|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Gsabbio www.juzaphoto.com/p/Gsabbio  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Nikon AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G DX VR Pros: Crisp across the range and well contrasted Cons: practically nothing for the category Opinion: Small, handy, light and incredibly performing, a 'mature' lens that can satisfy anyone, far from the classic standard created to act as a cap. Taken by mistake (being an AF-P it is not compatible with my old APS-c of 18 years ago) I took the whim of discovering it a bit anyway and I was amazed by its performance. The funny thing is that although it was born for the DX format, it too like the previous AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR, starting from the focal length of 24mm it is able to cover the FF format. So I had fun trying these lenses on the FF (D850 and Z7) on which I had already tried its predecessor. The result is more than good, first of all it is better than the previous model (which was already not bad but which shows a slightly lower contrast than the new AF-P); in the center and at maximum aperture it proves to be well sharp on all focal lengths, closing by one stop the sharpness improves especially at the edges, which at T.A. are not kneaded but still visibly drop (attention: we are talking about a DX lens tested on FF!!, and it must be said that at about 2/3 of the FF field -more or less the edges of an APS-c- the sharpness is always very good). The AF is fast and the VR is very efficient. Contrary to other opinions, for me the fact that there is a lock button is an advantage: it allows you to considerably reduce the size of the lens and then does not penalize the operating speed, because to make the framing you have to extend the lens -an operation that takes a couple of tenths of a second (the AF... in practice it is instantaneous) and to do so it is not necessary to press the button, which, instead, is essential -only- to retract the lens when not in use; Basically, the button has the sole purpose of preventing the lens from being brought below 18mm, the point beyond which it stops working/focusing. That said, I would say that this lens is a must-have for those who want to start photographing but also want the certainty of being able to get the best out of their camera. Score: a nice 9.5 well deserved -in relation to the category- sent on October 02, 2024 |
 | Nikon D80 Pros: Lightweight, quiet, CCD sensor Cons: Inherent design weakness that can be prone to unrepairable failure Opinion: It is the little sister of the D200 in all respects, it mounts the same 10 mpix CCD and adopts similar color profiles capable of churning out jpg/raw with very captivating colors. It is smaller and lighter than the D200 so it becomes easier to carry, and it is a little less professional as a manufacture, the most obvious difference being the electromechanical system of lifting the mirror and shutter release that derives from the D70 and is much quieter and softer than the D200. However, this is also its Achilles' heel, because its components are very prone to practically unrepairable failures due to the absence of service and spare parts, which make the camera unusable. Mine (faulty, 'ERR' signal, it took pictures but did not take pictures due to a classic failure of the contacts of the mirror/shutter motor assembly) I got it for free and in aesthetic condition very close to new. With tutorials and a lot of DIY I was able to repair it, and now it is a fixed and beloved part of my equipment. Its real strength is the black and white rendering which, unlike the D200, is well customizable, even simulating the use of filters (green, yellow, orange, red) as well as contrast/sharpness of the images. The result is very analog black and white which makes it an excellent camera for this purpose. Since I've owned it, it's a fixed pair with my Z7 (which works on color) while I use the D80 only in BN. For the moment, after the repair it works fine, and I have accumulated a thousand shots; Let's hope it lasts... because it would be a real shame not to be able to do these B/W anymore. A note: shooting B/W in RAW+JPG I get a finished jpg (B/W) and a RAW that actually also keeps all the color data so, however, I have all the possibilities of post production. On practical use: the shutter is silent and soft so it is less sensitive to blur (a feature common to the D70), its autofocus is as effective as it needs to be (it can also mount the old AF lenses -with screwdriver power take-off-), with AFS lenses it can be safely defined as fast even according to current standards. Noise at high ISO... It's there but now, thanks to modern post-production software, it's no longer a problem. The few mpix -compared to the current ones- are actually an advantage if you use it on portraits, because they are not able to reproduce the various defects of the skin and moreover its CCD performs very well on the complexion. To give her a grade: I would say that she deserves a good nine even today, thanks to her B/W. sent on March 07, 2024 |
 | Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR Pros: Versatility, good quality already t.a, very good contrast for lens type Cons: brightness Opinion: It is a lens that never disappoints, it is a 'must have' for those who need to save on the weight of the backpack, or for reportage around the world. It shows a quality towards 200mm already very good at full aperture over medium distances, to the point that in portraits it even becomes 'merciless' because of its high resolution. Its limited brightness, already just past 24mm, often forces you to work in auto ISO to be sure to bring home a shot that does not suffer from blur and this could be its real handicap, because if optically it does not regret neither the 24-70 f4 S nor the 14-30 f4 S (with the latter constitutes a winning pair for reportage), on the other hand, going up with the iso on the Z7 after 16,000, on the darker shadows the image visibly deteriorates and it is not possible to obtain qualitatively valid recoveries even with the most updated software (a note: I never use the tripod, not even in the nocturnal, clear that, having it, there is no problem even with a lens that closes at f6.3, because its yield to T.A. is excellent). I put him to the test during a trip to the Philippines, where, in spite of myself and without my knowledge, I was involved in a local wedding. So I was forced to employ this 24-200 in a role that is absolutely not his. Well... At the end of the day, working strictly in ambient light, low brightness and high ISO, what emerges is that its only and true limit is the bo-keh, which unfortunately is anything but creamy ... dreamy... plastic... and all other relevant adjectives. It is an f6 -about- and unfortunately the blur is always clearly visible, however you can still get portraits with subjects sufficiently isolated from the background. But to return to the wedding: of the more than 600 shots I took with this lens, of those discarded very few are attributable to its limits and even less to defects that it just does not seem to have, because I did not perceive optical aberrations or flare problems in the backlight, and also demonstrates a remarkable uniformity of yield over the entire frame to all apertures. Using it outdoors and in reportage, it is perfectly at ease and always allows technically perfect shots. In my opinion, however, it is a lens optimized at medium distances, because at infinity and 200mm it is not at its best, but always and in any case with a good definition and an always appreciable contrast. As a rating I assigned it a 9 but according to the current rating on this site it deserves a 9.2-9.3 in essence: a really good all-rounder lens. sent on April 06, 2023 |
 | Nikon Z7 Pros: mirrorless, perfectly integrated with 60+ years of Nikon F kit Cons: cost-reduction manufacturing, battery consumption under certain conditions, viewfinder delay, viewfinder yield at night, sensor exposed to dirt, one slot, price Opinion: sent on June 18, 2022 |
 | Fujifilm S5 Pro Pros: Overall yield Cons: slow buffer writing Opinion: My S5 and D200 are fixed pairing for portraits. The D200 is better for speed, buffer and color rendering, but the S5 is appreciated for other features that make it indispensable and for this reason the two bodies integrate perfectly. The camera body is identical to that of the D200, they change 'only' the sensor, the firmware, the battery and, of course... surrender. Compared to the D200 the S5 with the standard parameters, shows a more magenta color rendering, which objectively must be corrected to have a more attractive color (but it must be said that the color parameters of the D200 are still unattainable today and we have not yet understood if it is thanks to the CCD or the firmware); on the other hand, the S5 recovers the highlights very well, and on this it has a step further than the D200. At high iso, always compared to the D200, the S5 has a 'more digital' rendering with the presence of artifacts where the D200, on the other hand, has a noise effect very similar to the grain of an analog film, but, used on black and white from 200 to 3200 iso (excellent yield at high iso) the S5 with the appropriate calibrations (film std simulation, dynamic range 400%, hard tone, std engraving) produces jpg already finished and very beautiful, which do not need any pp. And then: what is the purpose of using today machines 15 years old and moreover with few mpix and a remarkable noise? It's counterintuitive but... the S5 and D200 have peculiar characteristics that make them indispensable tools like an excellent vintage lens. As I have already written: put together they constitute a winning combination for portraits: the S5 that works fixed in B / W without paying any attention to sensitivity because even at 3200 iso (fondocorsa) the images are perfect, the D200, instead works fixed on the color always up to 3200 iso (fondocorsa), with a detail: the 'analog' grain of the D200 is far preferable in the B / W at 1250-3200 iso, but it requires a bit of PP to correct the contrasts that are otherwise quite flat, and unless you need special pictorial renderings, this makes you prefer the S5 that produces ready-made and beautiful files. Unfortunately the S5 is a 'slow' machine, made three-four shots in raw, the loading of the buffer slows down its use, so it is more suitable for reasoned shots, in essence it is not a camera for sports use (something in which the D200 excelled -at least for its period-). The images: to believe that a 2022 camera takes better photos than one of 2005-2006 is wrong, each camera has its own character, which must be known and chosen as you would choose a genre of film to achieve a certain yield. For this reason, thanks to the very particular and -perhaps- today inimitable rendering, the S5 (as well as the D200) must be evaluated, used and appreciated for the undoubtedly very original character of its images. sent on June 14, 2022 |
 | Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR Pros: Compact, with well-effective AF and VR Cons: contrast Opinion: It is a lens heir to the huge but very valid AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6, compared to which it takes two steps forward and one step back. In fact, in Nikon history, the AFS VR would replace the AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED D which however marked a sharp drop compared to the previous model 75-300, a gap then partially recovered with this AFS VR 70-300, which is a decisive improvement over the previous AF-D and recovers a little compared to the 'old' 75-300 which however remains the true yardstick. It is a very comfortable, compact, lightweight, well transportable lens, with a well-effective VR and AF, all features on which the previous 75-300 lacked, but unfortunately it was not able to match the color rendering and contrast, not to mention its manufacture in cost reduction that has lightened and streamlined it, but it has also abandoned the previous tank structure of the professional 75-300 for a cheaper 'consumer' body as a small car. It is a worthy amateur lens, which currently also has an attractive price on the used, but which is not able to satisfy the most demanding palates, because, although quite sharp, it lacks microcontrast, which is reflected in a poorer rendering of the weaker color tones, which becomes evident in low light conditions producing flat and dull images. However, it must be said that in good lighting conditions the images are always beautiful and rich in detail. Advisable if you want something valid and not expensive (used), but to be avoided if you are used to maximum yield in all respects or if you use megapixel machines. In that case it is better to go on the recent AFP model which, really, has only merits. sent on November 26, 2021 |
 | Nikon 200mm f/4 Ai-S Pros: really everything: sharpness, contrast, absence of aberrations, size Cons: Minimum focusing distance a bit long: 2 meters, which penalizes its use for close-up Opinion: I agree with the previous opinion of Decris, it is a truly remarkable lens that I use on the ML -Z7- and that already from the first shots proves to possess unexpected characteristics even on very demanding 45 mpix sensors. All reviews, in general, can be influenced by many factors, first the enthusiasm for the new toy and then the lack of experience. Personally I do not think I fall into these two categories, I took this lens because... a little quietly, I collected numerous and agreed positive opinions, but it is not that I really needed it, however, given the very cheap price of the used, I decided to try it, at most I would have resold it. As for the experience... this is the twentieth lens of this focal length that happens to me in my hands. The purpose of the purchase was: if it is really beautiful, I made a bang, otherwise it returns to where it was. Well... I made a bang! I do not dwell on technical descriptions that in the end would duplicate those that preceded me. I only say that if you want an excellent lens, which guarantees you results of the highest level in all respects, this glass is a fixed point that can and MUST enter into a kit. The only recommendation is to use it manually on ML, which allows an accurate control of the focus. sent on November 02, 2021 |
 | Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S Pros: exemplary sharpness from f4 to f22, contrast, absence of aberrations, homogeneous over the entire frame Cons: not received Opinion: Perfect optics. On Z7 it shows a stunning sharpness practically homogeneous throughout the frame, excellent at f4 and very good even at f22, where the loss of sharpness, if there is one, is practically not perceptible. Excellent performance in the backlight and the absence of flare and no chromatic aberrations are perceived. If we really want to find a flaw: it would have been nice if it was a little more 'macro'. It is safe to assume that this lens was born to be used without penalty also on future 100 mpix sensors. Needless to say, a lens from grade 10 (of course, compared to its category). sent on August 13, 2021 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G II Pros: good image quality all round Cons: all in 'plastic' and a bit coarse look Opinion: I have owned two, and it is a very good lens, of economic workmanship but with a yield always excellent even to the most open diaphragms. I went out of my way to prove - to myself - that it was 'poor' but despite all the comparisons I made I showed nothing, indeed ... I came to the opposite judgment. Even all the images taken over the years are always valid. Its flaws are: the somewhat coarse appearance, the plastic bayonet, the front lens that rotates during focus and complicates the use of the polarizer, and finally the fact that it is a bit 'dark' that I do not think is a limit to photograph in poor light, but unfortunately greatly limits the possibility of working on the blurry. In my opinion and on the basis of past experience, although it has long employed even DX lenses considered 'top' I can only say that this lens is a very valid choice for anyone, not just amateur. The average grade 7.7 is really undeserved, a nice 9 is all there is. sent on May 08, 2021 |
 | Nikon 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S Pros: Contrast and sharpness at f4, blurry, creative possibilities at full opening Cons: veiled at f1.4 on the D850's digital sensor Opinion: Warning: This review refers to the Ai K version produced until 1977. This lens has been produced since 1970 remaining in production for 50 years with unchanged optical scheme and improvements that first affected the anti-glare treatment and then the composition of the glasses of some lenses to improve aberrations and the diaphragm passed to 9 slats. Designed for NASA, it shows excellent sharpness and contrast, reaching a maximum of f4-5.6. But at f1.4 it's really another lens, producing nebulous, low-contrast images, with strong chromatic aberrations and a visible swirlwing effect of blurry. Defects that disappear almost completely closing at f2. Yet this behavior, which is not attributable to the lens, as to its use on a medium for which it was not designed - digital - manages to produce very personalized images that lend themselves to a very creative use of its very soft blurry. In fact, the nikkor 35 f1.4 is a 'dual' lens: at full opening it is a 'concept lens' that offers experimentation and creativity. From f2 onwards it is an impeccable lens suitable for any use where maximum is required on every aspect of the image. The recommendation is to try it and evaluate it on your machine, because experience shows that many lenses - pre-digital - change character as the sensor on which they are used changes. This review is based on the Nikon D850. If I were to give a vote: I would say 9.8 closed at f4 and 10+ at full opening for the space it gives to creativity. It is actually not assessable because the character changes depending on the sensor used. sent on February 11, 2021 |
 | Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF (1987 version) Pros: contrast, sharpness, blurry, robustness Cons: autofocus a bit slow compared to current performance Opinion: That it was a good lens, for me it was a fact already when I used it over 20 years ago on manual machines. The slowness of the focus - according to the current criteria - was not a problem, I was hand-sealing with an F3 and without stabilization and AF the rate of perfect images was very high. I decided to write this review because just these days I digitized some of the 1997 dias, on which I had to intervene to eliminate the damage caused by time. This forced me to work on the image at very high magnifications 300/400% and I was able to re-discover its extraordinary yield. Although on an Ektachrome 100 film, which did not shine for the fineness of the grain, the richness of the smallest details is extraordinary, widely satisfying and even superior to the 45 mpix sensor of the D850 with which I reproduced the image (for duplication I employed a specialist Zuiko 80mm f4 macro 1:1). If you then intervene with modern noise reduction software, the detail obtainable becomes extraordinary even for a film. Therefore: my voice is added to the chorus of those who sing the praises of this lens. Given the price of used goods, it is a widely recommended choice, but I recommend not to buy it in a closed box, because I recently ran tests on a model that was not in place. On the other hand, it has been around for at least 30 years and although the manufacture is very robust, some ailves can be there. In my gallery I will publish the duplicate PWC97 image from slide. The 9.5 vote was fully deserved then as it is today. sent on December 06, 2020 |
 | Nikon D200 Pros: CCD sensor, noise, robustness, versatility Cons: 15 years later: nothing Opinion: This review is dedicated to the reasons why it makes sense to employ a technology machine that has been surpassed for 15 years for new creative forms. I owned two D200s that I replaced after about 60,000 shots each to follow the evolution with D300 and all models to follow. A couple of years ago I was able to consult a photo book of a friend, all done with the D200 and I appreciated the color of the images. Afterwards I had to do a search in my photo archive and found a lot of images with an excellent color rendering that had been taken with the D200. At that point I began to think that that machine, with its CCD sensor, makes sense even today and not at all trivial. Finally I found a very good one with 4500 shots and despite owning a D850, D7200, D3200, Sony RX100 VI, the D200 is in second place for images taken. The D200 might be considered an outdated DSLR, but it's the latest Nikon with CCD sensor and it's the sensor that makes the difference. When used with ISO 'out of the way' at 3200, and taking advantage of the jpg produced by the machine, thanks to its sensitive noise, in very weak light it is able to produce images with a good contrast and a grain -noise- very analog that perfectly returns a tone from old black and white. In this regard I refer you to this 3D opened by Jacopo Pasqualotto: https://www.juzaphoto.com/topic2.php?l=it&t=3547873. When used in B/N with vintage optics, with all their imperfections it manages to produce images that offer new interpretative forms of the photographic language, with a nice contrast in low-sensitivity B/N. Even in color and low sensitivity, the D200 is able to make a difference, with a very natural complexion and a very balanced color rendering that makes it a perfect portrait machine. The D200, is a professional machine, which fifteen years later still has its role as a niche camera, for the photographer interested in looking for new interpretative forms of the photographic language. The evaluation, 15 years later can only be 10 and praise. sent on September 17, 2020 |
 | Olympus E-Zuiko Auto-T 135mm f/3.5 Pros: Small and with great performance Cons: is no longer produced, deterioration of anti-glare treatment Opinion: With a vast Olympus past, I've always snubbed this lens, sinful of arrogance. It is a grandiose lens, crisp already open from edge to edge and with a very rich contrast. I got my specimen for free because the front lens is veiled. I tried to disassemble it and then discovered that veiling is not an internal fungus but a probable oxidation of the anti-glare treatment of the anterior lens right on the outer side. I tried with a bit of everything but it was not possible to remove the veiling. I then replaced the bayonet by mounting a Nikon F adaptor and did the first tests on a D850 and a D200 comparing it to the 135 f2 DC and the 80-200 f4 AI-S two illustrious and out-of-the-question lenses. Well, little Zuiko 135 immediately showed his whole class playing it on par with the two sacred monsters mentioned above. Unfortunately, the veiling is seen a little with a slight nebulous effect that barely penalizes its contrast (already good even with this handicap), but this does not prevent you from using it, because the results are still respectable. Rating: a nice 9 to 10 over-deserved. To the admirers of 'vintage' I say: 'never again without' MA... ATTENTION: referring to the veiling mentioned above, I have verified, also on other specimens, that this lens has a certain tendency to point on the lower -inner- top of the front lens. It's NOT repairable. On a positive side, even if it affects the whole lens, it does not spoil the quality of the image but in the backlight. Personally, after trying in vain to eliminate it, I cannibalized another 135 who did not have the defect. sent on April 04, 2020 |
 | Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 E ED VR Pros: crisp, fast, light, with beautiful contrast, effective VR Cons: plastic body and visible vignetting however well correct in-room Opinion: Here's a lens that doesn't come into focus, it's just already on fire the moment you turn on the car. This small detail, which is its operational feature, is the premise for its very high speed. The quality of the files is very good, of course... not at the level of the 'top' telephoto objectives but defends itself well and ... if we want to... the 'feathers' of the bird on duty from time to time can also be distinguished well in the frame. It certainly shines with the speed of its focus system, the lightness and great effectiveness of the stabilization system, combined with state-of-the-art image quality for the category. Employed by me on an appreciable but dated D7200 (at least as AF), it showed a remarkable speed of focus that allowed me - among other things - to shoot numerous birds in flight, all perfectly in focus (never happened -to me-). Certainly, used on more efficient autofocus machines such as the D500 or the D850 (or the Z series), it can perform real miracles, also thanks to its great transportability, which makes it a perfect travel lens. If uploaded without corrections, the images show a sensitive vignetting that is perfectly corrected by machine parameters and post-production software. It may generate some doubt, about his life expectancy, the fact that he has the barrel made in the classic polycarbonate used by Nikon, but given the experience with many other lenses, these can be more 'lyse' than real problems. Grade 10 -compared to the category- sent on February 13, 2020 |
 | Olympus 50mm f/1.8 OM F.Zuiko Pros: Size and mechanical quality Cons: The first version was optically poor Opinion: In 1977 it was my first OM lens with an OM1, mine that was of the first version (silver ring) had a marked flare and a low sharpness at full opening. For the inexperienced it represented the entrance into the wonderful world of photography and everything was taken with enthusiasm, but as time went on and as the experience grew, the flaws became obvious. Of mine I noticed when I took a few test photos comparing it to the Pentax 50 f1.7, when already in the crosshairs you could see the difference of the flare and the tests showed a clear optical inferiority. It is possible that with the second version -black dial and MC treatment - the quality had improved. On my own... I switched to 50 f1.4 and changed the world. sent on November 27, 2019 |
 | Sony RX100 VI Pros: It is a perfect professional micro for employment in difficult conditions such as in the high mountains Cons: a little dark optics, battery life, exaggerated price, and other minor aspects explained below Opinion: It is a complete machine that complements an FF kit and just say this. However, it is not without any improveable aspects. A non-secondary factor is the lifespan of batteries, which even using measures aimed at saving them, do not allow you to go over 300 shots -about - for this is mandatory to travel with a good supply of batteries. I come from an RX100 m1 and have been using it assiduously for about a year. It has a very good optics, although mine at maximum focal length decreases a bit of quality. In my opinion, its main flaw is precisely the brightness of the optics, a diaphragm less than the RX100 m1, which makes it more difficult to shoot with little light and forces you to raise the sensitivity; This increases the sensor noise, which eventually worsens its overall performance compared to the first RX100. However, having a 200mm makes this totally overshadowed. Compared to the RX100, it has a better reading of the temperature of color but still needs a slight customization to make the colors less cold. I usually read a few complaints about the accessibility of the menu, in my opinion it is not true, just 'learn the way' and it is equivalent to that of other brands, also has a function that allows a personalized menu where to store the most useful functions. Another complain is the size: which fortunately are tiny, otherwise I would not see the purpose of such a machine when you could choose an M4/3, the solution is its ready leather bag -fake - which has an obscene price but makes it very practical to hold around your neck and protects it very well even in difficult situations, for example in climbing. The 4k videos are excellent, and from the frames you can get great 8 mpix images that do not disfigure in comparison to anything. On the video part there are two negative aspects eliminated with model VII: the 5-minute limit of shooting -in 4k- and the absence of a socket for the external microphone. Another aspect, this definitely negative, is the yield on the panoramas, which suffer a lot from software-induced areas that make them practically unusable, in this much worse than the RX100. Without wanting to give the idea that it is a machine full of defects, I wrote the above because I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to make known some less positive aspects of a model that is really of a very high level. In conclusion: it is a tool with real professional characteristics absolutely recommendable. sent on November 11, 2019 |
 | Nikon AF 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D IF ED Pros: Size Cons: sharpness at the edges Opinion: It was born as a super-angle zoom, amateur, in the days of film, and has suffered the blow of the emergence of digital. It was my first wide-angle lens on digital, although used on machines with only 6 mpix, I was never thrilled by the quality of the images and the contrast. In my experience it is a lens that can be used on APS and also on FF but on machines with 'few' mpix, such as D300 or D700. Using it on more demanding sensors shows all its limitations, especially in sharpness at the edges. Recommended in the days of the film, as for many other wide-angle 'vintage' I consider it close to obsolescence for digital. I don't rate it because it can't be evaluated on digital machines sent on November 07, 2019 |
 | Nikon 500mm f/8 N Reflex Pros: image plasticity Cons: sharpness, hard focus Opinion: If... look for a long and clear focal point... forget about this lens. Its merits are other, and in comparison with current productions, even economic ones, its sharpness is not comparable. I owned both versions of the reflex 500 f8, currently I use this latest version. Using it always freehand, I can not say that I have encountered problems of micromosso, the real criticality is the focus, which is really difficult. The images obtained are often slightly blurry, but if you reach the perfect focus you get excellent results, where the singular character of the blurry areas returns very plastic images. To some, the 'circle' effect of out-of-focus lights may not please them, but I consider them to be an added value. Remarkable is the absence of chromatic aberrations (thanks to the optical scheme) as well as the minimum focus distance that borders the macro. In my opinion, precisely because of the particular character of the images, it is a complementary perspective to know and use when you want to experiment with different lights, colors and shots. As an assessment - according to the current criteria - it cannot go beyond eight but in reality it is not assessable, it is a category in its own right that comes out of the common schemes. sent on November 07, 2019 |
 | Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G Pros: excellent TA sharpness, good price, weight and size Cons: anything, if you don't expect personal tastes Opinion: Very good optics in all respects already at full open, to the point that it is not necessary to close the diaphragm to seek more detail. Personally, I am of the opinion that the bokeh is good but on FF he lacks a touch of personality. It's not a real flaw, it's a matter of personal taste. However, it performs the function of portrait optics on the APS format; I use it very often paired with a D200 for the portrait (like an 85 on FF), and the results are really pleasant. Recommended optics for any kind of kit. sent on November 07, 2019 |
 | Olympus Zuiko Auto-W 24mm f/2.8 Pros: Contrast and size Cons: Sharpness on APS-C Opinion: The 24 f 2.8 was a great lens for film cameras, and is also effective on digital but it all depends on the sensor. This review is based on a Zuiko 24 f 2.8 latest series (no silver nose) with MC lens treatment and images taken with Nikon D200, D3200, D7200 and D850. At full opening, on FF, the Zuiko 24 f2.8 in the center produces a slightly veiled image but always with a very rich contrast, the sharpness becomes good already starting from F4 and F5.6-8 is practically equivalent to Sigma art 24 f1.4 (the sharpness of the sigma still remains unrevable to all diaphragms but the differences at f5.6-8 are minimal). Closing the Zuiko at f8, the sharpness in the center is excellent but on the sides the results may not be unique on all cameras: on the D850 it shows a slight loss of detail on the sides and instead has impeccable clarity throughout the field on a Sony A7 II; there is, however, a not excessive chromatic aberration and a visible vignetting that must be corrected in PP, and a sensitive flare in the shooting with the sun in the frame. What is appreciated about the Zuiko 24 is the contrast that returns an excellent wealth of tones that combined with its very small size combined with its more than good quality, make it practically irreplaceable, without any regrets when there is to walk many hours with your backpack. On the APS-C (D200, D3200, D7200), the Zuiko 24 f2.8 returns images that are crisp and appreciable for their richness in hues, but on the cameras listed it drops in yield to the edges to the point that on these old technology sensors it is lower for sharpness at the edges even compared to the economical nikkor AFS 18-55 VR standard. For all that has been said, before finalizing the purchase, it must be considered that the yield of this lens depends a lot on the camera sensor, it can be critical on APS-C but on FF and also on M4/3 it proves to be a super lens with a superlative contrast. Some notes about the use on Nikon bodies: the Olympus pull is just half a millimeter shorter than the Nikon; for this reason it is possible to easily disassemble the OLY bayonet and mount a nikon bayonet suitably lowered like the Leitax. I DO NOT RECOMMEND other cheaper bayonets because those tried by me are dimensionally incorrect by a couple of tenths and do NOT keep the focus infinite. Leitax are much more expensive but are mechanically impeccable. Unlike the Nikkor, on the Zuiko the diaphragm always remains open, so it is necessary to block the diaphragm so that it works stop-down (I used a very banal elastic because every other mechanical intervention was too invasive). The exposure meter of the Dxxx-DF-Dx series machines and also the D7000-7100-7200 works regularly (in stop down) and it is possible to shoot in manual or automatism A -diaphragm priority-. A technical detail: on nikons, mounting an lens with a flange without any data transmission - as for the Leitax adapter - the camera firmware refuses to formatting the memory card with the two quick keys, you have to do it from the menu. I do not vote because, on digital, the real value of this lens depends too much on the sensor. sent on October 17, 2019 |
