Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: la puffin  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add la puffin to your Buddy List
Nikon 400mm f/2.8G ED VR AF-S

Review Date: Mar 15, 2017 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $5,700.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Image quality is off the charts. AF is very fast, great contrast and color, and 2.8
It's heavy but the newer FL is lighter and at a cost

I bought this as I found it as the sweet spot between the latest and previous versions. If you're serious about sports photography, you've for to have a 400/2.8.

I could go on with all of the other things people are saying, but it's redundant. A reason to consider this over the less expensive previous version, is that Nikon only guarantees to support lenses for seven years after they fall out of protection. For this lens, that was 2014, so I figure it's good until 2021. The original foot wasn't a good idea. Check out 3rd party options and I recommend an Aquatech rubber lens cover.

Nikon 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR

Review Date: Mar 15, 2017 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $3,700.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very fast AF, very sharp, beautiful bokeh and a stop more light than a 2.8 zoom
It's heavy, but you knew that. Maybe a FL version is in the cards

I bought a used VR I for volleyball. I had never shot one before, but needed the f2 and wanted the shallow DoF. I love it. Color, contrast, etc... it's the real deal. It makes beautiful images but you have to be accurate with your AF tuning on your body and accuracy with the selected AF point.

I talked myself into buying it because with the Nikon 1.4x TC III, its basically a heavy 300/2.8 (OK, it's only 280mm, but close enough - two lenses in one). It works very well in that configuration, and surprisingly good with the 2x TC III. When I want to shoot something with a different look, this is the lens I go for.

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor

Review Date: Aug 27, 2016 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,700.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharpness wide open, quick AF for a WA
Doesn't take standard filters

When I only had a crop body (D500), I wasted time and money with wider 3rd party DX lenses. The funky focus issues broke me down and I went for the 14-24. The other issue that influenced my decision was that when I used the 3rd party options, the color and contrast really didn't stand up when I'd switch to my Nikon24-70/VR.

The color and contrast are great. It's sharp at 2.8 which I use often and when shooting at close range. I find it useful as an urban walk around on the crop body as it's close to a 20-35mm on a FX body (it's actually 21-36mm).

People mark it down for weight, but it's my lightest zoom (I have the 24-70/2.8E VR, 70-200/2.8E FL). I find it's well balanced on a D500, but feels better on a D5. I worried about not having a simple filter option for protection. I ordered the WonderPana system, but the bulk and size of it was going to make more problems for me. I go bare and take care in keeping the element clean. If it gets dirty, it gets dirty - I clean it. I try to keep it zoomed out to 24mm when not shooting to give it a little protection.

I had a D750 know have a D5, and really take advantage of the focal range. It's more specialized on a FX body for me, and it's perfect when it's needed. I use DxO ViewPoint and it works really well to fix any UWA distortion. It's be nice if it was cheaper, but I've always found that when I've searched for less expensive options, it's always cost me more in the end, as I end up with what I wanted in the first place.

I tried the Tamron 15-30/2.8, but the 14-24 seems significantly wider, and that's why I use a UWA.