| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
  | sent on 20 Luglio 2018 Pros: Sharpness, focus distance, lightness, brightness, value for money. Cons: Focus slow, difficult and a bit noisy, operating distance. Opinion: A good lens for macrophotography, despite the absence of ED lenses. The sharpness is delicious, the brightness is good and the fuzzy soft. It allows you to focus already at 16 and broken cm, great value that turns into a defect when you are having to shoot (the focal point is 40 mm and the ratio 1:1) exactly inside the flower, but not close, right inside! The focus is accurate, really, however, having to shoot so close to the subject (obviously applies to macrophotography) at large aperture the lens requires the support of the tripod... The focus is slow, because first it tries to focus close then it starts probing toward infinity. I would recommend it as a first macro lens. It's worth exactly the price. |
 | sent on 15 Ottobre 2017 Pros: Lightweight, Sharpness, Defocused, Price Cons: MAF sometimes slow and inaccurate, Construction slightly plastic Opinion: Being a macro lens, it enjoys excellent sharpness. The maximum aperture and focal length make it a usable target beyond macros, portraits, street, and close-ups. In the right circumstances it can also be useful for still life. Blurry, although it is a macro, is quite soft and very pleasing. The lens, though DX, is very useful with FF format. Even without active "on cam" crop, vignetting is not excessive (in some cases it is almost completely absent) and can be corrected with a light PP crop. |
 | sent on 08 Febbraio 2017 Pros: very light, excellent sharpness, 1:1 macro Cons: I don't find any, even the absence of stabilization not from any problem Opinion: It is an optic that allows a use in every occasion, portraits, macros, travels, night photos. No problem, no uncertainty. I really appreciate the two selectable modes of focus: the first, M/A (autofocus with manual priority), allows a quick transition from autofocus to manual focus and vice versa, with the advantage of great versatility and maneuverability; the second M is the classic manual focus. I recommend it for the low price and for the excellent optical quality, as well as for the possibility of a wide use for many occasions. Excellent possibility of 1:1 macro with excellent yield in terms of sharpness and colors |
 | sent on 13 Maggio 2016 Pros: so "sharp" that if you are not careful you cut Cons: focus a little slow but precise Opinion: really funny objective, practical and light, opens a new world. unfortunately, being a very short focal length, to obtain the 1: 1 ratio must be very close to the subject with the risk of doing away (if it is alive) or to darken it. is incredibly crisp already at 2.8 and by stopping becomes even sharper. when you reach the ratio of 1: 1, the diaphragm closes to 3.2 but it is not a bad thing since the depth of field in that opening is 1-2 millimeters. |
  | sent on 18 Febbraio 2015 Pros: Yield, weight, size Cons: Slow Af, working distance, AC at TA Opinion: It ' was my first macro bought initially with the idea of using it as everything do and alternative to zoom, is a lens that gave me beautiful shots; The optical output is almost perfect with obvious AC (like all G series) only in TA, warm colors and fuzzy soft with typical net detachment from macro and very contrasting colors, it also solves well the 24MPX APS-C; For macros in the outside it fatigues a lot, both for operating distance and in the use of Flash fired Trovvo close to the subject, also being a short focal island little background, rather it is a lens that I would recommend with eyes closed on this format more for still life shots and macro objects; For use as normal and all doing is a focal to limit on APS-C, also in the portrait tending to detach too much background from the areas in focus, however has a soft blurry and a passable bokeh; The AF is slow and the focus in manual is not simple, the lack of the stabilizer is not a problem because you can shoot at 1/60 Freehand; The build quality is not excellent but it is still solid and reliable, in general for what it costs the advice to those looking for a compact macro to use to generate still life and macro to small objects and still have a sort of all make light and compact to keep the n Bag, obviously can not replace NE the 35mm and the 50mm that boast a more interesting aperture and bokeh; |
 | sent on 19 Novembre 2014 Pros: Light and bright, simple but reliable .. Cons: Nothing Opinion: Well you after reading all the reviews, I decided, and I bought it myself. Used but like new, great lens and micro macrornversatile, I missed a lens like that and frankly given the period of crisis did not want to spend a fortune, and so after a search are riuscitornad find it used in Nikon warranty and at a good price (170 €) in store in Brescia. When they grafted on my D2X I went into the garden for photos .... well ... and 'perfect I was able to photograph insects and special leaves that before I could catch without a lens like that. Recommended to all ... trust ... hello to everyone. Elgiorn |
