|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on October 28, 2017 Pros: Value for money (provided you find a good "specimen"), f2.8 Cons: Construction (both internal and external), stabilizer, focus, noisy Opinion: I was fortunate enough to buy my first reflex (600d) already with this goal. After more than a year and a half I sold it in favor of a 16-35 2.8L. What about .. all another world! He has always struggled in mass, as well as not being very fast, it was also very difficult to engage static subjects. The stabilizer is not that big and it's really noisy! I think my big building problems were because I never fell down I had to bring it twice for assistance for the same problem or had parts of the focus system disconnected (?) RnTotal added if you find an "exemplar "no construction problems etc. I think it's a funny lens and with good performance, great if bought maybe used with a body for your first reflex kit! |
  | sent on April 27, 2017 Pros: f 2.8, stabilizer, quality / price ratio Cons: slow and imprecise maf system in low light conditions, it is not a full-time mf and the focusing ring sometimes balks and goes in spurts. Opinion: Taken used, used in excellent condition. The use of Nikon D7100 and I consider it a great "all-rounder". Sharpness already good af 2.8 that improves diaframmando quite a bit '. The stabilizer is slow and must give it time to intervene in order not to run in rough. In fact I think the complaints of some users relate to this aspect. It is not an objective "point and shoot" if vr is inserted. af the system is slow and goes into crisis in non-optimal light conditions. For the rest is a viable alternative to Nikon optics kit I own and with which I could make comparisons. I find the upper tamorn around and saw the second-price highly recommend it to anyone looking for a bright handyman zoom to APSC |
 | sent on March 01, 2017 Pros: vote 2 Cons: si..contro photography Opinion: I got it yesterday and today I carry in negozio..l only thing decent which is that it is a 2.8..per else would I exchange with a 18:55 Kit (nikon) that is not a 2.8 but it does well what must do! besides being slow and this sapevo..mette focus where he wants and this is also inaccettabile..sovraespone so nervous to just focus stelle..quando offers you a decent shot to take a photograph casa..per cups in a house fire I have 5 shots and then placed in mf..lo highly recommend it to those who want to waste time and money. |
 | sent on October 17, 2016 Pros: F2.8, Price Cons: Autofocus, stabilizer Opinion: I use this lens as the main optics of my canon 100D, I feel really good and the leap in quality compared to the entry level optics you notice.great point in favor is the opening to f/2.8 fixed that helps not little in the light situation. it is well balanced and is not too heavy even on the 100D which is a featherweight as a body macchina.al maximum extension despite the stabilizer you have to have your hand firmly to not have micromox... Sometimes the autofocus barrels to hook the subject. On canon I would say that you are far from 17-55 f2.8, better look for the one used. |
 | sent on October 13, 2016 Pros: f2.8, not overweight, more than reasonable price for a fixed 2.8, image clarity and quality very good for the band and the budget. Cons: None for the use for which it is intended! Opinion: Edit.rnL'autofocus barf because of the UV filter ... damn poor quality filters. Removing what has not missed a beat! RnQuindi my judgment stands up to the maximum: I must say that for APSC, without spending a fortune, this is one of the most versatile objectives, qualitative and efficient that you can grab. If you want that little bit extra from photography without encroaching in the Full Frame and professional lenses, this is borderline choice for you. |
 | sent on May 30, 2016 Pros: Bright, good stabilizer, Sharp, relatively light, the price / quality ratio. Cons: MAF ring without manual override, Opinion: My favorite handyman on Nikon D7100, much sharper than the Nikon 18-200 VRII albeit with a much more limited focal range. And 'the only lens that I carry when I want light go out. The stabilizer is very effective, just pay attention to give him time to act. If immediate priority is shooting better to turn off the stabilizer to avoid a slight loss of sharpness due to the movement of the same may be awaiting activation. Thanks to the stabilizer you can make sharp pictures in low light conditions. |
 | sent on April 05, 2016 Pros: Good brightness. Excellent MAF. functional stabilizer. Noise very limited Cons: Quality TA not at the top. Color slightly softer than others. Opinion: Often used on all occasions of canon Aps-c for portraits and landscapes. Difficult to do without it because it has a great versatility by adapting to many situations. Except in special projects in which I have used fixed focal, I never detached from the camera body. The stabilizer allows you to shoot with slow times and it works very well. The quality is very good and is proportionate to its price (especially on used). The MAF was always precise and rapid for its end segment. I read that someone complains about the noise, but honestly, while admitting that it is noisier than others with higher, I have not ever complained band and I never felt any discomfort. The collars are soft to the touch and have no games. As it regards the yield would say a very good compromise with respect to the most noble of canon brand. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to experience, as it should be, with modern photography. |
