|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Renzo Tramaglino www.juzaphoto.com/p/RenzoTramaglino  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR Pros: Sharpness, contrast, fast and accurate AF. Cons: Economic mechanics, VR problems. Opinion: For at least 25 years I have been using 50/70 - 200/300 telephoto zoom lenses mainly on APSc for portraits in different situations and this overall is the best performing of all those used so far (almost all Nikon, Sigma apo, Tamron). It is sharp, contrasted, fast in focusing, if a photo has problems it is not the fault of the lens. I need versatile lenses that are not too heavy, so I exclude the F2.8 zooms a priori, I didn't need them with film, let alone now with digital. I also like to use the old Nikon 70-210 f4 AF, mechanically superior but optically unfortunately it does not stand up to comparison, less sharp and worse, with the poorly performing anti-reflective treatment that in certain situations softens the image too much. Regarding the mechanics, the zoom ring is quite fluid but you can feel the plastic friction on plastic, I regret the first serious zooms that ran on metal bearings, qualities of other times. I state that I almost never use the Vr, it is up to the task but the first 70-300 I used gave problems even with the Vr off, every now and then a bad vibration for 1-2 seconds prevented you from shooting (it was a very blurred shot) no problem with the second one I still use. Super recommended for portraiture, nature and sports with enough light. sent on July 02, 2025 |
 | Nikon AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 D Pros: Compactness Cons: Yield at the edges on the shortest focal lengths. Opinion: On a well-known magazine in the 90s the test of this lens struck me, results that gave it above average in terms of yield, a lens reported as "not to be missed"... With this memory in mind I took it a short time ago hoping to have a nice quality compact all-rounder. The rendering is a bit soft, tested with D700, D750, S5 and D7200, it is not exciting, overall more than decent, good sharpness in the center, but at the edges the 28-80 D does better, at 28mm the 28-80 G is better on the whole frame, and this was not a very cheap lens at the time, perhaps I had higher expectations because of the aforementioned test. Going up in focal length the yield becomes more uniform, 50 and 70mm are already better but nothing special. It loses on all fronts compared to the 28-85 AF, I prefer the 28-80 D overall, and even the 35-70 3.3-4.5 in the end I find it more pleasant, not to mention the 35-80 D which is a bit dark but optically it is on another planet, Regarding the brightness the lens has a "transparency" higher than the others I own. At TA it is at least half an aperture brighter than all the other f3.5 zooms tested, brightness that remains constant at + 1/2 stop even when closing the diphragm (which still works correctly)... This "mistake" turns into shots that are always a little brighter than the other lenses. Slightly overexposing the negatives (such as slightly underexposing the dia) is a way to have photos a little more saturated and impactful, I think that this trick is the basis of the good reputation that this lens had in the past, but that to really evaluate the performance is only enough. sent on June 19, 2025 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4 E ED VR Pros: All Cons: Nothing Opinion: I use the 16-80 2.8-4 on a D7200 and its full-frame counterpart 24-120 f4 on the D750. From an optical point of view it seems better than the 24-120 even if the result on the full frame is overall superior, constructively it is designed to privilege lightness with the greater use of resins. I think it is the best zoom lens available for a Nikon apsc reflex, I do not find any particular defects to report, sharp and contrasted at all focal lengths, sent on June 19, 2025 |
 | Nikon AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6D Pros: Very light, excellent optical performance, smooth zoom ring. Cons: Resin bayonet. Opinion: Quite a few years ago, when I was still using film, after a defective Nikon 28-105 and various Sigma pro that gave me back focus, I used it in an emergency for some services and it turned out to be impeccable. I took it some time ago (vers. mkII) to have a walking lens for the D700, the 24-120 f4 is excellent but heavy and bulky, in good light situations with this you do 90% the same things. The rendering is typical of the series prior to digital, contrast a little softer, with negative film it is better this way, rendering at TA not perfect but already closed at f5.6 (at 80mm you are still at TA) is more than fine, at 8 it improves further. Compared with other "serious" lenses it shows a behavior that is not typical... the performance in the center is always more than decent but easily surpassed by the other lenses tested, the beauty here is that the quality remains very homogeneous up to the edges, where it makes up for and exceeds much more expensive lenses (example the 28-70 AFD f3.5-4.5). A homogeneous rendering on the frame is a significant advantage. The bayonet seems fragile but in reality with a little attention it has never given problems. Compared to its G series counterpart it loses on the wide angle side but for more than half of the range from 40 to 80mm the G loses a lot, it has found its place as a cap on a defective D50. To keep in mind the probable lack of constancy of production, optics to be tried considering them almost unique pieces as a yield. If you are looking for a light and cheap all-rounder it is super recommended, if you also want the top of optical performance you are better on the 35-80 AF D (which strangely does not seem to me to be on the list to be able to review it, not very bright but optically gorgeous) otherwise you have to open your wallet, hoping you will really find better. sent on June 19, 2025 |
