Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: MagicNikon  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add MagicNikon to your Buddy List
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor

Review Date: Nov 4, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $850.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, Built well, Nano Coating, VR
VR not so helpful at 1:1 distances, Can hunt in low light. Some CA wide open.

I've owned the 105mm VR several times since it came out. All copies have essentially been identical. For one reason or another, I bought and sold them (once for a switch to Canon, the other becuase i wanted to purchase something else), but I always regretted not having it after it was gone.

Yes, its big and bulk...kind of like an oversized Heineken can. I find that despite it's shortcoming in regards to Purple Fringing wide open, it's still an excellent lens. I favor this for portraits over larger bulker 70/80-200mm 2.8 zooms. Its really of little use for sports as the AF hunts and if you miss focus, its a long way back....

I don't do true 1:1 macros, but I find that the VR is helpful for extreme close-ups of flowers. I love this lens for shooting flowers in the Spring. It's my favorite (and I have owned alot of recent macro lenses...).

This lens is really sharp stoppped down after f/4. It's kind of ridiculous how sharp it is. Some people new to macro lenses may be confused as to why the camera reports a larger than normal smallest aperture at close focusing distances. This is normal. You might see 3.2 when you're tryign to make it go won't. The camera is reporting the light loss from the close focusing.

Anyway...while it doesn't have the mystique that other Nikkors have...I think that many will find this to be a good jack of all trades in this FL. Its does a nice job for portraits and serves well as a medium telephoto. I like to refer to mine as The Nuge, after Ted Nugent, because even though it likes to hunt, it's all Rock'nRoll baby!

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED DX VR AF-S

Review Date: Dec 8, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Inexpensive, Lightweight, Sharp across the range (for my purposes), Little or no CA's, Nice and Contrasty, Nice bokeh. Short Min focus distance. VR works great!
Slow AF despite AF-S, Cheap build,

I like it so much I bought it twice!

I had this lens for my D200 before I briefly switched to Canon. That switch didn't last long, so when I picked up a new D300, I knew I would be adding this lens again along with some actual pro quality glass. I have no qualms putting this right next to my 17-55 or 12-24mm DX lenses.

This lens is sharp wide open from f/4 at 55mm all the way to f/5.6 at 200mm. It only gets better stopped down. Color and contrast are great. Bokeh isn't bad considering it's already at f/4.5 ro so when at portrait range. I do use this alot for quick informal portraiture. One of the things I like about it, is that since it is VR enabled, I can hold the cam in one hand, and hold a flash off cam with my left hand. VR works great here. Steady, sharp shots, every time.

On a DX camera, 50-55mm is about as long as I want on the wide end of my tele. 70mm just is too long in some situations. I prefer the extra width hera compared to the 70-300mm or 70-200mm VR models. Especially, if I'm tight qaurters. That was what originally drew me to this lens. It's very unobtrusive too.

This lens will not be that great for sports. It focuses kind of slowly. Max apertures aren't wide enough in dimmer cloudy conditions either. Build quality is what you'd expect for $225.

There is no dout that this lens will provide you with alot of great images despite its deceptively low price tag. You owe it yourself to consider this one.

I have plenty of samples that are worthy of your attention.

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Review Date: Oct 24, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,000.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, fast. IS!
Build quality only so-so for a $1k lens. Flares more than I would like.

This was my first zoom when I switched to Canon a few months ago. I had previously used Nikon's 17-55mm 2.8, and I have to say the Canon smokes it in every way except build quality.

IS is a dream. Nikon shooters often wail about not needing IS/VR on a wide lens, but I find it very useful. I have been happier with the shots from this lens vs. shots I took with the same focal length Nikon offering.

It does seem to flare kind of badly. I haven't tested that though. Maybe I just notice it flaring because I'm using it so much...much more than I used ym Nikon 17-55.