 | sent on October 16, 2015 Pros: Brightness, stabilizer, image incisiveness, sharp even at f2.8 Cons: AF a little noisy, it easily enters the dust in the lenses, suffers from flare in backlight Opinion: I have long been undecided whether to take the stabilised or normal version, since many say that the latter is sharper. In the end I took the stabilized model (and I'm glad) mainly for the following reasons:-it is precisely stabilized, and when the light is very comfortable, especially at 50mm and freehand, try to believe! -It has a faster and quieter AF than the "smooth" model-it is built better than the smooth version. Now, I do not know how much clearer the unstabilized model can be, but in absolute terms I am very satisfied with the yield of my specimen, I find it not only very bright but also very, very sharp. Even at f2.8 it maintains a very high sharpness, for sure superior to the kit optics (18-55, 18-105, I use it on the Nikon D90). At 50mm is just a little soft but perfectly usable, which among other things can be comfortable if you use it for portraits. By using it at F4-5 you have the highest sharpness at all focal lengths, but these are fisime does "pixel peeper", in fact these things are seen only by enlarding the screen image to 100% (in print, if you do not make pushed cuttings, up to 30x20 you do not notice anything perfectly and the Lens excels at all aperlms.) The blur I find it very satisfactory, until F4 is quite uniform, from F5 onwards the bokeh "hardens", but is still pleasant. I have not noticed diffraction problems even when shooting at F16, where the lens maintains a very good sharpness. The only weak point of its optics is the very low resistance to flare. Shooting backlight is not recommended unless you really wanted the "lens reflection" effect within the frame. Chromatic aberrations are present, but are easily eliminated with the photo editing programs (as well as vignetting, pronounced at f2.8). Using Photoshop and Camera Raw the aberrations, distortions and vignettings are corrected in 1 click, so for me they are a non-issue. Physically speaking the optics are well constructed, but do not excel in pairs of moving parts. However they are finesse, the zoommata is precise and fluid, at 17mm there is the button to lock the barrel but I have never felt the need, the outer ring of focus has little stroke but I can still to focus by hand without problems thanks also to the excellent Pentaprism mounted in the D90. I noticed that it takes very little to get dust under the front lens, which however does not affect absolutely the final yield, but that says a lot about the overall build quality, which I consider little more than "entry level". I think it's a great deal if you look for it in the used, even if new today does not cost so much. |
 | sent on April 29, 2015 Pros: construction - VC Cons: better smooth sharper - with VC activated not recovered much of its time Opinion: A little 'less clear the VC NOT. If you disable the VC is slightly sharper, but not as smooth. Shot at 8.1 to 50mm for portraits against 1/13 of the smooth, I thought to recover more. With the Sigma stabilized or canon 24,105 I managed to take 0.8 seconds then the stabilizer of the sigma / canon works best. All in all I used the lens as a handyman for a lot, I can not complain, going back but then smooth it weighs less and costs less slightly sharper. |
 | sent on February 20, 2015 Pros: SHARPNESS excellent, bright even at night, stabilization appreciable Cons: Autofocus inaccurate and noisy Opinion: Using this lens for about a year on a nikon d7000. At first I used it in automatic and the noise is indeed remarkable. I switched to manual total and I discovered a world !! After a bit of practice I really discovered a valuable perspective for many situations. Photographing the comet Lovejoy to 17mm (wide angle) I received compliments from an astronomer for the optics used. For me it is absolutely valid! |
