|
| sent on 26 Giugno 2024
Pros: Lightweight, beautiful colors, VR, AF so quiet it looks broken.
Cons: Price of the new, plasticky, bulky, sharpness that can be improved, problematic in night photos with cameras that are not particularly effective at high ISO, despite the presence of the stabilizer.
Opinion: Found at a price you couldn't say no to, it initially made a good impression on me. I took it to add it to a Sigma 17/50 f2.8, which I resold after its purchase, wrongly. Mounted on the D 7200, the millimeter difference on the wide-angle side proved to be significant, even if in the face of geometric distortions that I had never detected on the Sigma. In any case, I wanted to try a relatively modern Nikon lens, to see if it really made a difference compared to those of the competition, as many claim. On the colorimetry, the contrasts and the transitions between the shades in fact nothing to say, but otherwise it did not particularly convince me. Sharpness and definition seemed to me to be in line with the idea I had made in the use of other Nikon lenses, that is, good but not excellent and above all deceptive. In the sense that looking at the file in a not too in-depth way they seem valid, but if you look more carefully they show their limitations, in particular bringing the file to 100%. A series of shots taken at night, albeit with the presence of numerous artificial lights that lightened the scene, forced me to throw away almost all the photos, despite the use of the stabilizer. Maybe I won't be able or I won't have understood the needs of the lens, I know the camera quite well, since I've had it for several years. In that period, however, there was the opportunity of a Sigma ART 24-35 that I decided to take on the fly and, after repeating the night photo session in the same area and in very similar conditions, there was only a minimal amount of photos to be discarded, so to speak physiological. Of course, you basically have to give up the wide-angle side, but for this purpose I took a 10-20 for a laughable price, which also gave me great satisfaction, absolutely and not only depending on the price that was paid. On the 24-35 the stabilizer is not there, but the lack is not felt and above all the leap in photographic quality was simply abysmal. For 70 euros difference from what I then took from the 16-35 there was no need to think about it for a moment. I sold the 16-35 with great difficulty, despite the fact that it was immaculate in everything, including the box, and despite the fact that I offered it at a price well below average. Given the persistent lack of bidders, I tried RCE, which granted me a low amount, if you will, but still higher than what I had paid him. I always find it difficult to part with the photographic objects I own, but the 16-35 is the lens I sold and I regret it the least, that is, not at all. The price at which it was sold when new seems to me frankly out of this world and once again deceptive: such as to make me think of a first-rate lens which, however, corresponds to performance that apart from the colors, the really beautiful ones, I find largely inadequate. On the 7200 equipped with battery grip it made a great impression, but this was matched by a behavior that was too often disappointing. Maybe it doesn't go well with too dense sensors and the one on the 7200 is the densest ever in the entire SLR range. I write this after detecting the positive comments of those who have used it on 16mpx FF sensors. I probably chose the wrong model to test the qualities of Nikon lenses, but as far as I'm concerned Sigma for life, even if they are not Art series. |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