 | Nikon 80-200mm f/4 AI-s Pros: Contrast and sharpness Cons: Operating speed Opinion: Great optics, and this has already been known for many years, has a global quality (sharpness and contrast), as the AFS 80-200 F2,8. Unfortunately it's not autofocus. Of course, whoever takes this has already put it into account, the question is that for this does not have a good operating speed. It is a 30 years ago, that goes great on DSLRs to Super Mega pixel, but they highlight every little error; For this it requires a laborious and long manual focus, which makes it difficult to use on mobile subjects. For this reason it is advisable to use it in good light conditions to exploit the most closed diaphragms and to compensate with the depth of field the inevitable errors of focus. One note: Owning them both, I must say that the quality of this optics is still at the state of the art also on 45mpix sensors, but amazingly it is inferior to that of contemporary 80-200 F4, 5 that already at full aperture shows an extraordinary homogeneity of Detail/engraving/contrast even at the edges, higher than that of brother F4 which, by the way, has absolutely similar dimensions. Rating: 9 and a half sent on May 21, 2019 |
 | Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Pros: Sharp Cons: Contrast, weight, focus breathing: focal length about 25-26 Opinion: It's also too good to see, which is why the contrast is too violent. I have had this view for at least three years and I refrained from writing a review first because I wanted the certainty of some of my impressions. From the first shots I was amazed by the really good sharpness, but... there was something that didn't convince me deeply. Let me explain: when you have been photographing for decades and you have made a habit of unimpeachable optics, you quickly understand if what you are using is the right optics in everything. Sometimes, the beauty of a lens jumps to the eye already looking into the sights of the reflex. Probably because the eye doesn't know anything about MTF but it was developed with millions of years of 'research'. This is not the case with the Sigma 24mm f/1.4, which returns crisp images with a blurry f1.4 that admirably separates the plans, and yet it has always left me some doubt. Something was missing. Only recently I performed comparative tests with an old Olympus 24 f2.8 on Nikon D850 and saw what is missing: the contrast. The optics are very sharp and are appreciated for this, unfortunately it is a perceived sharpness that makes up only half of the image. Comparing it to the old lens, you can see that the microcontract is excessive. I mean that the optics is engraved but the tonal variation of colors, the micro shades, are less rich than the comparison optics, which at full opening seems veiled but in detail returns, already all open, a greater richness of tones. From the comparison, it is also highlighted that the Sigma suffers from focus breathing, at short distances it is not really a 24 but more realistically a 25-26 (the thing is not a problem). The rating is positive (a 9) but I think I'll change it for something more plastic. sent on May 21, 2019 |
 | Samsung S8 Pros: More than satisfactory operating speed, panoramic photos Cons: Screen delicacy Opinion: Starting from the counter: I have the impression that the material that covers the curved screen has a lower hardness than the previous models, because after a short time of use my little scratches were reported. I tried to mount a screen in protective glass but I found myself with the phone almost unusable because it reduced the sensitivity to touch. Probably, a plastic film of the usual ones could mitigate the problem. The positive aspect: photographically does not exist for those accustomed to SLR, but it is also true that for images printed on formats similar to 10x15 the quality is almost equivalent to any other camera (maybe the lights... are a bit ' penalized). The one where it really emerges, however, are the panoramic photos. Outclassa widely by definition, exposure and color those made with a good Sony RX100, to the point that has become my indispensable complement to the equipment when I go for Monti. In video: Also works well at 4k with an always efficient focus, with an appropriate stabilizer and a little ' hand ' I think it can also produce videos of all respect. sent on December 26, 2018 |
 | Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art Pros: Quality, sharpness, stabilization Cons: weight, size, battery consumption Opinion: Very good optics in all respects (vote 9): used on Nikon D800, already at f4 shows excellent sharpness throughout the frame and a nice contrast, the stabilization is always very effective and the focus very fast. My model, purchased second-hand, on my machine body did not need any calibration of the autofocus, however it has a slight tendency to overexpanify: about 1/3 of diaphragm, but nothing that can not be corrected in pp. I took it to replace a highly exploited Nikon 24-120 f4 (well over 100,000 shots) that because of some excessive mistreatment no longer convinced me how sharpness; it is in fact that the difference I saw immediately compared to the last images of 24-120, while, it is not so marked compared to the photos taken years before with Nikon. To the question: "Nikon or Sigma?" honestly, I could not give a preference, the Sigma looks a little sharper at full opening, and also has a nice blur, but it is very big, heavy, and stops at 105, the Nikon is nearby for sharpness, the stabilization seems to me equivalent (perhaps a hair better the sigma), the autofocus is just slower than the Sigma, but it is lighter, less cumbersome and comes to 120 (it is little, but does). I confirm the compatibility issues of its firmware with Nikon bodies, as explained above by Giovanni1976; in essence the machine - any nikon, at least until the D850 - never goes into standby, this involves an abnormal and sensitive consumption of batteries and due to consumption, the practical inability to use it for time-lapses. As for Nikon, even for Sigma I can not talk about the distortion because I do not care, while the chromatic aberrations are irrelevant on a practical level, and the whole thing is safely correctable in PP with the right STs (I use DxO). These are all minimal differences that on optics from reportage like these (great for the purpose), in the end they are lost in the inaccuracies of recovery that in fact pave the way for merits and defects. These consumer optics do not have production processes with a quality worthy of a Leica perspective, so the defect always 'looms', perhaps justified by the breadth of tolerances on specifications. The key to it all lies in the luck of finding the right specimen (fundamental: try it well before buying it). So, the most concrete thing I want to write is: good luck. sent on September 16, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF 70-210mm f/4-5.6 D Pros: size/weight, cost of used goods, yield at medium distances Cons: rendered at the edges to infinity, better not to go beyond the DX format Opinion: It is a lens that is worth knowing and keeping in the kit given the merits and the very affordable price. In total I have tried three, currently I have the AF-D version. I was looking for a travel and compact lens that was also autofocus, the first 70-210 I took used was not bad even using it on the D800; but part of the optical group was disaxed and one side of the frame was always out of focus (the side changed between infinity and medium distances). I resold it, found another one, much more kneaded at 210, which I then did not buy. I then found a third specimen, of the latest version produced: AF-D, optically identical to the AF version but with a more efficient and fast focus system and has a more advanced anti-glare treatment (SIC). It is a robust lens, with a good color rendering. On infinity at f8, it shows a good sharpness in the center that drops noticeably on the edges (D800) until it becomes totally kneaded at the corners; at medium distances, on the other hand, the optics change pace and show a more homogeneous yield accompanied by better sharpness and good contrast even near the maximum opening. I consider it a recommendable lens for anyone: both to expand the basic kit as well as for those looking for a compact lens to take anywhere or to take 'candid' images without giving in the eye, because it is small and does not alarm the subject who, instead, with other lenses you would see real cannons pointing at him that, moreover, would also attract too much attention to the photographer. It is by no means comparable to the AFS 85 f1.8 or the AFS 80-200 f2.8 the sharpness is much lower and even the blurry (bokeh) suffers from the 7-slat diaphragm that returns fairly annoying polygons on the points of light in the background. Compared to the current optics, it is undoubtedly a choice of folding and also obsolete, but the small size and the overall satisfactory yield in the center, make it a tool that pays off with versatility, manoeuvrability, weight and small size, the optical deficiencies that are ultimately more than acceptable, unless you shoot on FF at 36-45 mpix and for each image you go to look for the hair in the egg of sharpness rather than the substance and message of the image itself. It must be said that if used on APS-C many of the obvious defects on FF (at the edges) practically disappear because it works only in the center, where the quality is always reasonably good. A recommendation: this is an approach that - at the very least - has been around for at least 20 years (the AF version was produced from 1988 to 1993, the AFD from 1993 to 1999), and although constructively it is done very well, it is important to try the lens thoroughly before consolidating the purchase because my experience shows that it is very easy for one of the optical groups to be disased. This is Ken Rockwell's review: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/7021056.htm, and here you're going to find some history: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF70210mm/index2.htm sent on August 16, 2018 |
 | Sony RX100 Pros: Small but professional Cons: White balance Opinion: Having exploited two until exhaustion I discovered some aspects little considered that help to improve the images and probably also affect the next models. Given that this machine is the equivalent of what was the Minox GT in the film years: lightness and absolute quality. Point The camera body is small but really sturdy, and in my two I have never had dust problems on the sensor, the autofocus is effective in an absolute way and the videos recorded in AVCHD are really very sharp (but very large), while the MP4 are actually the 1440x1080 format with ' rectangular ' pixels that eventually produce nice videos on the 16/9 format, good for family use or YouTuber. In fact, the RX100 some strip (as already the Minox) has it and for this it becomes essential to shoot always in raw: The white balance is generally shifted to very cold colors and little is worth the opportunity to customize the color, for my Use (generally in the mountains) I usually work with manual balancing set to ' cloudy ' or ' shadow '. The colors obtained are generally hotter than the right but more appealing and with an appropriate PP (on the raw file) it fixes everything. A second defect is the yield on the high lights, especially the sky, which in an attempt to recover the density undergoes a marked change of tone changing from blue to turquoise. The third flaw is the JPG files produced by the machine that at high magnification (400%) show a marked presence of artifacts (pixelated) that seen on a normal full HD video give an impression of a limited plasticity of the image. However, by processing the raw file with Lightroom or DxO Photolab you will get very balanced and soft jpg files, which results in a more plastic and richer tone image. From experience and personal comparative tests, it is difficult to find differences between the images of RX100 and those obtained with a Nikon D7200 with AFS-DX 16-80 F2, 8-4 (for sharpness and detail of JPG files). In fact the D7200 produces better jpg files, with a lesser noise than the RX100 (shooting at 200 ISO), but with a good job of PP the differences tend to disappear. The differences, as obvious, become more pronounced by going up ISO, but at least up to 1600 images are still pleasing. It goes without saying that carrying a reflex in the backpack (though light) makes a huge difference compared to the 240 grams of the RX100. Except that the advantage of D7200 is in the best sharpness (objectively 20 mpix are very-very close to the 24 Mpix), the big difference to the advantage of the APS is in the dynamic range and in the disturbance, which for the D7200 remain absolutely better. It is possible that later versions of the RX100 (3-4-5-6) have improved also in this respect, but regardless of this, the RX100, in my opinion, constitutes a milestone in the history of travel and adventure Photography (as was the Minox) and It is an indispensable tool for the traveler. sent on July 02, 2018 |
 | Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Pros: Sharpness and no distortion on APS Cons: Flare Opinion: It has been my battle optics for many years, with tens of thousands of shots, used on APS it is absolutely impeccable even with sensors of many mpix and is appreciated for its incredible absence of distortion to the point that it can be used for architectural images. On APS, closing a couple of diaphragms, it has good sharpness even in the corners of the frame. It has a warm dominant feature that, together with the fall of light at the edges, generates very pleasant images with a strong visual impact. Used on FF (D800) it maintains a more than acceptable quality even at the edges. The flare... in the backlights fired with the sun in the frame, there is... but it's not that it's unbearable and then... with images so open, intersyminals also acquire a role in composition. Maybe it can disturb me, but I'm personally okay with it. After many years of glorious use, I replaced it with the new version, but... apart from (perhaps) slightly better contrast and more neutral color images, I can't say I found big differences in sharpness compared to the new version. Employee in liveview... it doesn't work, because the focus ring works in contrast to nikons, so the machine software in LW doesn't recognize it and it doesn't focus, just know it and make a reason for it. The small size makes it a good travel companion. Very recommended if you are lucky enough to find it used. sent on May 30, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 D Pros: small and cheap (if used) Cons: production quality Opinion: A marked lack of clarity and contrast to the more open diaphragms that eventually made me fall out of love. Purchased new, already using it on film showed a quality objectively low if not closing it abundantly, which made it virtually unusable in low light conditions. In the end, I sent it for repair but returned practically unchanged (except that the nebulosity of the images was due to an accident). When digital arrived, things even got worse. The images were so nebulous that we used it with a D800 for some video shots to 'effect' with a very pronounced blur of the background (as well as the subject -presented in focus-). I gave it to a friend cameraman who uses it only because of its out-of-focus effect. Given the numerous rave reviews, I can deduce that my copy was particularly unlucky. I have, however, some serious doubts about its capacity to yield on modern FF sensors. My advice is to try it seriously before using it on FF asthe D800 and later. Rated 7 due to poor production quality. sent on April 05, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR Pros: Good picture quality if you don't go up with the sensor, efficient VR, good price of used Cons: manufacturing in economics Opinion: Nikon's classic 'entry level' lens designed to garnish the most amateur machine bodies, but with unsuspected qualities. To the touch and sight it looks a bit cheap, but coupled with a D3000 body it allowed me to capture images of a quality I never expected. My experience: in 2009 during a trip to Sicily, I had decided to travel light with the D3000 (10 mpix) and only one lens: the 18-55. The validity of the pairing I discovered inside the Palatine Chapel, where freehand, always at full opening and without flash, I photographed the mosaics with the aim of being able to look at myself at home and calmly the infinite details of those masterpieces. Therefore: valid optics (at least my specimen) with an effective VR able to give acceptable results even at full opening (if you do not go up too much with mpix). Compared to the current version (P) it has two advantages: that of always being ready to shoot because it does not have to be unhooked and extended in order to be used and consequently also that of having a smaller footprint that facilitates its transport. VOTE 8. EDIT: After much shooting and experience with 10 mpix and 24 mpix DSLR. I was able to verify that this lens is perfectly suitable for older generation 6-10 mpix digital cameras, but it is unsuitable for more populated sensors on which it produces poorly engraved images. For later models, the 18-105 or 18-140 are preferable sent on March 31, 2018 |
 | Nikon D70 Pros: robust, with a very soft shutter, low battery consumption Cons: slow Opinion: You will buy it when it came out in 2004 to replace an Olympus E10 and it was a real transition to the semi-pro digital world with instant ignition and snap and interchangeable optics, characteristics much higher than the panorama of digital machines of that time that certainly did not shine for speed; but it was a markedly 'consumer' machine born with the aim of attracting many amateur photographers to the digital world; but for a job that satisfied semi-pro needs like mine it was necessary to make miracles, because the burst was slow and very limited and the time of emptying the memory buffer became eternal for those who had to take action pictures. Even the project is not that it was particularly successful and suffered from problems that plagued the first models (among others: not shut down if not extracting the battery) Mine was repaired under warranty, but, as I know, the D70 does not it was subject to calls. This technical problem was quite strange, given its marked resemblance to the D100 (which flanked it in my kit as a secondbody) of which it seemed to be simply a new version. In hindsight, the images (both for D70 and D100) were a bit 'electronic', that is a bit distant from the plasticity and tonal richness of the successive machines, like already the D200 (great car), but already proved to be a huge step forward (towards the beauty of the analog) compared to the Olympus E10. However, I have to recognize some true merits probably rarely matched: first the shot, which was really soft, fluid and definitely unique in the panorama of the cameras I have owned (Olympus OM1, 2 and 4 apart), the lifting process of the mirror and shot was so fluid to seem motorized, that is, without rebounds and shocks, effectively canceling the shake. Mine, then, suffered a serious accident (with me that I kept her neck), during a ruinous fall my body car made a wide arc above my head to go crashing with all the energy su of the big boulders. The external structure cracked and had to be replaced, but ... incredibly it continued to work regularly. Plastic body, it's true, but although I still do not like having a 'plastic' machine around my neck after this experience, I'm led to think that Nikon knows very well how to make durable plastic car bodies. The second experience was equally astonishing, when I found myself doing a (long) photo shoot inside the FIAT wind tunnel at a temperature of -43 degrees (43 below zero). The machine, equipped with a Nikkor AF 24-85 f2.8-4 always worked regularly even using the built-in flash, the real problem were the batteries that were planted after a few minutes (but just put them in your pocket to make them come back as necessary); and in the same way it always worked regularly during long days outdoors taking thousands of photos at a temperature of -20 and in that case without even battery problems; as they say: so much of a hat.The D70, at the time, a good grade 9 if it deserved it all. sent on March 29, 2018 |
 | Nikon Micro 55mm f/3.5 AI Pros: Excellent optics and mechanics Cons: they do not produce it anymore Opinion: Old chicken makes good stock ... it is not always true, but this lens perfectly respects the rule. It is a macro lens, but it is also valid for all photos for focusing on long distances. It is manual, so with the big current sensors it becomes very critical in the fire setting because on FF the minimum out of focus becomes immediately evident. However, used in macro, especially if with a tripod, this is not a problem, since there is plenty of time to correct the framing and fire. Personally I use it to duplicate my old slides with macro bellows and D800. On the 1: 1 ratio at full aperture highlights a bit 'of chromatic aberrations and loss of sharpness at the edges, closed at f8 is simply perfect on the whole field framed with a sharpness that goes far beyond the grain of the Kodachrome 25 professional. The result, compared to my Canon FS4000 US scanner is far better in all respects (this scanner goes really well on the negatives but charge un marked contrast on Fuji films (Velvia etc ...) and unfortunately the digital dust elimination system introduces digital errors on the Kodachrome). The only problem is that duplicating on bellow becomes evident every minimum grain of dust on the film or even on the opal glass of the door dia, so a maniacal care is required for cleaning. Having said that, it is a truly recommended approach to a macro enthusiast because on the basis of my experience, it is really difficult to think of a view that can go markedly better at short distances, where I mean better: the best performance is then really perceptible. To return to my experience with the 55 micro: once duplicated with the AF 60 micro f2.8 (great optics) but the results on Ektachrome Slide Duplicating have never been satisfactory (even because of the further passage on film); with the arrival of the FF on the digital and with the 55 micro f3.5 all this is forgotten, as mentioned the sharpness goes widemore than the resolution of the film, while the wide dynamic range of the D800 sensor in post production allows incredible recoveries on high and low lights, even beyond what was visible on the slide with an excellent lentino. Rated 10 sent on March 27, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G ED Pros: Compact Cons: Quality (?) Probably due to a strong variability in the production process Opinion: Absolutely negative experience. My sample was practically unusable (on a D7000), the image was lacking in clarity and it just became enough diaphragmming to f8. I had found a used intonso, in kit with a D60 also the practically new one that had done a few hundred shots. Maybe that coupled was also fine (I doubt it) since the sensor of the machine reached 10 mpix, but the D7000 was unusable due to its lack of clarity. I returned it the next day. In general, the reviews of this perspective (at international level) are generally positive but with a certain variation that goes from the enthusiastic to the 'good with reserves ...', from my negative experience we can then deduce that the production process of this perspective did not provide for adequate quality controls (adjusted to the selling price and the brand reputation). My suggestion is to perform reliable tests before finalizing a possible purchase and in doubt: to abstain, it must also be said that the current price of thesato (around 130 euros in March 2018) is overestimated for a perspective so dated and with its intrinsic limits. Vote 1 (UNO) due to the lack of quality in production. sent on March 05, 2018 |
