very good price performance ratio, optimal yield, good breeding, VR efficient Cons: Factor limited zoom, maximum equivalent focal length a bit 'short Opinion: It 'was my first goal. Fundamentally, it does its job. The shots are good, not flawless but still usable. The stabilizer has always allowed me to take safely with 1/15 s. It still is the lens with the highest reproduction ratio I've ever had. Only drawback, flanked at 55-300, forced me to change too often optics, which is why at one point I replaced it with a 18-140. 8 vote sent on March 13, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G Pros: Sharpness, exceptional price performance ratio, weight and bulk content Cons: nobody Opinion: There is little to say. A must on APS-C. Crisp, compact, powerful, it never disappoints. I used it for 6 years and I have always considered the most versatile of the 50mm f / 1.8. Great for those who want to start playing with the depth of field and the artistic blurred. 52mm standard filter, in common with the 18-55 kit from. Rating: 10 sent on March 13, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF 24mm f/2.8 D Pros: Compact and lightweight. Good sharpness in the center. Chromatic aberrations, distortion and vignetting contained Cons: To be a fixed is not bright. No sharpness at the edges of the full frame, even af ??/ 8. In fact it can be well covered by a semi-pro zoom with comparable performance Opinion: I'm rather upset. Initially I had bought it for making photos on the premises with the D7000. On APS-C, he works extensively on his work. When I went to the full frame, I thought I would keep it as a sharp optic for landscape photos. I compared it to the 24-120 VR f / 4, a mid-high band zoom. Distortion with the 24mm is contained, and is automatically corrected by Nikon software and the camera. Conversely, with 24-120, distortion is more pronounced, and is not completely corrected. The 24m purple fringing aberrations are non-existent, which can not be said of the zoom. Sharpness at the edges however is almost embarrassing af / 4. And it does not improve any more by stopping af / 5.6 of / 8. Ultimately, for landscape shots the 24-120 produces better images in post-production. Adding the fact that 24mm is a focal covered by many zoom, with a loss of brightness of up to one stop, I do not see many reasons to use it, apart from having a light wider wide angle. On APS-C is oneValid option, but I would recommend the 35mm f / 1.8 DX. Vote 7 on FF, 9 on APS-C sent on March 13, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G Pros: Good price performance ratio. Compact and lightweight. Good sharpness in the center even at wide apertures (f / 1.4-2), very good from f / 4. Cons: chromatic aberrations (purple fringing) at wide apertures (f / 1.4-2) in areas just out of focus. Unfortunately for him, there is the AF-S 1.8G, outstanding goal at half price. Opinion: I currently own both the 1.8G AF-S that 1.4, so I can do a confronto.rnVelocità AF: in a test-bench I measured 0.6s to 1.8, 1.4 to 0.8s. So this is slightly slower, but the difference in practice is optical irrilevante.rnPrestazioni: f / 1.8 is slightly less than the center, the difference is most marked at the edges. I noticed compared to 1.8 a greater presence of purple fringing in areas just outside High Brightness fire. The difference becomes less marked as it closes the aperture, f / 5.6 shots with two objectives appear indistinguibili.rnIl bokeh is equivalent to that dell'1.8G, except, of course, f / 1.4 this blurs the più.rnrnIn summary, it is a great goal, in my opinion a bit 'mistreated because the 1.8G is better at wide apertures. But it is the 1.8G to be eccezionale.rnrnAlla end I opted to keep it and sellKing the 1.8G because for my uses 2/3 stop more brightness and greater blur are more important than a slight loss of definizione.rnVoto 9 sent on March 13, 2017 |
 | Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G Pros: Great price-performance ratio. Exceptional sharpness, even at full aperture. Small and light, fast Autofocus Cons: If you really want to find a nit, the 58mm front filter, instead of the classic 52mm, it seems to have derived from the 1.4 design rather than from real technical reasons. Opinion: I currently own both this goal, both the 1.4G AF-S. By comparison, the sharpness at f / 1.8 for this is slightly higher in the center, with a more marked difference at the edges. In addition to the entire exhibition opening minor chromatic aberrations (purple fringing) in highlights slightly out of focus. As you close the diaphragm the differences between the two is thin, becoming indistinguishable af / 5.6.rnPer regarding the AF speed in a bench test that is slightly faster (0.6s against 0.8s) 1.4. RNA despite the speculation regarding the presence of the element aspherical and 7-blade aperture, the bokeh is equivalent to that dell'1.4rnUnico neo, perhaps from the 58mm filter is ingiustificato.rnrnIn synthesis: an exceptional aim sold at a low price, I would give it a 9 view the filter question. But since it seems to me that the average marks are quite generous, a 10 deserves it all. sent on March 13, 2017 |
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
