About
Reviews (11)
23 February 2011
Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Lens
1 of 1 found this helpful Very affordable Nikon glass. Great for portraits or indoor sports with poor light or a lot of speed. I used it to shoot NCAA gymanstics this weekend and am very pleased.
11 January 2011
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF HSM for Nikon
1 of 1 found this helpful I'm a hobbiest and I shoot high school and college sports. I bought this lens because I own a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I need greater range for soccer, baseball and football. I'm not satisfied with Sigma's 1.4x teleconverters and I find them unreliable and soft above 75% of the prime focal length of the lens the TC is attached to. I also only buy Sigma commercial lenses used from pro-photographers who kept good copies which don't raise the spector of Sigma quality control issues in the factory. Also, pros will send you pictures taken with the lens and pros accurately describe the condition of the lenses they have for sale. I bought mine for $1985 on Ebay with UV filter, hood, grip mount and case.
The knocks on this lens are according to the message boards: 1) weight; 2) loud HSM; 3) the cover will not attach with the hood in place; 4) Nikon purists don't like Sigma finish and the gold ring; and 5) as all the snobs love to point out, it isn't a Nikon. All of the foregoing are true. However, for anybody who doesn't rely on a lens to feed their kids and anybody who has the time for a monopod or tripod, this lens is a great option for the price. I find it as clear at 300mm as at 120mm. It doesn't focus quite as fast as the Sigma 70-200mm but it is fast and I'm not certain that the problem isn't my D300s body. It is louder than the 70-200 and I was surprised by the noise. I'm certain that on the sidelines of a game, I won't notice the noise. My copy focuses and zooms with 1 finger pressure (which is good since you'll need the other 4 to hold it). It is a 120-300mm zoom alternative to a Nikon which comes in a focal length Nikon doesn't offer. This is not Nikon glass. This is, however, a lot more than a 50% Nikon alternative for less than 50% of the Nikon price. It doesn't have vibration reduction but I shoot sports rather than nature so VR wouldn't really apply anyway (unless you are panning at 90 degrees to movement and even then Nikon doesn't really recommend VR). I love this lens, warts and all, and it is everything I could hope for at a lot less than the cost of a fixed length Nikon lens. If your budget permits Nikon glass - buy Nikon. If, however, you are stretching your budget and can't buy a bunch of professional lenses, this is a great lens to put on a monopod or tripod. I believe that it is optically better than Sigma's 70-200 2.8, but not surprisingly it is slightly slower (Sigma's 70-200 is lightning fast). If you are a parent, a hobbiest or anybody else out there who can't afford a $5K lens, this is a great alternative to Nikon. One might also argue that the metal hood is better than the Nikon plastic hoods. All in all - I love this lens and it was a good deal for under $2K and worth every penny I paid. I would not hesitate to lock it at 300mm and shoot tele. Subject to my requirement that I only buy Sigma lenses from professionals, I would buy this one again for the same price. It isn't a Nikon - it is a Sigma. If your ego will permit a Sigma or your budget won't permit a Nikon, consider this lens seriously. Or, you could carry two Nikon lenses at 3x the cost. I'm an amateur who shoots sports and I love it.
14 March 2011
Rokinon 8mm Fisheye F3.5 Manual Focus
1 of 1 found this helpful A fisheye is a toy. This is a manual focus lens and I don't think that there is any real way to focus an 8mm fish eye via a viewfinder. You have to pretty much set focal distance and then shoot. Inifinity for this lens starts above 10 feet so that isn't a big deal for most photos and inside 10 feet there is a pretty good margin of error. The lens will let you focus between marked focal lengths but there are no "notches" in the ring so you will have to do it by looking at the ring or physical memory. Without losing track of the fact that it is a toy, I love it and would buy it again. The uses of this lens are limited and depend entirely on your creativity. The cap could be better but it stay put when in place. My only real complaint is that the lens mount on mine is tight, very tight. It actually scared me the first time I used it but I'm hoping it will loosen up over time. Optically, it is good and if you have a good light source (minimum aperature 3.5), you can do some really nice things with it stopped down from 5.6 to 8. To the extent that it is not autofocus, since you can't confirm focus through the view finder, I think autofocus could be problem because you'll never be certain whether the camera is doing what you want. Manual focus may actually be a blessing inside 10 feet. For the price, it is good glass. I bought mine because Ken Rockwell recommended it on his website. My comments are similar to his but you should read his review because -- he has a website and you know who he is. You don't know me from Adam.