 | Nikon 28mm f/2.0 AI-s Pros: bokeh, plasticity and sharpness Cons: focus Opinion: It's a wonderful optic but it's also one of my biggest mistakes. It must be said that already at full opening it stands out for its pleasant mixture of sharpness, contrast and bokeh, however, in my experience, I am led to declare that it is an optics born to be used on film that is not suitable for photography of the digital genre. It's a strong phrase, but here's my experience: I found a perfect used that I wanted to use for portrait set in interiors with natural light. Obviously the key to the result lies in a focus with 'razor' details and a blurry one still readable but pasty. The 28 f2 can give all this but only if the photographer is able to take it. In practice, however, getting a razor-sharp focus on the nodal point of the subject (e.g. a person's eyes), without being able to pose, and in a constantly moving and evolving (dynamic) situation, it simply becomes impossible because the focus screens of digital autofocuss do not allow to make that fine adjustment that would be necessary to avoid the 'out of focus'. The question is that on film we had to deal with the equivalent of 10-15 mpix (to be fine) and we also had the help of any stigmometers or microprisms, while on a D800 mpix we have 36 and from experience I can say that inside that viewfinder the stigmometer is practically useless (there are screens adapted by third parties); it is easy to understand how the slightest blurry becomes apparent and seriously compromises the final product. Moral: virtually no usable image ever obtained. I sold it and took a Sigma AF 24 f1.4 (excellent) and got exactly what I wanted. Qualitatively it deserves a nice 9, but do not take it to use it at full opening on digital, unless you make the focus with the live view, better a modern optics that dialogue perfectly with the autofocus of the machine body, you will never regret it. sent on March 03, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR Pros: Light, versatile, reliable and more robust than you might assume Cons: Excessive price for product quality Opinion: It is an honest, reliable in all aspects (AF-VR) and versatile. From the comparative tests of my model, it has a less sharpness than the 18-55 VR (first version, which was a more than worthy optics -always my specimen-). Its plastic structure and severe cost reduction, starting with the plastic bayonet, generate serious doubts about how fair its price is rather than inflated by marketing impositions. Regardless of my opinion, it must be said that it is the classic optics to be left mounted on its own entry level DSLR such as the D3xxx series, a pairing that for lightness and size is the ideal shipping companion for walking Light. The images on a 16 and on a 24 mpix are still good and well contrasted, do not surprise for sharpness and plasticity but it would be absurd to look for the hair in the egg with this category of lenses. A well-deserved mention of honor: since the EXIF date, I discovered with amazement that a friend of mine with this optics coupled with a D3200 took about 150,000 images in three years (in many trips and expeditions to the mountains of the world); arrived at about 100,000 shots the optics had problems of autofocus and was repaired (in warranty!!!). Given the condition of the -battered - body machine that has always housed it (also the plastic one), on which, among other things, ALL screenprints have disappeared due to the abrasion of the fingers and the matte finish of the surfaces has given way to large polished sections with intense use, you have to admit that... Plastic yes or no plastic, it is actually a reliable and recommendable travel companion. 8 rating (not absolute but in relation to its category) sent on February 25, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR Pros: Long focal excursion with excellent sharpness at least up to 200 then still remains very good Cons: stabilization (?) and weight Opinion: Edit 07/19 new rating much more positive: it is a much better optics than its predecessor (which was not to be discarded) than this has improved in all respects: autofocus much faster, sharpness and blurred better, but bracket for the no easel, that one remains scarce. My relationship with him was one of love and hate: using it on my D800 with and without active VR, it NEVER provided clear images. Much better to use it without VR, and in that case the images were very plastic and sharp. The yield drops a bit to 400mm but still remains very good. On qualified sites there are 'stories' that judge it on a par with 70-200, and in my experience on the D800 I considered it a huge panzana, for me it was just good, not excellent; certainly lower than the AFS 300 f4; I thought it was not suitable to count the feathers of the bird on duty, but very good for sports use. UPDATE June 2019: After some intense comparative tests and field use with the D850, I have to totally think again: at least up to 200mm, from the comparisons, it emerges incredibly that, absolutely, it is the best long focal optics in my possession (always after the AFS 300 f4), at 80mm and all opening f4.5, has a sharpness superior to the same diaphragm compared to all the other zooms I own: among them: sigma 24-105 f4 and nikon afs 80-200 f2.8. A 200mm always TA ranks second immediately behind the AFS 80-200 in a "It's a very sad day," he says, "but I'm not going to say that I'm not going to be able to do that." In fact, given the problems of THE VR on the D800, after the first days of use with the D800 I had sent it back to assistance without any defects. On the D800, with VR active, all the images showed a nice contrast, a nice bokeh but also a visible ghost image (double image) particularly sharp on details such as branches etc... even shooting at 1/4000. This does not happen using it using it on the D7200, where I use it happily for action photos (even with the 1.4x) and disappears completely using it on the D850 where it shows its quality decidedly PRO already at full opening and on all the focal points. In my experience I can say that this optics has a compatibility problem between the D800 machine body and the lens, (a known defect of the D800, although there is no semi-official list of good and 'bad' VR optics); D800, which however worked well with all the rest of my set up kit and also with the previous 80-400 VR AFD. The optics is undoubtedly very recommendable and although new costs an eye, you can find it used at affordable prices. Its overall quality is really great, (the golden ring around the barrel deservedly certifies it), but my suggestion is undoubtedly to try it on your own machine body (with the VR) before formalizing the purchase. Basically: it is an excellent optics that gives the best on medium distances, but is very critical in focus and micromovement; it is perfect using the focus of the D850 liveview, instead requires a precise fine calibration of the autofocus when used with the reflex. I believe that on a mirrorless it can be an essential optics. I vote 9th for resolution, 8 and a half for stabilization. sent on February 20, 2018 |
 | Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Pros: Light and very good value for money (on used) Cons: All compromises of an economic perspective Opinion: I came to this lens a bit by accident, I had found an old Nikkor AF 70-210 f4-5.6 that I needed to travel light. The Nikkor was more than honest and suited to my purpose: to get decent pictures on FF and DX without having to go around with the supermarket trolley. Unfortunately, my specimen was slightly offset with its focus issues at the sides of the frame. I had to return it and look for a similar substitute. Ken Rockwel was talking about this 70-300 lens as the Tamron-labeled version of the Nikkor AF 70-300 f4-5.6 and see: Http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm an optic that was once incensed perhaps for that ' magic ' and that marketing had stamped on Barrel. If the two lenses were actually the same I do not know how to say, even if mechanically they resemble a lot (side note: Contrary to what is written in the data sheet it is an autofocus-AFS-, therefore compatible with the Nikon series 3xxx and 5xxx). The fact is that after the comparative tests between the Tamron 70-300 and a second 70-210 and... in front of the evidence of a quality widely higher at least up to 210 I chose the Tamron 70-300 for the astronomical figure of 70 euro (obviously used). Well... I was not mistaken, my specimen is more than satisfactory at least up to 200, with a heavy drop in sharpness at 300mm which becomes a focal point of fallback, and consider that I say this with a wide use of ' pro ' optics behind it. It is small and light, it does not feel inside the backpack and diaphragm at F8 between 70 and 200 provides images satisfactory enough on D7200 and D800, especially if made with good light; If you have to use it with little light and low contrasts unfortunately do not expect decent results because at full aperture provides nebulous and little contrasted images. I recommend it to those who want to integrate their basic kit, composed of the classic 18-55, to experience the longest focal length without spending much (but first test it to verify that it is actually good). For those like me using it as a travel lens: Attention: This is a fallback optic, that is to say, when it is essential to limit weights and dimensions; Otherwise I recommend you to use more. Rated 8-(for value for money-if used-) if I were to only evaluate the image quality I would say 7 and a half at F8 and 6-full aperture sent on February 20, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4 G ED VR Pros: range of focal points and quality Cons: price of the new, lack of tropicalization Opinion: It is an excellent quality optics, even at full opening. Excellent for reportage, it's great on both the DX (D7200) and FF (D800). In my kit he was a double of 24-70 f2.8 but... because of its small size, its versatility and the quality of the images always accompanied me while the noblest brother punctually stayed at home. Since in the end there was not that big qualitative difference that justified this redundancy of the kit, it ended up selling 24-70 and I never regretted it. I took about 100,000 images with this lens, which is robust enough to withstand heavy use. Very recommendable for reportage, it has dimensions that 'do not give in the eye', moreover it has a focal excursion that covers almost all the focal points of greatest use, reducing the need to change the optics, a not least factor if you are photographing in poor conditions; Moreover: its VR is well effective. The only negative note is the lack of tropicalization which, on the other hand, should be a fundamental and indispensable feature for a reportage optics like this. VOTE 9 well deserved sent on February 19, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D IF Pros: small and versatile Cons: full-open quality Opinion: It is an optic that can give good results on APS if you do not climb too much with mpix. This is my first 'digital' optic that at the time I paired with a D70, but it must be considered that it was born as a lens for use on film; comparing it to other 'standard' zooms of other brands, then it proved much superior to the contrast and the general sharpness of the image, and allowed me to capture beautiful images. As the number of machine bodies grows, to get to the 12 mpix of the D300, unfortunately began to show all its limits and from my comparative tests with the -bistracted- AFS VR 24-120 3.5/5.6 at full opening is much more kneaded at the edges, and then gradually improve closing the diaphragm, but