 | sent on January 22, 2015 Pros: Brightness, sharpness Cons: Autofocus noisy. Opinion: I purchased this lens after having read of all colors, both pro and con. Well I bought with European warranty arrives and immediately presents problems of front / back focus. Mail it back to the supplier that after a while 'time and on my reminder I resend a new one to replace. Beautiful happy I am going to take the first pictures and known immediately that this second sample has the worst problems first. Autofocus slow, inaccurate, even tending to lock and sporadic problems of overexposure. This time I choose to send it directly all'assitenza Polyphoto rather than the dealer. In just a month, taking into account that there were half of the Christmas holidays, I riarriva serviced, calibrated, with replacement of autofocus and stabilizer. In this case the shipping and return were against me, but I did not want an object in place, I wanted my own, but calibrated by the service center. I tried it in a room where it was played a song contest, in poor light conditions, and I must say that I have in my hands what I wanted at the beginning. Ie an objective bright enough, the autofocus is precise, the stabilizer does his duty, churning file very sharp. The only flaw in my case is not a big problem is the noise of the autofocus motor. For someone can be. rnDetto this and doing local mind on what they read about, I had to regain Tammy, I would do it by buying it with warranty Polyphoto. I have the impression, but it's my personal, dictated by the experience that I had, that too many of the users who have complained of this lens they have bought avoiding warranty. Just like I did. |
 | sent on September 09, 2014 Pros: Price, bright f2.8, 17mm good on aps-c, stabilization Cons: stabilization noisy, noisy fire, in the dark we lose a little, plastic (but good quality), seen the price all in all a good lens Opinion: I own this lens a few weeks ago in which I was able to exploit it .. I have to be honest, is not the best, but how much more you would expect from a lens of this price .. it is not a complete alternative to the canon 17-55 f2.8 (insuperable lens on aps-c) but at half the price you bring home a lens to share quality, solid and characteristics of all respect (as seen with other lenses of the same price) .. much better alternative to many lenses in kit..rnConsigliato for those not willing to be able to point to the canon .. and with half the budget .. plus a few euro for a nice aperitif to celebrate the new purchase! |
 | sent on September 09, 2014 Pros: Buy for a song. Bright. A 17mm is a wide angle. Cons: Focus slow. Dull colors. Opinion: I find a quality lens after all the reviews you read on the internet, but you can see that many people have never tried other objectives. Advantageous to have only the opening to 2.8 and the wide angle and sharpness. The colors are off and you have to waste time in post-production. In low light conditions the photos always come out moves, as well as photos taken from the window of the moving car: with other brands of goals, the result is better. The focus is therefore also very slow and noisy. I switched to the sigma 18-35 hsm 1.8 engine and there is no comparison. |
| sent on September 02, 2014 Pros: crisp, bright, lens hood Cons: focus slow (but accurate) Opinion: had it for about a year as a handyman on a 600d, has always behaved well even though it is not a lens for photo sportive.costruzione plasticky but robust, effective stabilizer, sharp and with beautiful colori.lo advice to those who want to make a leap forward compared with the 18-55 kit without fainting from the canon 17-55 (which is superior in everything, but it costs almost twice as much) |
 | sent on August 22, 2014 Pros: brightness, sharpness and robustness in relation to the price Cons: engine a bit 'noisy, focus a bit' slow especially in low light - Hiking complete before figuring out the right maf. however, nothing serious considering the price. Opinion: is a great goal, when you consider that today you buy a new € 265 on ebay. extremely sharp over the f 4-5.6. the constant f2.8 at all focal lengths is very, very comfortable. to remember, like all TAMRON VC, to disable the VC when using a tripod otherwise are moved. I highly recommend it coupled with the TAMRON 70-200 f2.8 VC, to have the full range of amateur urban (and not only). |
 | sent on July 12, 2014 Pros: Economic buying it now, brightness 2.8. Real focal: 27.2 to 80 of APSC thus not pushed ... A few wide angle distortion. Cons: Material economic, not always precise in focus, color too spenti.Rumorosa stabilization. Opinion: It bought a few years ago precisely 4. I thought better compared with other goals that I have, in three years the exterior plastic and rubber and scollato.Fa good job but does not excel in niente.Superiore course 18 55 canon mounted series on almost every APSC canon.Non know with the same figure the best smooth 28 75 tamron to stay indoors (you can also mount on FF) or some sigma usual price category. |
 | sent on June 25, 2014 Pros: Aperture f 2.8 constant, stabilized price Cons: weight, construction, AF slow and noisy, too soft to F 2.8, stabilization slow, not suitable for fast point and shoot, sharpness precarious Opinion: I do not recommend having tried the Tamron 17-50 F 2.8 smooth and having today the Sigma 17-50 F 2.8 EX OS, both the best of all aspetti.rnIl point is this, what can I do with a lens F 2 8 if the sharpness starts to become good only at F 5.6? rnrnPreciso that my copy was perfect and did not show any defect in f / b focus .... rnrnComprate the smooth and you are sure |