 | Nikon AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Pros: Sharpness, contrast, fluidity of dials, ergonomics. Cons: A few too many games but with a little attention it is not influential, slightly lower yield at the edges than the best current lenses. Opinion: I used the 24-120 f4 G on the D700 as my main lens and when I switched to the D750, I needed a lens that performed well but was a little less bulky for the old lady who retired. Having had bad experiences with the AFD 28-105 I thought I would buy this also because I have a 70-210 f4 same series and period and it's zooming from the ring (on bearings). I've ever had. This 28-85 does not have the same fluidity as the telephoto but it comes close to it, much better maneuverable in any case than the current zooms. It also shows a nice contrast superior to the optics of the period, even the later D's I remember using, rispetto.al 24-120 is only a little inferior. In the center it is always sharp, at edges from 4.8 upwards it has a fairly uniform center edge rendering that improves again to 8-11, the 24-120 does better in this, it can be used safely at f4 with the edges already sharp almost as in the center. In any case, the 28-85 remains an excellent lens suitable for digital, cheap but very performing, which does not look bad with the current ones. sent on June 19, 2025 |
 | Nikon AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D Pros: None, my bought new early 2000s was defective. Cons: He suffers from misalignment of a rear lens group. Opinion: Purchased new as a base lens together with an F90x, it immediately gave problems of poor sharpness, worsened in a short time to even show a circularly marked lens inside. Sent to Nital for assistance, they repaired it in their laboratory in Germany but it was never again a high-performance optic. Too bad because it was pleasant to use and the focal range perfect. Obscene lens hood! Curious to try it again now with digital, who knows, in case I'll update the review. sent on June 19, 2025 |
 | Nikon AF 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 Pros: Compactness, balanced performance, parfocal optics. Cons: No one in particular. Opinion: Taken to combine it with an F55 that was given to me with the AF out of order so I replaced the focus slide with one with a broken image and microprisms. In practice now I have a very compact full program but MF, too bad for the bad mirror pentaprism. The lens, mkII version with a more manageable AF ring, is really pleasant to use. The contrast is not high, I don't find any particular merits but not even defects, a good all-rounder without infamy and without praise but much better than what you read on the net. The lens is (or seems?) parfocal, focusing on 70mm you can open up to 35 mm and both with the broken image and with the AF (tested on various camera bodies) the AF ring remains fixed at the point. This technique can help a lot in low light the accuracy of focusing. Actually after a few more tests with the autofocus in live view (D750 and D7200) on the wide angle the focus is shifted to an imperceptibly shorter distance, and I must say that he is right, with the aperture open the point of focus is sharper ... with the broken image (tested on various bodies, FM2, FG) this is hardly appreciable. In any case, I recommend it without any limitations, I also prefer it to the 28-70 AFD f3.5-4.5, perhaps slightly less contrasted but more uniform in terms of performance. sent on June 19, 2025 |
 | Tokina MF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 SD Pros: Compactness, weight. Cons: Sharpness, the zoom ring between 35 and 28 mm tends to stick. Opinion: I needed a cheap standard zoom for one of my old Nikon camera bodies and I was curious to try this tokina which on paper could be interesting given the use of SD lenses. The lens arrived in good condition, clean lenses, smooth focusing, fluid zoom ring except between 35mm and 28 where the zoom extends and needs a little help, it does not seem to have any particular defects. Compared to Nikon 28-70 AFD 3.5-4.5, 28-85 AF f3.5-4.5, 35-70 AF 3.3-4.5, not only does it not hold a candle, it is just unwatchable. Tested with D750 and D7200 at TA on 28mm and 35mm it is already not very sharp in the center and worsens a lot at the edges even with apsc, closed at f6.7 it improves in the center in the focus area without ever reaching the sufficiency and the edges remain unwatchable, It improves but not so much between 35mm and 50mm up to 70mm. Focus for manual testing with live view and max magnification on the monitor, in autofocus always with live view comparison optics, 1/180 shooting and predominant flash light to eliminate blur risk. Any lens I've ever tried including the standard 28-80 zooms are clearly preferable, this will act as a paperweight, I'll buy another Nikon 35-70 f3.3-4.5 which is a gem in comparison!! sent on June 18, 2025 |
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
