Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: DavidWEGS  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add DavidWEGS to your Buddy List
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX -Nikkor

Review Date: Nov 4, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Range, usefulness for Architectural photography on a crop body. The focus is dead on (rare for this type of lens IMO).
CA, distortion (although I don't care too much as it's easily correctable).

Good little lens for its purpose. I have used it with a D7k for interiors and if you stay away from flare points and shoot with a little care, the CA is not too bad (manageable with software corrections).

The range is great and is reminiscent of when I shot Canon with the 16-35. About as sharp too.

Wish it was a little more robust for the price.

Nikon 24mm AF-S Nikkor f/1.4G ED

Review Date: Oct 31, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Solid. Sharp. Silent (ish) AF. Beautifully finished. Great CA control.
Slower than I care to wait for in acquiring focus.

While this is one of the best lenses in the lineup from Nikon, its not staying in my bag for one reason. It's just too slow to snap focus compared to most of my primes. Even my 84 af/D is faster with the D3/D700/D7k and D300s's that we use.

Fantastic IQ, but just not enough to wait for the AF to keep up.

Nikon D7000

Review Date: Oct 12, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Resolution, iso performance (low and high), dual SD cards, video simplicity, ergonomically near perfect (for me), crop sensor = lighter/smaller lenses, and many more.
AF, while excellent for most lenses, has to be adjusted a lot in some cases. One lens I cannot get to hit consistently: the Nikon 50/1.4. I have three D7k's and its the same on them all.

Whats not to like. If you shoot nikon, like the crop factor for any reason, need instant backup, love fast AF, use higher ISO's, have medium - small hands… this it the best thing out there.

Using three now. I have one in my studio and two for events.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Review Date: Dec 16, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $2,699.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great images at 100iso. Seemingly better AF, not totally sold on this yet but I seem to be able to get more in focus images and slightly faster AF using center point.
A big file for PP work. No real improvements other than the ISO seems about 1.5 stops better than my MK1.

Better than I expected so far (only been here a few days). I think the Auto ISO is crippled compared to my Nikon counterpart (D700), but it is workable.

I like the ability to crop a vertical image from a horizontal one and still have a 9+/- mp image. Handy now ant then. I don't like having to process the file size so much, esp. the DL times (usb 2.0).

The video feature will be fun to play with. I had tried the D90 for that reason too, but it lacks the AF needed as a still camera IMO.

Nikon D300

Review Date: Nov 30, 2008 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,300.00

Pros: Everything needed in a pro body with some to spare. Rugged, reliable, fast, high IQ, great UI, excellent noise performance to 1600iso, quick and reasonably accurate AF in low light, etc.
Not really about this body, but things it lacks... Dual CF, clean iso 3200.

I have been using these bodies for over a year now and love them. They do everything needed well, have great resolution, excellent ergonomics and UI. I have shot 30k on one of these and it just keeps on going strong, as in like the day I got it.

Recently added another after playing with the idea of using a D90 as next years backup/4th body. They are a ways apart in everything but the IQ.

My only niggle is that iso3200 should be in the H category as its not clean enough to be considered in the normal range.

My wish is that Nikon would give me some more glass with AF-S. Specifically, a 24/1.4 and updated 50/1.4 (lets see what the upcoming one is like) and 85 /1.4's.

Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM

Review Date: Nov 2, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $490.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great 50. Sharp enough to use at F1.4. Faster to focus than my other 50's, esp. in low light.
Bigish for a 50. Not too sharp at the edges wide open.

used if for about a two weeks so far. Great lens, in fact it has helped to re-ignite my 50 interest.

Nikon D200

Review Date: Sep 26, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,699.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: Great overall functionality and speed.
Files suck beyond 800 iso and even the 800 is only decent to me.

Not a bad camera if you stay in reasonable light or use flash/auxiliary lights.

I loved the feel of it, the operations are crisp and speedy. However, in the end i gave it up as the files around and above 800iso are not so great.

Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X 165 AF PRO DX SD

Review Date: Sep 14, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, generally quick AF that is accurate on a D300. Simple mechanism for manual focus. Works decently in lower light. Great close focus distance and resulting image quality. Lighter and smaller than my 17-55 Nikon.
The only thing that I find a con on this lens would be the simple af to manual focus idea. It is quick and simple but that can mean on occasion you end up in manual focus and forget to go back to AF. Not a big deal, just a note.

I have used this in place of my Nikon 17-55 for reasons of liking the smaller form and weight.

It goes that bit wider and has almost as good a quality of image. Really close. I like the colors it produces and it has good contrast.

The AF is sufficiently fast but not as quick as the 17-55, not quite.

The sharpness is what I have come to expect from this company in general. I know some people have had a bad copy, but I have not and am pretty picky about my glass.

