Clean Slate (almost) With My Lenses ~ Reviews and thoughts
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.
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.
These images had the closest objects within 3-4 inches of the front element. Nice and clean!
2.
3.
This is another new lens- shots and thoughts forthcoming.
4.
I was nearly on the trunk of this tree.
5.
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.
If you're careful, fisheye distortion can be minimized, as shown below.
6.
I have never had anything this wide. This is gonna be F-U-N! Highly recommended at just $330.
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.
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.
These images had the closest objects within 3-4 inches of the front element. Nice and clean!
2.
3.
This is another new lens- shots and thoughts forthcoming.
4.
I was nearly on the trunk of this tree.
5.
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.
If you're careful, fisheye distortion can be minimized, as shown below.
6.
I have never had anything this wide. This is gonna be F-U-N! Highly recommended at just $330.
0
Comments
1.
2.
Perfect sky for this lens.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
At <$250, it is a winner!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Your thoughts on what you see in these three lenses?
Cheers,
Tyler
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.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
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).
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.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
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.