JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 164000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Cost, compactness, versatility. Distance focusing. I think that makes the most beautiful skies. Filters "Standard" from 72. Paid € 200 from optical kit, immediately resold.
Cons:AF precise but not a lightning war, hood bulky and fragile-looking.
Opinion:Having had two versions of the 24-120 and cousin 24-85 / 2.8 to 4, that I have all sold for use only zoom kit that is 18-35 as a normal optical, I regained that focus in AF version S 3.5-4.5 to have at least one lens for all occasions in which to change the optics (in the rain, hovering over a cliff, in dusty places) it was a risk. Compared to all the other had and resold, it seems to me that returns the sky a little 'more beautiful than it is, as the 14 Sammy doing incredible skies. Also it is less distorted than the 24-120 at 24 and keeps sharpness even after the 70 / 80mm on the contrary that the other loses quickly after the 70mm diaphragm already +1 than the full aperture. A diaphragm 8, as almost all the goals from the best. The focus is almost perfectly and keeps the focus and sharpness. The lens hood attaches not well, maybe it's a bit 'too leggerino but is vistosissimo, not as that of the 18-35 but still remarkable. backlightfull fewer discs and colored flashes of brighter 24-85. In low light it is dark as all zoom and then pull out of the pocket of the backpack 50cc or the 135DC. But you can not have light and compact together, so it is not a defect. 7+ rating
Opinion:I have this goal by a year and is very comfortable to carry it around because of the low weight, it provides a good backlight and suffers little flare or refractions different, the price is good. The sharpness here is a sore point since the middle image is sharp from f / 6.3, while being fairly clear from corner to corner must diaphragm to f / 8. She begins to fall in refractive already at f / 11. All in all not a bad goal, I took it as a kit with the D610 to begin with and proved to be a good all-purpose focal range covering the most affected by my shots. The Vr in some situations can take up to 1/10, but tends to heat a part of the image in high ISO and or long exposures. The distortion there and it shows especially 24 mm. Not a career goal is clear but until 15/16 mp offers a good quality. For the price offered is recommended. 8 vote for the price not high.
Pros:The right heavy, compact, fairly clear, af normal.
Cons:Price of the new focal length.
Opinion:Honest performance, does not disappoint in the use amateur. If used on modern SLR at high ISO, it is not affected much of the reduced opening. You get files optimally sharp and contrasted and thanks to vr you can afford to take time with 1/20. By contrast, the low focal length, forcing frequent changes in objective and this can be a nuisance. Sold to make style opens the 24-120 f4 only for the reasons mentioned above. In comparison with the latter it does not lose at all ... but that's another story.
Opinion:This was my first optic body fx, I decided to start from this point especially for the price, but after taking more than a year, I can only say that his modest work he does very well, that is all money spent. Put in good light conditions is quite nitido.rnil VR works quite well, and the autofocus on d600 is being veloce.rnBisogna say that very cartoon, and that the minimum focal suffers from perspective distortion, all solvable in Camera Raw
Opinion:Objective underestimated? I think so, as I am about to explain. Placed in the category of seminfamante "zoomini kit", Nikon offers it in conjunction with some full-frame digital SLR, fate it shares with the most expensive 24 120 f4 aperture constant. Compared to the latter, I have no hesitation: subject to greater build quality and greater openness in maximum configuration canvas, 24 85 has the rare advantage - that can not boast even emblazoned 24 70 f2.8 - not to accuse cali yield at maximum focal length, where the 24 120 gives miserably, resulting usable little closer to 100mm. If we opt for the non-stabilized version, the value for money is even more interesting. Renouncing constitutionally plasticity of a lens from the focal generous opening, the landscape you will benefit of pleasant surprises around f8. Defects? The distortion at 24mm: Photozone has measured a value of 3.78%. Nevertheless, competitors are not much better in this respect.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