without ever exceeding the 24-120 and I must say that this result surprised me not a little, but t'a. Suitable for machines no more than 10 mpix, it is useless to think of using it on 24 mpix APS machines, there are around newer optics (type 18-55) and much better. vote 7 sent on February 19, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D IF-ED Pros: All-round quality Cons: Weight and size Opinion: This optics is a point of arrival. It's true she's not stabilized, but she doesn't miss it. It has a global quality (sharpness, bokeh, focal range, constructive solidity due to the wide use of metal alloys in place of plastics) which-unfortunately-belongs now to the Nikon optics of a few years ago. I come from a whole history of zoom 80-200-in order-from the beautiful 80-200 F4 to 2.5 ai (which I still have in the drawer), to go on the AF 70-210 f4-5.6, the AF 80-200 F2, 8, AFS VR 70-200 F2, 8-first version-, AFD 80-200 F2, 8-2 ring Nuts-(2 units) , and now this. Impeccable in all respects, it provides plastic and sharp images, almost as much as AFS 85 F1, 8. Unfortunately it is really big and heavy in practice equal to the 80-400, negative point not just in some respects but positive for others, because the inertia of its mass helps to stabilize the shot. As already reported for other lenses of this generation: it is the first AFS of Nikon that is a little ' more delicate and inclined to failures than the current, so pay attention to the purchase of the used; However, it has a very fast autofocus that, coupled with the right machine, allows an effective chase even of the most difficult moving subjects (such as children in swing) without risking blurred images. My suffers from a backfocus marcatissimo, to correct which I had to calibrate the machine A-20; To the eventual lucky buyer I recommend absolutely to perform the calibration of the AF, essential to obtain a perfect focus with this kind of lenses. Rated 10- sent on February 15, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G Pros: Bokeh, sharpness, lightness, price Cons: Essentially nothing Opinion: I use it on the FF, is very clear already at full aperture, has a very soft focus that even diaphragm remains mellow. It 'a very recommendable lens that really makes a' must have 'because, used on the portrait, allows you to shoot very sharp subjects that detach in a clean way from the bottom. It is so clear at f1.8 that all in all it would not need the diaphragm if not to get that little bit more depth of field that is needed for the shots. For those who, like me, mainly use 'pro' zoom ranging from focal lengths 24 to 200 f2, it may seem redundant to own this lens too, in reality it is essential for portraiture; its lightness, the speed of the AFS and the small size make it very easy and quick to use, also has a convenient price, especially if you find it used. VOTE 9.5. sent on February 15, 2018 |
 | Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 II DG HSM Pros: Wide viewing angle, robust construction Cons: Flare Opinion: It is a more than honest and very versatile optics appreciable on the APS format, but also on the FF does not disfigure. Used at 12 (FF) it returns all too ' wide-angle ' images where the sides undergo a marked perspective deformation that can be too heavy (it writes one that eats bread and wide angles). However, in the end it is an optics with an indispensable focal excursion. The distortion is well controlled, the flare is quite sensitive but still acceptable, the sharpness at 24 Mpix is good, while at 36 Mpix, for those who have made the eye on ' pro ' lenses, it does not scream of wonder but is more than enough, closed to F8 is good. What you do appreciate is the small size. The most visible difference compared to its predecessor (also the one more than honest) is the color rendition of the images which is less hot and probably a slightly better contrast (I'll probably write... because this might be more a sensation than Other). Although visibly lower for sharpness than the mammoth Nikkor 14-24 f2,8 or sigma 12-24 F4, it offers an indispensable lightness and ease of use that allow you to fit it even in a kit to carry in the mountains. This is the absolute reason why I do not want to change it. Vote: The overall rating currently assigns him a 9.2, well... we know that the evaluations of this site suffer from an upward compression, which in fact mixes the good and less good. In my opinion is a good optics, which deserves a good 8 but does not have the professional characteristics that should have a good optics/excellent IE 9 or 10, but... adjusting to the criteria of the site, I check a 9. sent on February 13, 2018 |
 | Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 Pros: contrast, sharpness and size Cons: nothing Opinion: The first images that I took with this lens were black and white proofs, after the development, I looked at the negative (Ilford FP4) and exclaimed in amazement; my 'black and white' had never been so rich in tonal range, stuff by Hansel Adams (with all due respect ...). It is an optic for which you do not care about its sharpness (which is however more than abundant) but always marvels you for its color rendering. A friend told me that in some photographic circles they had nicknamed him 'the summicron of the poor'. Here ... if the summicron makes images like that, then it's really a great optic. VOTE 10 sent on February 08, 2018 |
 | Olympus Zuiko 21 f/3.5 Pros: contrast and size Cons: Nothing Opinion: Great optics, the most loved in what was my OM kit. The sharpness is very good, for comparative tests like the Nikkor 20 f3.5, but what really makes the difference is its contrast, rich in shades with subjects that 'come out' from the images. Another of its merits is the possibility to focus at a very short distance: 20 cm, at the limit of the macro, which allows beautiful images set of flowers and insects. I don't know, and it would be nice to know, how it behaves on a digital FF mirrorless with all its IR filters in front of the sensor that literally 'kill' these 'old' optical projects, but no doubt it's one of the lenses to consider for that job. sent on February 08, 2018 |
 | Olympus Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 Pros: Total quality Cons: Nothing Opinion: Beautiful optics, although the numbers 'miserelli' (35mm f2,8) and the cost then contained, could suggest that it was in poor brother of the version f2, in fact it was equipped with a remarkable sharpness and contrast, which in practice made it become the standard optics, perhaps to be coupled with the superlative 21 f3.5. One of my irreplaceable OM optics. VOTE 9 well deserved sent on February 08, 2018 |
 | Nikon 400mm f/5.6 ED (non-Ai) Pros: sharpness and contrast Cons: manual focus Opinion: Great optics in all respects, which works perfectly even on DSLR FF like the D800. Virtually impossible to find optical defects, it is very clear and with a very rich contrast; it is not bulky or heavy, so you can also use it freehand, unfortunately it is not autofocus (otherwise it would be taxing ...) and therefore it can be used almost exclusively on semi-static subjects, however: if you happen to find it on occasion a little thought ... VOTE: 9+ sent on February 08, 2018 |
 | Tokina AT-X 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 DX Fish-eye Pros: versatility and compactness Cons: sharpness at the edges Opinion: It is a very versatile lens, but in my opinion it is an experiment: more a 'concept lens' than anything else. The idea was then successfully applied by Canon and Nikon, but evidently with more advanced technologies and optical calculations. Having a zoom like that on the full frame (D800), it is really very comfortable and it is even more so on the APS format. Unfortunately, this lens acquires a barely acceptable quality only diaframmando to f11, otherwise the edges remain always unclear. Having a lens that is not clear on the edges is an absolute contradiction. We are talking about an extreme wide angle, where very often the sides of the frame must give depth and setting to the whole image, and then here that the edges visibly nebulous penalizes very much the image. VOTE 7- sent on February 08, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF VR Pros: focal excursion and stabilization Cons: limited quality Opinion: It is a mistreated view, in the list of the worst Nikon, however it is the one that personally boasts my most published covers; I used it so much that I bought two, the second to replace the first one now 'chopped' by use and no longer resold. Used on DX (D300), it's still a worthy optics, with a fairly fast autofocus and a VR more than efficient. It is not comparable to the 24-120 f4 version (that's another planet), but it's still an all-rounder optic that gives you the most satisfaction (if you don't get too high with the sensor mpix), and allows you to travel light without giving in the eye satisfying 90% compositional choices. Now there is much better around, but when it was born it was definitely a more than valid optics for the machines of that time. I do not know how it goes on the FF, I can say though, that by doing comparative tests with the most titled AF 24-85 f2.8-4 surpassed it widely and without any effort, especially for the quality at the edges (always on DX); to the point that I sold the 24-85 to keep the 24-120 (and then flanked by an AFS 24-70 f2.8). An interesting detail: my first version was 'made in Japan' and I found that it weighed about 20 grams more than the second version I bought and that was manufactured in China; however, I found no qualitative differences between the two. VOTE 7th sent on February 07, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED VR Pros: focal excursion Cons: size, slow AF. Opinion: It was Nikon's first VR, and it cost an eye ... that I bought as soon as possible in 2002 to replace a bit of manual long optics including a 300 f2.8. In fact, then it was a decisive choice, making sports photos, the number of usable images (still and in focus) radically increased, instead of discarding 30 per roll, now I got at least 30 good for roll. Then came the digital ... the lens was slow and had a lower quality than that of an AFS 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4x. I sold it, and then bought back a used one a few years ago, to satisfy temporary work needs. On a D800, I got good images, not to scream, but still very worthy and well publicized. Then I got the AFS version and life changed for the better. It is used at a reasonable price and satisfactorily fulfills the role of a long lens and autofocus as needed, without major compromises on image quality. Personally I found it anyway better than the AF-S 70-300 f4.5-5.6G VR%2C in particular on the contrast, but this is only an opinion, more dictated by the conditions in which I found myself photographing that real and valid comparisons. VOTE 8 (but when he left he deserved a good 9). sent on February 07, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 Pros: compactness Cons: contrast and sharpness, in practice everything Opinion: It was only temporarily my basic lens when I made the switch from Olympus to Nikon AF. It was winter and the lights of the Po Valley at that time are not the best to see how it goes, because they already lack contrast for natural weather conditions. The fact is that the comparison with my old fixed optics OM, moreover selected for their quality, was disastrous (and we would miss ...); the funny aspect is that, due to known psychological mechanisms, infatuated by the novelty of autofocus I spoke with full satisfaction and absolute lack of objectivity. Actually, not long afterwards, I was able to re-establish myself and realized how the images were generally flat and dull; then I was handed the 35-70 f2.8 that I had ordered and life changed immediately. Of course, as a comparison it was not correct, but the differences were abysmal. Wasted pictures and film; an experience to forget, finally I defined an expensive cap for the camera body. The ridiculous thing & eserious; that was the optics supplied for those who then bought a Nikon AF (F801), as if it were possible to retain a photo amateur by proposing optics of this kind is still a mystery hidden in the head of the marketing staff of Nikon. Rating 4 sent on February 07, 2018 |
