03 Jun 11 Lens trading
Quick reviews on some lenses i have played with lately:
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Bought: $1300
Sold: $1670
Usage:
This lens is a head turner, it’s also built to last. Rubber bumper on the front, metal latch for the hood, tripod mount has 2 holes, either for better balance with different weight bodies or use of tubes or simply when one wears out. Focus is perfect, not as fast as Canon but deadly accurate.
Image Quality
I’ve noticed a trend with the newer lenses, I think a side effect of asynchronous lenses, the transition from sharp to bokeh is unnatural looking. This lens doesn’t have that. IQ is as good as it gets, really.
Bought: $835
Sold: $865
I really wanted to like this lens, it’s one of the the fastest tele primes. Good images were tough to get, especially coming off of the 105 micro VR. Defocus control was interesting but not an effect that I was looking for. AF was not greatest, this might be a good lens for studio work, but not for moving people.
One interesting usage is macro with cheap extension tubes, at f2 you can easily see enough light to manual focus, even with a full 12″ of extension tubes, and the presence of an apeture ring, no longer found on nikon lenses, lets you easily adjust the apeture even with cheapo tubes.
Bought: $800
Sold: $990
By far Nikon’s sharpest lens, I think this is one of the cheapest nano crystal lenses. Macro images were immaculate. As a portrait lens it was a bit of a let down because at the distance for a head shot the biggest apeture was F3.5 which was too much DOF for a pleasant background. At 200mm F3.5 is fine but at 100mm it’s too distracting. An 85mm1.8 or a 135mm f2 would be better for portraits, personally I like longer or wider: a 200mm 2.8 or 50mm 1.8
The lens was not too heavy but the hood is huge, with good reason, having the element right on the front means flare can be an issue. AF is ok but not as fast as the 70-200 (makes sense being a macro though).
Tokina 12-24mm F4
Same as the nikon model but not as sharp, and a little more distortion.
Bought: $634
Sold: $700
Excellent lens. Construction is just as good as a Nikon. The AF/MF clutch system is very intuitive and works perfectly. AF is fast and accurate, but on a lens this wide the DOF is huge anyway. Awsome lens if you need 11mm. I only sold it becasue the 17-55 2.8 goes wide enough for me.
This lens wins the DX wide angle prize for image quality for sure.
Bought: $300
I got this lens to compare to my dads canon 70-300 L lens. To be fair the nikon one costs 1/5th of the canon version. The nikon one is much smaller and lighter, and more plastic. The sharpness, and bokeh are similar, but the overall image quality is not as good as canon, the canon IS worked better than the nikon VR but that could be the added weight helping. AF was a little slow at 300 and the picture is a little softer.
The difference in image quality is the way the bokeh changes on the nikon from the center to the edges, making it look like tunnel vision, even though there is no distortion or vignetting , the cannon on the other hand is great looking at any focal length. This is a great lens, especially for the price, but I’ll ditch it when I get a 180 2.8
Bought $800
It’s in for repairs right now, but it seems like a great lens. It’s heavy and the zoom ring is stiff and not ergonomically placed, but the images look right and the zoom range is huge. This lens is very expensive especially given it’s age, one of the first DX lenses ever, and one of the first AF-S lenses. The AF sounds unrefined compared to the newer Silent Wave Motors. It’s the perfect DX walk around lens. I’ve also used the cannon 17-55 IS, it’s lighter, sharper, cheaper, and having IS at 17mm lets you shoot long exposures hand held.
That is me.
