about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: seyhun  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add seyhun to your Buddy List
Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro

28_f1_8_1_
Review Date: Sep 22, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $250.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Fits S2 Pro as a normal lens with 1.8 aparture
Cons:

My sample focuses well everytime including dark places.

Satisfactory performance from f: 2.8-11

Full open, good results. Contrast a little low. This is better than my Nikon 35/2 in some cases, especially when strong light spots are present.

I use it when even the best zooms with F:2.8 can't be used. (I have 18-35 and 28-70 Nikkors)


 
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor

1906NCP_180
Review Date: Aug 3, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $100.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very cheap. Excellent optics. Very sharp and reliable all the time.
Cons:
Plastic. But no problems yet.

Unless you need the 1.4, this is a very good lens

 
Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor

1931NCP_180
Review Date: Jul 14, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sharp. Excellent contrast and colors. Also very small and lightweight
Cons:
None at all.

I used it with S2 Pro with fantastic results

 
Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S

1961NAS_180
Review Date: May 25, 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.)


 
Nikon TC-14E II 1.4x AF-S

tc-14E
Review Date: Apr 9, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $300.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: I use it with my 70-200 2.8 VR. This teleconvertor works as if it is an original component of the lens. I have seen absolutely no problems at all. Being 1.4X, it reduces the lens to F:4 from F 2.8, and camera has no AF problems etc.
Cons:
Fits to only a few lens. Check before buying from Nikon site. For example it won't fit my 35-70 2.8 or 28-70 2.8, as well as Tamron 90/2.8. It is designed specifically for certain lens, but it fits those as if part of the original lens.

If you have a 70-200 2.8 VR, you must have this teleconvertor as well. With 1.5X of digital SLR, the lens becomes 150-420 F:4 for only a fraction of the price of a new lens, with unsurpassed quality.

 
Nikon 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor

1923NCP_180
Review Date: Mar 25, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: $240.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Makes approximately 50 mm on a dSLR. F:2.0 is acceptable. Quite sharp.
Cons:
When used with available light outside, watch out for bright spots. You will end up havin 2 of each, the reflection being RED in color, in a point on the photo that may kill all the scene..

Can't recommend. I prefer the Sigma 28 mm 1.8 most of the time.