OP: all i see is unsharp image and color fringing :-(
it costs 500Eur here and cannot be used in manual mode because changing iris like crazy :-(
i bought tokina 80-200 to fullfill my needs
cheekychick wrote:
OP: all i see is unsharp image and color fringing :-(
it costs 500Eur here and cannot be used in manual mode because changing iris like crazy :-(
i bought tokina 80-200 to fullfill my needs
BenV wrote:
its awful hard getting the tokina 80-200 to 300mm
i would say that when cropped and printed result will be better... I dont need 12Mpix to live...
some of the guys here obviously know how to shoot with it, but specially those butterflies look like P&S to me hard blue shines around high contrast (i would say even already after what D300 fixed), it is unsharp, not single pixel sharp, details are missing.
that fly looks fine, probably because was stopped down a lot and not at 300mm
This is ONE of those lenses that people LOVE to denigrate based entirely on it's selling price. When used properly it can easily approximate the overall image quality of just about any lens in the line short of the large f2.8 primes, It provides more than enough shear resolution, plenty of contrast and excellent focus lock speeds on a competent body. I find it especially wonderful on a D700 where it exceeded the results on a D300 I had prior. I had a 70-200vr, a wonderful lens, but I to don't miss it any longer. The heresy I'll speak is I now use a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 LD in it's place. It is sharper at all f stops, has equal bokeh and color rendition and contrast as well. Better in the corners to boot. No it is not a focus speed demon without the AF-S but then I"m not shooting sports in dim light either. For less than half the price it's THE lens to beat. As for the 70-300vr it certainly sees its share of time on the D700....no real compromises there.
hard blue shines around high contrast (i would say even already after what D300 fixed), it is unsharp, not single pixel sharp, details are missing.