 | sent on 22 Ottobre 2014 Pros: Cost, superb quality, handling, performance Cons: Short Throw (not a defect) - DX (sorry for not being able to put on a ff) Opinion: Using this light about a year, bought at Christmas last year, the very use for the portrait, for macro, although it is a little short for macros, which tell you, I recommend it to everyone, have a yield amazing, really nice, a lot of quality at a price almost ridiculous if we compare it with the same optical quality. Let's say that the only drawback is that it is right and not to support, although there have ever tried the teleconverter. |
 | sent on 11 Giugno 2014 Pros: Cheap, light, bright !!! Cons: Missing stabilizzazione.- Opinion: I'm no expert but just a fan, the lens I bought it a few weeks ago, and taking into account the cost and not exaggerated by the focal length appears to be versatile. In the macro if you want to get good results it is only right to use a good tripod and remote shutter release. The sharpness is also excellent magnifying the subject. In my opinion is not bad even if it is used for portraits. However, if one wants to get close to the macro is definitely to be considered. |
 | sent on 25 Febbraio 2014 Pros: Economic, sharpness, light, blurred Cons: 40 mm (60 for me that I own APS-C body) are sometimes a few Opinion: I would say that to be a lens that costs only 200 € is of excellent quality, the sharpness is very good on APS-C and I am comfortable using it not only for the macro. The 40 mm (60 on APS-C) every now and then is not enough. Only drawback is that my lens every now and then especially when I try to open the aperture to 2.8 to 3.0 crashes. Overall, for those who want to bring the world of macro without spending too much I can say that is a lens that most valid |
 | sent on 31 Gennaio 2014 Pros: right balance for money, especially on used, good sharpness is versatile and macro optics do everything, 55mm on APSC. Cons: fragilino if you use professionally, but there are other optics if you want to do real macro. Opinion: the whole good optics, entered fully into my kit for some close-up shots and for those occasions where you want to move leggerissimo.Va a little better by closing the diaphragm, the rest is micro.Non looks good with the other lenses in my kit much more challenging (24-200 all f.2, 8) if you want some serious macro I turn to 105, which costs four times tanto.Consiglio optics to all those who want to get closer to the macro picture and those who are thinking of an optical Fixed all do, alternatively 1.8 to 35, gains in versatility. |
 | sent on 26 Ottobre 2013 Pros: Very small size, weight really feather, AF very good, Excellent sharpness, very good price! Cons: 40mm unfortunately are "short" at times. Opinion: A lens that returns really nice shots, and if combined with a camera that exploits it really as it should be, remains of all without envy nothing compared to other more expensive Nikon! GNI 'only flaw, as mentioned by others, is the focal length, although the APS-C becomes a 60mm is still more usable for static shots, but it is said. rn |
 | sent on 23 Luglio 2013 Pros: Economical - Great start - light - small Cons: - Opinion: I recommend it to those who must begin with the MACRO photograph this perspective is the right compromise for the price paid. The lens does its job well and has the 1:1 ratio without the addition of rings or 40mm filter unfortunately give little space to the possibility of catching an insect that flits away without fear. Focus quiet and very sharp details. |
 | sent on 12 Dicembre 2012 Pros: Lightweight and compact, bayonet hood and soft case series, color rendition, sharpness Cons: engaging in a little plastic 'inaccurate, slow autofocus, fragile thread filters Opinion: I use it as a "standard" for about 6 months to portrait without flash light often mixed, cut to shape American landscapes for panoramic (vertical, four or five shots then mounted with Pan Make Nikon or Ice) The colors, the plasticity and clarity far exceeds the 18-55 zoom that I think I will soon replace with another fixed lens. In the video, I do not make many, the autofocus is slow, you first hand. rnNon are a fan of nititezza at all costs, but what I have seen from photos taken by others within the meter is already excellent 5.6 f .. I use it in the panoramic f 8.0 and is very accurate providing plasticity and tone just put into words. The filter thread seems very fragile so I use a metal ring fixed and screwed the top polarizer or UV with greater confidence. |
 | sent on 11 Febbraio 2012 Pros: Small, cheap, get 1: 1 without additional optical quality very good Cons: Slight residual longitudinal chromatic aberration, working distance not extensive Opinion: For a little over 200 euro new perspective is very respectable. Costs a fraction of other Micro Nikkor but the performance that can provide are not so distant, indeed! Does not shine for the working distance to the reproduction ratio of 1:1, but for 40mm focal length is still far enough away, I would say that I did not notice particular differences with my old Micro Nikkor 55mm. There is a residue of LOCA that is especially noticeable at the widest apertures and in condition of strong contrast, but nothing to worry about. The definition is high, just below that of the micro nikkor 105, but much higher than that obtained with optical zoom or macro lens systems or additional extension tubes. Suffer very little, I would say almost nothing, flare and reflections. And 'only compatible with DX SLR. |
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