 | sent on April 05, 2014 Pros: Bright, sharp little distortion, stabilizer. Cons: Plasticky, aberrazzioni, af improved and dust infiltrates easily. Opinion: I own this lens for almost a year, I got it to replace the standard 18/55 kits, say that his strength and 'f 2.8 which makes it invaluable for those who practice street and night photos and needs the brightness and versatility 'of this zoom but can not afford the extortionate equivalent of canon, the stabilizer and' a very effective real salvascatto in low-light conditions even if I use it very rarely, but in the few times I 'was very useful, the af find it good enough and fast enough, very sharp from f4 already I use it mostly on landscape and do not go beyond the f11 because I noticed a bit of diffraction dopo.rnLe chromatic aberrations are apparent but with a couple of clicks go away, the thing that most do not like 'that sneaks easily into the dust must be there very careful though does not affect the functioning and quality' image, in the event of a sale may lead problemi.rnBuona lens, I highly recommend the excellent value 'price a full 8. |
 | sent on October 08, 2013 Pros: f/2.8, abb.nitido, stabilizer Cons: plasticky, noisy autofocus, stabilizer (vc) noisy, heavy, light overexposure Opinion: I have the version for nikon. is a lens of choice with respect to the second most popular tokina 16-50 or nikon 17-55 etc. etc.rne feels and sees all. sometimes useful to have a f2.8 aperture but it is the only positive thing that I find in this lens. I advise everyone to keep the classic all-rounder 18-105 that the rest is very much better. (Between focal 18:50 is f3.5 - f4.5 you lose 1-2 stops) RNE a tamron and is therefore by definition a dice plastic cn solid feel zero. focus is a bit 'noisy .. but hooks well enough if there is abba light. in critical or near-critical (that is a little dim light) go autofocus with manual focus that goes for his cabbages. in my version of the vc (stabilizer) is quite noisy. works perfectly (I do not know what I'd do without!) but it is very very annoying as noise. a kind of whistle / continuous buzzing since hooks (half press shutter button) to a few seconds after the shot (when it drops). wasnziona cmq very, very well, as well as that of the 18,105 and well .. It is highly recommended .. without vc would not be that easy especially for someone who has no hands too firm .. and also because the objective is particularly heavy (compared with the 18 105 for example) .. else .. slight tendency to overexpose. but if you go raw then it's an instant fix .... :) |
 | sent on July 29, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, value for money, stabilizer, brightness, lens hood Cons: a bit soft at f2, 8 Opinion: It 's my second lens after the Tamron 70-300vc and even that I was pleasantly surprised ... rnInnanzitutto compared to the 18-55 kit is another planet .... who does this step you will find fine without having to svenare, rnNitidissimo by f4, gives wonderful colors with a good blurred to 50mm, rnLo stabilizer is good although lower than the Tamron 70-300vc (which snaps to 300mm at 1/25 of a second) rnL'AF is unobtrusive, even with good conditions favorable light, suffers a bit in low light but I thought I saw some worse commenti.rn |
 | sent on July 11, 2013 Pros: Best price / performance ratio; Out of focus Cons: Some re-focus sull'AF; Quality mounting Opinion: I bought this to replace a Canon 15-85 lens which I no longer liked the performance in low light nor the quality of sfuocato.rnDa this point of view the Tamron was a net gain, aperture f2.8 is indeed a solution the shots in low light and pleasure to have shallow depth of field when I do portraits and first piani.rnrnQuando I went from Canon Tamron at the first feeling was not positiva.rnIl Tamron is plasticky and hard when you zoom in and switches AF and the stabilizer are tough. The look is not bad but in general the idea of ??most Canon qualità.rnUna when assembled things do not improve. Compared all'USM Canon AF Tamron is a return to origini.rnIl motor is felt, it is slower and much more serious every now and then does a complete re-focus before attaching the soggetto.rnrnScattando however, start to come out out pregi.rnIl diaphragm is obviously a gain than before and the quality & agravand; images is ottima.rnLe photos are consistently sharp, the colors a hot wire, and just a bit of vignetting on the corners but not stona.rnA 17mm distortion is quite more pronounced than on the Canon (at 15mm) and how aberrations we compared them to Canon.rnL 'AF makes noise, but I do not care and even the slowness, for the kind of photos I take but also for the intended use overall objective, it is not a problem; in'oltre , and not cheap, the AF is as precise as that of Canon.rnPer Fortunately, with a little 'practice, you can prevent re-focus but remain the only real drawback because sometimes you lose some shots " on the fly ". rnLo stabilizer works as well as that of the Canon with the only difference that in this case too is some audible hum ... boh.rnrnIn general'm happy to have replaced the Canon with Tamron but more looking at the pictures that produced when scatto.rnNe recommend buying but could definitely spend the Canon 17-55 would be the best scelta.rnrnSeTamron AF motor put their ultrasound might not have even rivals costing 100 € more. |
