about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Dave_D  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Dave_D to your Buddy List
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor

2137NCP_180
Review Date: Dec 4, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $100.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Price
Cons:
No internal AF motor

It's a nifty fifty.

I wouldn't use this wide open for portraits. It needs at least F2 to F2.8 to become reasonably sharp.

Unfortunately, it won't work on the D40 so newbies into the hobby will no longer have a nifty fifty.

I think Nikon has to put a internal focus motor already in this puppy to play catch up with Canon's own nifty fifty and allow newbies access to a cheap prime to hone their skills.


 
Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX

2144NAS_180
Review Date: Dec 4, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: True ultrawide focal range for DSLRs
Cons:
Image quality is not commensurate to it's price.

I've used the Canon equivalent (EF-S 10-22) for it's cropped sensor cameras. Sad to say, I really found the Canon unit sharper and with less distortion and chromatic aberration than the Nikkor 12-24 F4.

If your really into ultrawides, I really don't think you can do worse with Tokina's 12-24 for half the price.

If it would be priced more reasonably, I would recommend it.


 
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S DX

DX-17-55_L
Review Date: Dec 4, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very sharp wide open to full tele. Very useful focal range for cropped sensors.
Cons:
Weight maybe an issue if used as a walkaround due to the focal range compared to kit lenses. Stiff zoom ring was disconcerting at first.

Coming from Canon L lenses, this was my first try at using Nikon's Pro glass. The first thing I noticed was how stiff the zoom ring was out of the box. It bothered me at first, but I have noticed after a couple of months of use that it's beginning to loosen up quite nicely.

I have shot a lot of indoor studio situations with constant lighting setups and have found it quite good in terms of resolving power, contrast and sharpness.

I know film shooters think 55mm is good enough for portraiture, it's just that I am used to a little more distance between me and the subject since I used a 24-70 F2.8 L in the past. For headshots, I think 55mm is just too close and unflattering for subjects.

For me, a lens only gets a 10 rating if it has excellent performance and value. The score is only dragged down because of it's price. Canon offers something similar in terms of image quality, includes image stabilization and costs nearly $200 less (in Asia where I come from).