Overall, if you want this range, I would get it before the Nikon counterpart if money and size are a in your equation. If you don't care about the weight and price, the Nikon still has a slightly (very IMO) better overall quality.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX SD

Review Date: Aug 12, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Light, fast and SHARP

perfect on the D300 for wide, wide and more wide.

Nikon D700

Review Date: Aug 12, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $2,999.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very accurate AF on all my lenses (better than the D300 here for some reason). Obviously excellent 6400 iso. Wonderful color reproduction in most lighting. Lighter than a D3. Great battery life.
No dual card slots.

Having shot a few events and several portrait session with it, I have to say I will be letting go of my trusty old 5D's. This is what I have waited for from Nikon for 6 years.

Great camera, great feel and excellent results.

Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor

Review Date: Jun 10, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: lighter than the 1.4 flavor and seems faster to acquire focus. Relatively sharp.
Not as sharp as it could be, but not bad for the $$$.

Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AT-X 107 AF DX Fisheye

Review Date: May 13, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: sharp. zoom. close focus.
None at all for a FE

Truly an excellent lens, truly. Get it.

Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X 535 AF PRO DX

Review Date: Apr 3, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, contrasty, smooth in all operations, small and light relative to its coverage.
Slightly slow to focus on the long end.

What can I say. Very good lens covering a most useful range on a crop body like the D300.

Almost as sharp as the 70-200/2.8 is L lens I have in the Canon mount and sharper than my 70-200/2.8VR. Slight softness at the extreme edges at 2.8 but very strong in the center.

As the cons say, it is slow to focus compared to AF-S or USM, but respectable non the less. I use this BEFORE I reach for the 70-200's even with IS unless stuck with dark areas and non moving subjects that would benefit from the IS more.

Love this one.

Nikon D3

Review Date: Feb 3, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Everything. Dual CF (why did Canon ever do a dual card slot with different card types?), auto ISO, response times, focus accuracy/speed, wonderful color for just about all situations, excellent ergonomics (with one exception), weight/balance with lenses used, battery life and on and on.
The save to CF card options not being customizable enough and the AF-ON button is too far to the left of for my thumb (not sure why either as there is no other stuff in the way of bringing it closer to the rear dial).

I shot Nikon before Digital and then...

I have (still do have) had Canon since the switch to digital and loved the files they have produced. I love the 5d's and will still keep one of them with the 24/1.4 since Nikon STILL have not announced one of that lens yet. I have owned every Canon DSLR from the 10D's over 5 years with the exception of the MkIII's and the DsMKIII. The DsIII is too big a file after using the 16mp DsII. The MKIII's are ... well lets not complain about Canon QC.

So with that history in mind... I got a couple D300's and played. After a three week vacation over the holidays, I returned home and sold all my Canon crop lenses and the 40d's. The D300's were that much better. Auto iso is a dream come true to me (shooting M a lot). After a while of use and a few paid gigs with them, I began to think about what the D3 might offer. I had decided against this body since Nikon don't make any decently fast wides (24/1.4 etc.). Well, one came along at a moment of weakness for me and having had such a great experience with the D300's, I decided to spin the D3. I could always send it back if it was not enough more to convince me, right?. Well, I am keeping it.

Here's why...

For my shooting (people stuff, mostly) style and situations, this is (all things considered) by far the BEST camera on the market and not only for tech advancements, but the feel of it and the resulting images. Its a camera that is great on so many levels. It has answered Canon's domination with a resounding BOOM that will carry me for years to come. Well done Nikon.

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED NIKKOR AF-S

Review Date: Jan 20, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,699.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: scarry sharp when correctly focused, ligher than the 28-70 and quiet. The feel is great to zoom, less mechanical feeling than comparable zooms.
occasional missed focus at 24mm, but on the d300 you can fine tune that a little. extending element (ok, I'm digging here)

beauty of a lens. Soooo much better than the Canon counterpart that you just laugh out loud if you have ever used that lens, then try this.

I got this after deciding to keep the 14-24 and thinking about having a tad more reach than the 17-55. I am vey pleased with that decision.

I did find that it would front focus a tad on one of the 300 bodies, but with a little fine tuning, its all good.

The look of the images (which is really why we're all here right) is so nice. Having a clarity that is reminiscent of MF days.

If you are deciding on this lens based on any quality of image, it is the best, along with the 14-24.

Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED DX VR AF-S

Review Date: Jan 14, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $699.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: I have used this lens for a while and recently found its value improved on the D300. I have a copy that is sharp wide open, creeps only marginally and has very successful VR. It's not the 14-24, but its very, very good for the intended range and use. Lens Creep is not the measure of a lens' quality, it's just a bit annoying. I will rate this lens a ten to help offset the 1 someone who is irritated gave it ;-). It is a great for its purpose.
Slower aperture at the long end, could do with being an f4.5 or something.

Always looking to get the best IQ with any glass I own and this one has been quite pleasing to use for trips and out and about stuff. I would not hesitate to recommend it.


Page:  1 · 2 · 3  next