 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3
|
|
|
|
anatole
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical superiority over Canon's 24-70, superb build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Big and heavy.
|
|
|
My use of the 35mm format revolves completely around this type of lens. After buying four copies of Canon's 24-70 lens, and finding none of them sharp at f/2.8, and their macro performance completely useless, I dumped Canon and switched to Nikon. I take none of the same faults with this lens, although I do notice a tiny bit of chromatic aberration in the corners even at f/8.
|
|
 Jan 31, 2005
|
|
AnMar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 575
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp images, Excellent color and contrast, fast focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
24mm would be nice.
|
|
|
Picked this lense up for wedding work and have now had a chance to use it for a few events... Wow, great performer all around. Fast and accurate focus and nice feel, I like the weight, well balanced with my D2H.
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2005
|
|
NaN.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, excellent focus, useful zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
big and heavy, not as sharp as I would have liked
|
|
|
I use this lens more or less as my "stock" lens on my D100. It focuses extremely quickly and accurately and the wide maximum aperture makes it pretty versatile. It also has a nice colour rendition being very neutral. I don't know of a better lens to have on my body by default.
However to really picky ...
I find it just a very tiny bit soft wide open. Certainly it is not as sharp as the 17-35 although I'd rate it sharper overall than my 80-200 AF-ED. (This is a subjective judgement rather than being based on scientific measurements.)
I also have some reservations about the way it handles on my D100. Initially it feels good. The fat barrel has a really nice feel when hand held, but I get the feeling that the combined lens plus body picks up the slightest vibrations from the shutter and mirror making it more difficult to hand hold at slow shutter speeds than, for example, the 17-35 (at equivalent focal lengths).
It is also the first lens to pick up "dust bunnies" that settle on the ccd filter.
Despite these nit-picks I can unreservedly recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United Kingdom
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus, sharp images, rugged, f/2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, large, expensive.
|
|
|
A real work horse. Sharp, fast focus, f/2.8, rugged. No wonder this is the "go to" lens for most working photo journalists.
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2004
|
|
seyhun
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Location: Turkey
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
f:2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Very heavy, bulky and very expensive
|
|
|
Not as good as I have expected. Definitely not as sharp as my 35-70 F:2.8. At 70mm end, tested against 70 mm setting of 70-200 F:2.8VR, and the 70-200 is far better. At 35 mm setting, 35 F2.0 fixed lens is far far better. We made the same tests using a friends 28-70 as well, just to understand if I had a bad sample, and results were similar.
I think overall it is OK, but why carry all that weight if the earlier 35-70 is equal or better. Only if you already have it, serves fine as the lens always mounted on the camera, since the wide end is wider than the 35-70. That's all.
I usually write good remarks for lenses I like, but it's the second lens from Nikon which I did not like. (The other was a 70-300G, which is certainly a bad one but very cheap.)
|
|
|
May 26, 2004
|
|
rlcramer
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 11, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 606
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,429.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid as a rock, sharpest zoom lens I have ever used, "feels" great on my S2 Pro
|
|
Cons:
|
Nada
|
|
|
I don't normally write reviews, but this lens is so good that I simply had to let everybody know. It is rare that I purchase a piece of equipment that so blatantly surpasses my expectations that I am at a loss for words. This lens is so much better than everything in its class that it is hard to express. Sharpness and color accuracy to die for, lightning fast AF, amazing feel, ROCK solid construction that is perfectly balanced on the S2, etc. I could go on and on. It puts the Canon 28-70 and 24-70 L lenses to shame in all respects (I know - I've owned them both!!). Extremely sharp at f/2.8, and even better stopped down to f/4. You will not regret this purchase - sure it costs some serious dough, but it is worth every penny. The best all-around zoom lens I've ever owned, period. Believe what everyone says, this lens is a gem among gems.
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2003
|
|
eloehfelm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 5, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Aug 5, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Rock solid build, balances well with D100, unbelievably sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Wow. I read everyone else's reviews and took the plunge... not looking back for a minute. This glass is exceptional. It is heavy but it feels 'right' on a D100 body. A smaller body might pose a balance problem.
Images are so sharp it's scary! I'm getting details of people's pores from about 4 feet at 70mm... actually I think I need a solution to knock down the sharpness a bit for my portraits. Little bit of Photoshop should do the trick ;-)
Wicked fast autofocus! I have noticed a little bit of searching for a subject in lower light (studio light with low settings on the model lights) but the manual override takes care of that.
I'd buy it again in a second!
|
|
|
Aug 5, 2003
|
|
Brendan Getchel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1990
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The ultimate PJ lens. Rocket-fast AF. Perfect general purpose zoom range. Built like an Abrams tank. This is one sharp zoom that gives many primes a run for their money at f/5.6 or higher. Probably the sweetest-looking zoom on earth -- downright sexy.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's not only built like a tank, it weighs as much too! Requires the hood in bright light due to flare. Quite usable when wide-open, but noticeably softer than when stopped down. Front element extends ~1 inch when zooming.
|
|
|
If you're a professional photojournalist it is likely that you already have this lens. If you don't, and you prefer the convenience that zooms offer over primes, then this is your ticket to fame. When attached to my D100/MB this lens solicits more "are you a pro..." queries than any lens I own -- Nikon or Canon. It's also just about the "sexiest" lens one can own, if that means anything.
Image quality is on par, or close to, the other pro AF-S zooms in Nikon's lineup, and offers very similar results to Canon's newer 24-70/2.8L USM. Wide-open the Canon is sharper by a nose at all focal lengths, but at f/4 and above I'd have to call it a dead heat. While it's not quite as sharp as a truly sharp prime, it'll likely meet the demands of the most stringent photographer and prime-shooter. Color and contrast really shine on this zoom, though it tends to be slightly on the warmer side. AF is both super-fast and super-accurate. Fit and finish are second-to-none and surpass the Canon counterpart in this respect. The front element extends roughly one inch during zooming, but again it's not as bad as the Canon version.
If you're a Nikon shooter this lens, while undeniably expensive, yields exceptional results and will bring a wry smile to your face every time you mount it to your camera.
Worth every penny and ounce of weight.
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2003
|
|
Nick.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Speed, Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Very very nice lens. For a $1500 "Normal" zoom lens, should you expect any less? It's AF-S so it's fast. Large aperature for zoom. It's big, and it's heavy! And... it's sharp (enough) throughout range.
Although not a negative, I hate how the front end extends in the extreme end at 28 and 70. The Canon 24/27 is worse and extends even further! I wish the entire zoom action is internal.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2003
|
|
cvaniperen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp lens.
Fast autofocus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and large.
|
|
|
I use this as my primary lens on a D100. The autofocus is really AFS: fast and silent ! It produces very sharp pictures.
It's build like a tank and looks like a tank: heavy (1300gr) and large.
If you can life with the negative aspects: Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
42
|
137736
|
Apr 29, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
95% of reviewers
|
$1,171.55
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.81
|
8.81
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