 | Nikon D800 Pros: robustness and dynamic range Cons: shutter vibrations Opinion: I own the D800 from 2012 and now 'we' celebrated 100,000 shots. It's an excellent machine, as used to say: professional. Maybe, 6 years later, the market offers even better, but this machine when it was born was far ahead of all and even today is among those at the top. Objectively, I would not feel the need or the need to change it with a D850 if it were not for its main fault: the vibrations of the shutter. Unfortunately, at the click, the shutter and the mirror lifting system induce strong vibrations that cause blur on the images. The problem is that sometimes even stabilizers can not minimize this problem. For example: with this machine, the 80-400 AFS zoom is almost unusable with the VR inserted even when shooting at 1/2000, while working very well on the D7100 / D7200. By contrast, 24-120 f4 works perfectly all the time. Basically: with some lenses on this machine the VR is better not to have it. If the micro-blur is solved by playing with the times and learnsndo to manage this 'character' of the machine, it must also be said that the biggest complication, for those coming from smaller sensors or with less mpix, is the criticality of the focus, because every minimum error of autofocus and any consequent minimum out of focus becomes evident. It is not a problem inherent in the focusing system of the camera body, it is a problem that arises from the huge number of pixels of the sensor that highlights every minimum defect. Defects that using a 12-16-24 mpix do not jump to the eye. Therefore it becomes vital to calibrate the focus for each lens. rnComunque: it's one of my most beloved machines and the longest in my hands after the F3. Given the price that is on the used is an attractive choice, essential and very advisable. sent on February 07, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 D ED Pros: Excellent sharpness and close focus Cons: Not very plastic on the out of focus, tripod support Opinion: It's a telephoto lens of very high optical quality, which used on FF (D800) no doubt deserves a nice 9+, mechanically it is well done - like the old Nikkor- but we must admit that the support for the tripod is not as robust as it should be, however, it is a fairly compact optics that can also be used freehand without feeling the need for a stabilizer. It is one of Nikon's first AFS systems, which is sometimes felt with the classic 'whistle'. And it is precisely the autofocus his Achilles heel, mine, which I found on the used market after having changed another that had malfunctions on autofocus (did not focus in AF with the 1.4x), yes the first day of trial is planted after a few hundred shots; repaired by LTR, now it's perfect with a 'razor' focus that does not need any calibration. So ... watch out! The minimum focusing distance is almost 'macro' pehe tries to shoot portraits of 'faces' at full frame with a very high sharpness, I would say brazen, because of the defects of the epidermis that highlights and that would otherwise be invisible. The only drawback, unfortunately, is the bokeh. The backgrounds are generally very soft, but not always ... sometimes the out of focus shows a strange texture that resembles a lattice with a fairly geometric and regular structure (of course, there are no lattices or other behind the subject); the problem, if it can be defined as such, is highlighted when there are leaves behind the subject and it is not very elegant. However: great optics that work very well even with the TC 14 E II and that is used on a very advantageous price-performance ratio. sent on February 06, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8 D Pros: Sharpness Cons: Bo-keh River Opinion: Very good optics, already at full opening, and you could close the review here. However, if sharpness is impeccable, unfortunately the blurry is not as strong. At full opening everything is fine, but just diaphragm a little (f2,8), the lights in the background take on a hexagonal shape decidedly unsightly, which makes the positive characteristics of this lens take second place. This defect has been canceled on the AFS version. Rating: 9++ sharpness but 7 for bo-keh (total 8) sent on February 06, 2018 |
 | Nikon Noct 58mm f/1.2 Ai-s Pros: Bo-keh River Cons: focus. Opinion: It is a celebrated goal, most often for its rendering on the lights in night and astronomical shooting. In my opinion, this is very reductive. In fact, the Noct Nikkor 58 f 1.2 is an optics that gives its best on the portrait, with a very soft blurry that detaches and enhances the subject, but is not at all easy to use. Here is my experience of its use: for decades my way of photographing has been 'all in focus', that is: maximum depth of field. Then, about twenty years ago I found a Tamron 300 f2.8 and then I began to discover the value of the blurred (the bo-keh). Next, I changed the genre of photography: more sporty, more movement; I changed some lenses, 300 included, and no more bo-keh since. A few years ago I found at a reasonable price a Noct - widely used - that a cineoperator friend could not use because the focus was too critical. It was a real fortune. So I started using the Noct to photograph my grandchildren, who as sports subjects are very difficult, and I re-discovered bo-keh in its most extreme form. Extreme because shooting a dynamic subject working with the minimum depth of field is a crazy job, doing it with a manual lens f1.2 then, is practically a desperate undertaking. In fact, the number of images wasted is huge, at least 98% of the shots, but... that 2% that succeeds, pays off for everything. Let's be right: with the Noct, getting a full-opening shot that's fine and isn't laid in the studio, is more a matter of luck than skill. The focus in the viewfinder of a DSLR is always very approximate, because the blurry minimum is not perceptible unless working on the stand and with the live-view. In the hope of getting something more precise I also mounted on the D800 a focus screen with the stigmometer, but to no avai ming. So, I trudge by shooting 'scanning': that is, bursting shot moving slightly back and forth to get at least one image with fire perfectly centered on the subject's eyes, or moving the focus ring at the same time, and some results come... Shooting at f1.2 with the Noct results in sharp but also slightly nebulous images, an effect that disappears 'closing' to f1.4, where the depth of field is still derisory but with an extraordinary bo-keh that remains very soft even closing at F4. The Noct, in common sense, would be an optics for night photos but, in my opinion, it is a wonderful portrait optics and also macro. The amazing thing is also its sharpness that is never at the expense of contrast: the closed Noct at f4 is incredibly engraved (at least... in the middle). The Noct is undoubtedly a 'special' optics, which forces its user to completely review mental and compositional patterns, where the blurry becomes the protagonist as well as the subject. I don't know what its designers had in mind, but without any doubt what they thought, their way of conceiving 'photography', then it was fully understandable by very few EVALUATION: 10+ (for bo-keh) sent on February 06, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 Pros: Compactness Cons: cheap manufacturing and 'vintage' quality Opinion: The 24-50 was my 'standard' view of the early 1990s when I returned from autofocus to more mechanical machines like f3 and FA. The first one I bought immediately sent him back because of the sensitive game that plagued the barrel of the optical group. The second one had the same flaw and then you find out that they're all like this. (See here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html) Game aside... in fact the optics was appreciated for its compactness and lightness, an ideal companion for long excursions in the alpine environment. On film, honestly, it was not an optic that made me exclaim for wonder, as opposed to others such as the 180 f2.8 AF or the 55 micro f3.5; However, its practicality, interesting focal excursion and small size played in its favor. More than 20 years later, digitally duplicating the slides of that time, it becomes apparent that the optics were not exactly an 'eagle's eye' (to shoot an advertisement of the time) and that it literally disappears in comparison with the coevo and truly excellent Minotar 35 f2.8 of the MINOX GT. Intrigued... and also a little interested, because such a compact optic would be very comfortable, I was able to try on digital a borrowed specimen. In hindsight and with the ruthlessness of a D800, the optics show all its limits on digital, with images that could probably be fine for a 12mpix FF sensor (as it was good on film), but 36mpix totally lacks engraving. Too bad... Vote 6 (gifted), in the past I would have also given him a 7th Update November 2019: I found test slides that I started in the now distant 2001, and the quality of what was then my 24-50 looks decidedly very low even closing the diaphragm, confirming the tests made on D800. Tip: 'abstain for day' sent on February 06, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4 E ED VR Pros: Excellent image quality Cons: Exaggerated price, to the point of being ridiculous. Opinion: It is sold -Nital- for over 900 euros (January 2018) and is not worth all that money; among the 'universals' (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) you can find viable alternatives at a much more realistic price. However, buying a Nikon optic is always a guarantee of the quality of the result and, in my experience, those that boast the golden ring around the barrel are practically a certainty. I bought it to garnish a D7200 (on the second-hand market... otherwise I wouldn't have spent all that money...). From the very first shots, looking at them on a 4K monitor, it shows remarkable sharpness and strong resistance to flare (not for nothing has the 'N' of surface treatment with nanocrystals). The detail on the most minute details (hair, hair, feathers) is remarkable; looking at magnification at 300% and above, it demonstrates a sharpness that goes beyond the resolution capacity of the 24 mpix sensor. even highlighting aliasing issues on the smaller details of a bird's feathers. Objectively, I do not find major qualitative differences between the focal 16 and that 80mm. The quality is excellent at f5.6 but also everything open is fine. The stabilizer is very effective and quiet, as well as the focus that is very fast (on my specimen I did not have to perform autofocus calibrations). Versatile optics, which is appreciated for its lightness and that does not disfigure next to my most titilated lenses and - albeit with all the limitations - also with respect to the plasticity of the blurry full frame (opinion of my wife who knows nothing about photography but judges an image just as much as she likes it). MY VALUTATION: 8 (3rd stars in the scale used by Roslett), but, if I were to consider the plethora of 9 grades given on these reviews, which sees an upward compression of the rating scale, then it deserves a 9. Very advisable but... not at the indicated price (Nital: who has ears to mean...) sent on February 05, 2018 |
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
