One word...
Or maybe two...
If any, which would be the first?
Illuminating, perhaps?
In short, this lens is astounding. Unlike other Nikon zooms, this one allows for a very well lit viewfinder. Granted, something like this appears when I use my 80-200 f2.8, but there more things to say about this lens and it's less expensive brethren, the Sigma AF 24-70 f2.8 (for sale, by the way).
The first is in the position and finish of the zoom ring. Like in the Sigma 24-70 f2.8, it's close to the mount and camera body. Unlike the Sigma's, it's very well dampened and smooth.
The zooming makes the lens protrude out of its casing. Like the Sigma, it is longer at its wider end (go figure...). Unlike the Sigma, the protrusion is covered by the hood. To the casual observer, this lens never changes its size.
Finally, the filter size difference is significant. With the Sigma, filters are size 82mm. With the Nikon, they are 77mm (more affordable and common size).
One big difference: the Nikon's barrel seems to be metal. Sigma has a strong, firm barrel, but it's still polycarbonate. Both, however, have a very confortable close-focusing distance, and then allow for decent closeup shots.
All these shots were made with the D700 at ISO 5000 (at least) and wide-open . The details are astounding, and the nicest thing is that this lens is surprisingly fast to focus, and extremely quiet, as it fits to any AF-S product.
I will keep trying this glass under different conditions. It's a keeper, and a very fit lens for this camera.
Happy Thanksgiving!
3 comments:
Nice review, hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. I just picked this lens up myself last Tuesday. I really is an awesome lens, and will go well with my Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and my Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8. Once you pick up a pro level Nikkor you can really appreciate just how well built they are. Your comment on filter size is right on the mark. All three of these lenses take the 77mm filter which greatly simplifies my kit.
Nice shots and great to hear the lens is working so well ! One little think I wanted to mention is that you can try to review your JPEG saving quality settings modify them to allow for better quality (less compression). I think some JPEG artifacts are visible in some images and sure they would look crisper and cleaner with a little less compression ratio.
Thanks a lot, Oscar (Taffer). I have learned the hard way about what you said. In fact, in a more recent post I saw an example of posterization (a weird effect of which I'm sure you know already). I don't know how to change the compression ratio, but I'll find out. Thanks again!
Post a Comment