 |
Page: 1 · 2
|
|
|
|
Quentin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 75
|
|
Review Date: Aug 24, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, particularly at the wide end; light, decent build quality, Proper "Nikkor" appearance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some vignetting on a full-frame DSLR (Kodak 14nx). Pincusion distortion at longer end; plastic lens mount.
|
|
|
Nikon have it right with this new lens. I was surpised to see it match my 17-35 F2.8 Nikkor for sharpness at 28mm at all but the very edge of the frame. It remains sharp throughout the range, just softening a little at 200mm.
A great walk-around lens capable of pro results, maybe a first from a superzoom. I recommend it highly.
Review format won't let me add price paid in GB pounds, but it is competitive with independent superzooms - and wouldn't you rather have a Nikkor on your F-mount camera, particularly as it is so good?
|
|
 Aug 24, 2004
|
|
gavin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 468
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, sharp as a tack and cheap, the best 'all round' lense we use for ski pics.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's slow but for my work light is not a problem.
|
|
|
I own many 'all rounders' for my on snow business.
Nikon's 24-120 VR (average) Sigma's 24-135 (stallar glass) and Nikon's 28-200
This will be my glass of choice for next season, unless Sigma brings something new and more flexible to the market.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2004
|
|
travist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 32
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Long Range, Compact Size, Light Weight, doesn't get in the way of the AF assist lamp on the d100 (some bigger lenses do)
|
|
Cons:
|
Serious sharpness issues. Not a serious lens. Good for very casual photography only.
|
|
|
This is the lens that I purchased with my d100 at the advice of the salesman. I spent about a week working with it. In that time, I found that the lens had serious issues with sharpness. Most images shot with this lense needed sharpening applied so they didn't look out of focus... very soft.
Having said that, the range was nice. If I was on vacation and only shooting casually, this lens *might* be aceptable.
In this case I guess you get what you pay for. I returned mine for a 24-85 2.8D which I've been competely satisfied with.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
19
|
78568
|
Jan 15, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
79% of reviewers
|
$256.18
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.62
|
9.00
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
