Now that the lens is available in shops, in Europe it was on display already like a month ago.., the first reviews starts to appear.
[Remarks: what D300 can only resolve 1500 lpm???? so why bother - lets simply use the 18-55 kit lens...]
Many say this is a great lens although it's all plastic (except bayonet, and glass.... of course), it has no scale of distance, the AF is not as snappy as expected, and it's DX only...
Optically, it is soft wide open, therefore need to be stopped for sharper results to f5,6 (optimal performance). The problem is that image quality at corners never really picks up. Moreover, as you stop down color fringes appear - some can be corrected by image processor on D300 (not on entry models D40/40x/60 - hope it is addressed in replacement model (D5000?). Also the lens has distortion - apparently more than you would expect from a "normal" lens. Bokeh (out of focus areas) is nothing special.
So the argument in favor of the so-called normal lens (no distortion, fast lens, can be used at wider stops) looses a bit of appeal. Also not sure that the public was starving for having 50mm. equivalent in DX (smaller) format. These lenses were popular in the past given its affordability (unless superfast 1.2), sharpness and compactness. But in the end nobody wondered why there are so many used 50mm around? For one, a zoom is simply more practical in everyday life.
But also normal is simply not wide enough. Some photographers consider it a short tele. It basically provides narrower angle of view, therefore requires that you stand back further from the subject, but without providing the same reach or stand off capacity as a 90mm or a 105mm, for instance.
So basically, if you ask me I am not going to scramble to buy this lens even if it's cheap.
(see DPreview)
[Remarks: what D300 can only resolve 1500 lpm???? so why bother - lets simply use the 18-55 kit lens...]
Many say this is a great lens although it's all plastic (except bayonet, and glass.... of course), it has no scale of distance, the AF is not as snappy as expected, and it's DX only...
Optically, it is soft wide open, therefore need to be stopped for sharper results to f5,6 (optimal performance). The problem is that image quality at corners never really picks up. Moreover, as you stop down color fringes appear - some can be corrected by image processor on D300 (not on entry models D40/40x/60 - hope it is addressed in replacement model (D5000?). Also the lens has distortion - apparently more than you would expect from a "normal" lens. Bokeh (out of focus areas) is nothing special.
So the argument in favor of the so-called normal lens (no distortion, fast lens, can be used at wider stops) looses a bit of appeal. Also not sure that the public was starving for having 50mm. equivalent in DX (smaller) format. These lenses were popular in the past given its affordability (unless superfast 1.2), sharpness and compactness. But in the end nobody wondered why there are so many used 50mm around? For one, a zoom is simply more practical in everyday life.
But also normal is simply not wide enough. Some photographers consider it a short tele. It basically provides narrower angle of view, therefore requires that you stand back further from the subject, but without providing the same reach or stand off capacity as a 90mm or a 105mm, for instance.
So basically, if you ask me I am not going to scramble to buy this lens even if it's cheap.
(see DPreview)
No comments:
Post a Comment