 | sent on May 06, 2013 Pros: Quality / price, opening Cons: MAF Noisy and loupe, my tendency to overexpose (2/3 stop increments) Opinion: Going from a d3100 D7100 I was afraid to encounter the objective limits and instead ... I was shocked. The sharpness is very good even on demanding sensors, maybe not at wide apertures where it is still accettabile.rnLa focus confirm be noisy and not lightning, but nothing serious for the use for which it is my pensato.rnIl tends to overexpose about 2/3 stop, I must remember to manually fix the machine when the monto.rnVersatile with his range is not extensive but very useful, allowing the 17mm to 50mm while the discretti landscapes with f/2.8-4 can hazard a few little portrait male.rnIl weight is not important enough and well you balance on bodies not too light. The lens hood is well made: solid and generous in dimensioni.rnDicono that the version of "smooth" is sharper and that the stabilizer does not serve these focal lengths: the first put my beak but I believe, on the other hand, I think that VC can always return especially useful if you are not used to carry around a tripod and want to hazard a few shots in low light really critical. |
| sent on January 23, 2013 Pros: Value for money-excellent, very bright, efficient stabilizer; f2.8, solid construction Cons: AF slow and noisy, heavy weight Opinion: I find this lens with a character of its own. Let me explain. Sometimes its slow and noisy AF can be frustrating, it can also happen to lose the right time, 2.8 has a tendency to be a little soft (but not to excess), however, is able to take pictures very exceptional compared to its cost .. the VC is really effective .. to f3 is very clear molt .. It gets better of course, but at twice the cost. It 'a perspective that really knows how to give great satisfaction with which you can get results unattainable with the same optical band. |
 | sent on November 10, 2012 Pros: Value for money, sharpness, stabilizer, and in general its optics. Cons: AF maybe a little loupe but fully supportable Opinion: In a review should also consider where you come from, I have recently replaced the classic barrel 18-55, with this goal, and I'm excited. Certainly could be better, but just as certainly much more expensive. The yield of this is good, there is really no comparison with the barrel. The lenses are of quality, even if the construction of plastic material, is equally good. The stabilizer in particular impressed me because it makes it very much and in general its sharpness at all focal lengths is good. A lens that I highly recommend to anyone who wants to make a Step Up compared to standard equipment. You will not regret. |
 | sent on July 30, 2012 Pros: Quality / Price - f/2.8 fixed Cons: Stabilizer a bit 'slow Opinion: It 's my first lens seriously, I went from 18-55 canon to this and I have to say that it was a more than apt. Despite its plastic appearance is very robust, the zoom ring is quite hard but it's just not a good thing because it will loosen over time too. The autofocus does not always guess the area in which to focus but my style is not a problem because usually I choose manually at which point it has to perform his duty. The blurred in my opinion is outstanding. The only flaw I found was a significant vibration when I press the shutter button which forces you to wait a few seconds before shooting. |
| sent on June 21, 2012 Pros: Optical fantastic, very fluid MF 9/10, AF speed 9,5 / 10, VC 9.5 / 10 seems resistant! Cons: VC noise in video mode with internal microphone, building material plastic .. Flare but nice! A 17mm in some situations you can see the hood .. Opinion: A very good optics .. with its stabilization system, the quality of the lens and for the price has little to envy to the more expensive 17-55mm 2.8 I am pleased to see that my little video .. Note the statue's head is small 3x4cm about shortly more videos in the town of Arona .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA8wijkYsdY&feature=plcp |
| sent on June 15, 2012 Pros: Excellent quality / price ratio. Optimum efficiency even in CT Cons: Aberration acceptable to 17mm Opinion: Very satisfied. This has replaced the 18-105 kit lens of my D90, a bright lens handyman that I still have to fully test but I can say that the first picture has a very good focus at full aperture on the 50mm focal length. The weight is not an exaggeration, certainly at a very affordable price a good lens to take on the go! |
