|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Nordavind www.juzaphoto.com/p/Nordavind  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 E ED VR Pros: Value for money, weight compared to other supertles, excellent stabilizer Cons: A couple of times he went into the af freeze, sometimes I seem to suffer too much heat haze (hot air masses over long distances) Opinion: I have been using it for 3 years and I have to say that it is almost perpetually mounted on the reflex (a D610 that does not shine for af but the pairing has taken away from me anyway great satisfactions in naturalistic ... not being able to invest large budgets, however, I am more than satisfied). Chosen for the lower weight than the Sigma 150 600 S because I walk a lot, but if one moves little I recommend the latter for the 100mm more (in Italy you are always short with supertele). Made great but I have to complain photos kneaded over long distances at certain times, I think it is common to all canvases but it gives me the impression that the cheap ones suffer more. A couple of times he even blocked the af and I had to turn off and turn on the reflex to make it work. I have never been able to try more performing equipment but I still feel very good and highly recommend it. The lampshade does not seem to me to be a problem at all, it fits perfectly and the bag to me does not serve by placing the equipment in an ICU inside the backpack. sent on December 13, 2019 |
 | Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro VC USD Pros: Sharpness, weight, value for money Cons: Nothing (if not the lack of an enclosure) Opinion: I ordered the objective in question last spring despite being just out of the updated version because it cost almost twice! It's my first macro, great goal throughout, light to use freehand, supernitido, I must say that I love to shoot with this goal and recommend it compared the new version given the excessive difference in my opinion not justified price by improvements apportate.rnDalle reviews I've read is the best goal in his range of focal, usually you compare it with the Sigma 105 but loses a bit 'in terms of vignetting at TA (i click so often) while the working distance it is practically the same, seen that the Sigma is a little 'longer. sent on November 07, 2016 |
 | Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR Pros: - Costruzionern-VRrn-ability to mount filters Cons: - Known problem of infiltration light on long-esposizionirn game of ring-mafrn the edges less sharp than the cheapest 18-35Grn-distortion 16mmrn-not just free from flare ... Opinion: I focus only on a very annoying defect and on a finding on this goal. rnDIFETTO unfortunately for the D600 as well as the 16-35 I had to send in assistance, the objective was in fact a known issue on exposures exceeding the 25 "and shooting at high ISO to a problem due to the VR, that even if remains switched off'''', the lens generates red halos in the shots that ruin the shots themselves. assistance in VR and I have replaced the proper light penetration (by what is written on the invoice), but now is back in service because they returned it to me that it is almost impossible to mount it on the bochettone SLR, I do not know why, but it's hard to be hooked. This defect halos / red streaks have been found by several other users (for example, there are many topics on the forum of dpreview and also an article on the website of Tom Hogan) and also my lens had precisely this annoying problem, I do not know if it is repairable as you read on the net co opinionsntrastanti, by a test on the fly that I did after the first surgery, however, this problem seemed to have disappeared (at least I hope). rnCONSTATAZIONE: several tests I've seen on the net, the new and more economical 18-35G is sharper at the edges (see eg here http://digilander.libero.it/Nordavind1709/bordo_destro_f4.jpg) while at the center sharpness is practically the same. The difference is especially noticeable at the edges at wide apertures. To his credit, however, the 16-35 is more wide and also has the image stabilizer (although precisely because of the problems), which made me lean towards the purchase of this lens instead of the 18-35. rnrnPer add that last (because someone claims to the contrary) unfortunately, as evidenced by many expert reviews, the lens flare is not really free, but ... sent on March 12, 2014 |
 | Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro Pros: Low Price Cons: Quality ultrascadente: plastic gears after a while 'you use it break. Opinion: A telephoto cheap and decent quality at least up to 200mm and when shooting in very closed aperture (I use it in this way to be able to take full advantage of). Although taken all my stuff with kid gloves, in 2 years of use it broke the gear autofocus 2 times, in the most important moments in which I used, among other things (including a hockey championship final Ice)>: (The second time it broke I was also sent by Sigma unrepaired (for their incredible error) and I had to send it back for repair accollandomi for the umpteenth time shipping! Given this experience and another bad experience with another Sigma lens, I think I'll never slower than this brand. Prices are low but the quality even more. autofocus plastic gears do very little last, a break is always in view. sent on June 23, 2012 |
 | Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Pros: Excellent lens according to the quality / price ratio, unless you can not find a target without defects (see below) Cons: Quality control does not exist: I had to change two lenses and lens defects tararne a third Opinion: I bought this lens to replace the kit lens (which looked like a bottom of the bottle), but unfortunately I had to replace it 2 times because of really poor yield (euphemism) in the edge of the frame: even at small apertures f / 14 the picture was literally crushed. The third example however, exempt from this type of problem, suffered from front focus: in this case I was calibrated (under warranty) from Sigma, but the shipping costs were still against me. If you're lucky enough (but you should not talk about luck ...) to buy a lens born well, then I must say that this lens as a whole is really good, also saw the price, but given the ordeal I went through advice you can try before you buy this lens. sent on June 23, 2012 |
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
