Clean Slate (almost) With My Lenses ~ Reviews and thoughts

TybradTybrad Registered Users Posts: 46 Big grins
edited October 15, 2012 in Cameras
I guess this is the proper forum- not sure.
As some of you may know, I have been disappointed with the digital performance of my film MF lenses.

Both too soft...
Tokina 80-200/2.8
Tokina 400/5.6

Hit and miss (but probably me, not the lens)...
Tamron 28-70/3.5-4.5 MF

So I have just, in the past couple of days traded in those three, and my Nikkor 20/3.5 MF and will post my thoughts on the new lenses. I kept my 105/4 Micro MF- very happy with it.

I will begin with a new Rokinon 8/3.5MF FF Fisheye- the newest one with "HD glass" and removable hood.
_DSC8690.jpg

What a great lens! And inexpensive! Perfect combo. This lens has nearly 180 degree vision on my D7000. Here, it sees it own support. Nice and clean image.
1.
_DSC8700.jpg

These images had the closest objects within 3-4 inches of the front element. Nice and clean!
2.
_DSC8702.jpg

3.
_DSC8716.jpg

This is another new lens- shots and thoughts forthcoming.
4.
_DSC8718.jpg

I was nearly on the trunk of this tree.
5.
_DSC8714.jpg

Here, I got in the middle of the BBall game nearly under the basket and STILL caught a lot of action as they played around me.
6.
_DSC8719.jpg

If you're careful, fisheye distortion can be minimized, as shown below.
6.
_DSC8704.jpg

I have never had anything this wide. This is gonna be F-U-N! Highly recommended at just $330.

Comments

  • TybradTybrad Registered Users Posts: 46 Big grins
    edited October 13, 2012
    Color me impressed at this price point with regard to flare, contrast, edge and corner sharpness, and distortion control. Some more from the weekend...
    1.
    _DSC8877.jpg

    2.
    _DSC8738.jpg

    Perfect sky for this lens.
    3.
    _DSC8740.jpg

    4.
    _DSC8791.jpg
  • TybradTybrad Registered Users Posts: 46 Big grins
    edited October 13, 2012
    Next up, a new Tamron 17-50/2.8 XR DiII LD IF and whatever other murky BS marketing suffixes- but does not have the stabilization that the newest version has. Good price and pretty good performance. HELP!: The only problem I have is that it prevents my D7000 from firing if set at AF and in the 17-20mm window. Does not do this on my son's D3000. Any ideas? But I do like its optics.
    1.
    _DSC8691.jpg

    2.
    _DSC8712.jpg

    3.
    _DSC8713.jpg

    4.
    _DSC8800.jpg

    5.
    _DSC8735.jpg

    6.
    _DSC8868.jpg

    7.
    _DSC8885.jpg

    At <$250, it is a winner!
  • TybradTybrad Registered Users Posts: 46 Big grins
    edited October 13, 2012
    And lastly, a (new to me) used Sigma 150-500/5-6.3 APO with optical stabilizing. Seems to be well made, and with decent optics... but it is no Nikkor in the same tele range. But then again, those are 6x as much cost. Contrast is good, bokeh seems very nice (see first image). Some early handheld w/OS on.
    _DSC8693.jpg

    1.
    _DSC8756.jpg

    2.
    _DSC8769.jpg

    3.
    _DSC8745.jpg

    4.
    _DSC8759.jpg

    5.
    _DSC8784.jpg

    Your thoughts on what you see in these three lenses?

    Cheers,
    Tyler
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,127 moderator
    edited October 13, 2012
    The Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye, which goes by a host of other names, is a fine example of a circular fisheye. Used carefully and used occasionally, it can provide a very unique perspective of a scene. As you demonstrated, if you are careful to level the camera with the horizon it almost looks rectilinear too.

    The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] is an extremely nice example of a standard zoom for crop/DX bodies, and at a very fair price. While it can't match the very best standard zooms from the camera manufacturers, it's certainly good enough for professional work.

    Considering your problems with the lens I suggest returning the lens for a replacement, assuming that you purchased the lens new and from a vendor with exchange privileges.

    I'm not familiar with the Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO. Your images seem to indicate pretty good color, contrast and sharpness, as much as one can tell form this presentation size. Image number 3 appears to be a bit soft, compared to the other images.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • billythekbillythek Registered Users Posts: 104 Major grins
    edited October 14, 2012
    If you like the Samyang 8mm, you should try the 14mm. A fisheye is OK for the occasional shot, but an ultra-wide rectilinear lens is more useful most of the time. The 14mm also is very sharp. It has complex mustache distortion, but there are lens profiles for Lightroom/ACR that fix that rght up. Very nice lens, especially for the money.
    - Bill
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited October 14, 2012
    That Bigma looks really soft to me. I don't know if that's typical, but I wouldn't be able to deal with it. The 17-50 seems decent.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • TybradTybrad Registered Users Posts: 46 Big grins
    edited October 14, 2012
    Thanks guys!
    Ziggy- The Tamron was used and the fact that it works at all FL's tells me that the lens isn't the problem. I am still puzzled by this! I think that I missed focus on #3 from the Sigma. #1 and 5 show its capability.

    Bill- I have considered the Vivi 13 (same lens) but it is too close to my 17mm. I will likely get the Tokina 11-16 by year's end.

    Jack- I know what you mean and I'm sure the AF did not hit in those images, but it shows its footwork in #1 and 5 don't you think? Besides, I cannot afford super-tele Nikkors (though I am looking into a 300/2.8 MF w/both converters for my D7000).
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited October 14, 2012
    Tybrad wrote: »
    Jack- I know what you mean and I'm sure the AF did not hit in those images, but it shows its footwork in #1 and 5 don't you think? Besides, I cannot afford super-tele Nikkors (though I am looking into a 300/2.8 MF w/both converters for my D7000).

    Whether or not a picture is "sharp enough" is subjective. For me 1 and 5 are not. Once I have seen sharp photos come out of my camera, I cannot accept less. This is my idea of a sharp sports photo.

    Unfortunately sharp and long = expensive. Not sure how you plan to afford a 300/2.8. If I were you I'd be saving for a 70-200/2.8. You can still add a teleconverter.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • billythekbillythek Registered Users Posts: 104 Major grins
    edited October 15, 2012
    Tybrad wrote: »
    Thanks guys!

    Bill- I have considered the Vivi 13 (same lens) but it is too close to my 17mm. I will likely get the Tokina 11-16 by year's end.

    It didn't occur to me that you are using a crop camera, since you mentioned the Samyang 8mm as being a FF fisheye. Since you are using a crop camera, I agree you should look at something wider than 14mm.
    - Bill
  • TybradTybrad Registered Users Posts: 46 Big grins
    edited October 15, 2012
    By FF I meant "as opposed to circular". I use a D7000
Sign In or Register to comment.