user9792  | sent on June 14, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, f 2.8 at all focal lengths, construction, stabilizer, money Cons: Zoom ring a little hard Opinion: I just bought this lens after continuous research and consulted various oppinioni, I finally decided with a thousand doubts, but when I arrived and unpacked the box, I must say that I changed my mind on the whole, I found it well done and in hand a feeling of strong optical, Tried once on two Canon Eos a 50.D and 40.D, it works perfectly on both cameras, contarsto and colors, the focus was in my opinion fast and slow as loud as I read it, despite not having the engine in the U.S., the noise content and like other Canon lenses in my possession, and everyway he hears only the photographer who is holding the camera, the stabilizer is also a very slight little noise when turns on, but nothing more. the value f, 2.8 out whole excursion is useful, at last I see sciendere the aperture when Zummo, the lens hood is supplied and not cheap ..... (The only flaw that I have found, is the zoom ring is a little hard, but I'm hoping that using it becomes more malleable) in conclusion, I am satisfied with the purchase and the quality of the image taken with this lens. Hi all, |
 | sent on March 22, 2012 Pros: Price / quality good. 2.8 Opening and therefore very useful on the night shot. Cons: focus a bit slow, sometimes freezes AF. Opinion: very good quality / price ratio, there are hardly any lenses at 2.8 on the market at this price, I think a little higher than the canon 18/85, or is sharper when compared to an F/4.0 aperture or less. However, very convenient opening at F / 2.8 per night shots by hand, even if it knows that no competitor to the maximum aperture of the same class can give the better, only draw the focus .... actually a bit slow and sometimes crashes. To conclude, it is still a great product that can do quite well his dirty work. |
 | sent on December 29, 2011 Pros: Value for money exceptional building effective stabilizer good optical quality excellent Cons: When using the Image Stabilizer will have to wait a second before taking a penalty blur in the picture Opinion: Optics very good that has nothing to envy to the same focal length of nikon I think it's already very good at 2.8 and then become excellent at f4, I will die a lot of photos and even those taken at maximum aperture have a excellent sharpness even in large format more than 30/40 It 's relatively lightweight unlike the nikkor 17/55 that I've owned that was very heavy I would recommend is a good optical reportage Autofocus is not a speed demon but not a snail and sports photos with these Focal I do not think it makes much |
| sent on October 26, 2011 Pros: Excellent quality / price ratio, Aperture 2.8, Stabilizer Cons: Autofocus inaccurate, slow and noisy AF motor; Weight; little sharp at the widest apertures Opinion: This Tamron and 'was my first optical "serious" after plasticky optical kit and the beginning I was fascinated. As far as I'm concerned it has a good quality 'image (as long as' it remains under the F4), with excellent color rendering and a blurred hard enough that I do not mind (but these are personal opinions). In the long run, and the comparison with other lenses, but I'm 'starting to feel the defects. Nothing impossible, mind you: given the prices that are out there and this' a good scanner! Pero 'autofocus and' slow and sometimes misfires and at the widest apertures sharpness is a bit 'down the drain. The weight of this light becomes an important factor if you have a body too small for your hands and if you have the habit (like me) to have the camera always on hand to shoot anything that moves. |
 | sent on October 01, 2011 Pros: Quality / price ratio, good optical quality, f2.8, effective stabilizer Cons: Soft wide open, focus quite slow, not FTM Opinion: The construction is pretty good, in line with other Tamron lenses that I got to try, zooming the lens barrel extends, but there is a simple (and effective) mechanical lock to close to the minimum length. As optical quality is acceptable f2.8, but surely closing of 1 or 2 stop is greatly improved. Personally I try to use it from f5.6 down, but if I open more than one survives :) The stabilizer is effective, 50mm you get to shoot at 0 "7 with a little 'luck. Autofocus is not the faster, but it is accurate. MF In the race of the ring is a bit 'too short and it is difficult to focus accurately on short distances. Having the ultrasonic motor, full time manual remains a dream: ( |
 | sent on September 30, 2011 Pros: Price / quality excellent, is a 2.8 and in certain circumstances it is very useful. Cons: The autofocus motor is a bit noisy since the absence of the ultrasound; nell'autofocus little faster. Opinion: It was my first wide angle that gave me and I have to say that although it is not a Canon or a NIKOR has a good image quality. Being a bit slow nell'autofocus in some situations, I recommend to use it only in landscape photos, or at least in photos that do not require a high-speed focus as sports photos. The rest is a good choice if you're like me at the beginning and / or can not afford even a wide-angle expensive. |
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
