 |
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp from 14 to 24 mm
almost no CA
great build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy
cheap plastic front cap with loosens sometimes
|
|
|
An outstanding lens. The major reason for me the switch back to Nikon, when an upgrade of my equipment was due. Better than the 14 mm L II Canon lens. No Ca, sharp in the corners even at f5,6 or below. At 24 mm sharper than the 24-70 from Nikon which is also a very good lens. At 14 mm prone to flare. You have to be careful with the protruding front lens element. The plastic cap in front is the only weak part of this otherwise perfect lens. For my architecture work a dream lens. Some removable distortion at 14 mm, no surprise for such a lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
small, lightweight, cheap, VR
|
|
Cons:
|
will wear out fast (plastic bajonett)
Not as sharp as I hoped for
|
|
|
This lens should only work as an backup lens on my D 300 backup body. I do all my pictures with the D3 and 14-24 and 24-70.
I was a little dissapointed that even at f11 this lens cannot deliver the same sharpness as the 24-70. it is clear that at open apertures this would be foolish to hope for but the difference is quite big. So again - you get what you paid for.
With the 12 Mp sensors this lens is not very good but usable.
|
|
|
|
|
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
only sharp beyond f5,6
|
|
|
Because of the good reviews, I bought this lens and was severly dissapointed. Unusable at open apertures it is only sharp beyond f5,6. Maybe Nikon should not build the cheap optics in China. This lens went back to the dealer .
|
|
|
|
|
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Sadly Photoshop is doing a better job, vignetting, chromatic aberrations and soft at all apertures compared to 24-70 L
|
|
|
This was a fantastic lens in the film age, but on my 5D it is almost useless. I bought it after a Canon show about architecture where this lens was highly praised by the (paid) photographer. But after testing it I sent it back. Sharpness is at all apertures inferior to my 24-70 Zoom even unshifted, shifted it shows heavy vignetting, cromatic aberrations ocurr which are partly not removable. It is not a bad lens, but if I do the corrections (straight lines) in PS the results are simply better which astonished me a lot. Only use would be Tilt which works, but it is hard to see in the viewfinder, so the control is a little bit arbitrary. But even tilt can be made with software (or more depth of field) and the results are more controllable too.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
not sharp, not very solid construction, CA, Soft in the corners
|
|
|
I bought this lens via ebay cheap for the rare occasions where 24 mm is not enough for me. So for a few pictures this lens is Ok, but on my 5D this lens is certainly no winner. It does his job and with some manipulation in ACR to remove the CA it is OK, but nothing more. Also the colours often come kind of flat out of the raw converter. This is certainly no L lens, but nevertheless I expected or hoped that it would be fine at least from the tripod and at f 8-11. But it is not so. Looks like I am maybe too critical. I owned also the 17-40 L and sold it because of sharpness problems and I made some tests which the new 16-35 II and was disapointed (good lens, but performance at 28 mm was worse than that of my "backup" lens Tamron 28-75/2,8) All in all Canon seems to have problems to deliver a good wide angle lens below 24 mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
