REVIEW HOME · Search · Member List · Register

» Number of reviews : 103 - viewing 10 Per Page

Last Review Posted by SkippyW - posted: Sun October 19, 2008 11:00pm

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 3129

I've used this flash to shoot 2 weddings with. Although 2 outings are not enough time to get used to a new flash, consider I've shot over 800 shots with it. It's a good flash. In my opinion, not a great flash. I went up from a Canon 420ex, looking for more power, and the addition of a wink light. I wish the wink light could be dialed down past 1/4 power. This low, it seems to be too bright for my needs, and found I got better results with it turned OFF. I shot with a Demb FlipIt! and liked the results I got, but also found the controls to be a bit cumbersome to use, and the flash head doesn't always stay where you put it. I found myself going back to my simple yet effective 420ex. Good flash...but the jury's still out if it's for me and wedding work. I rated it a 7. I've yet to see a flash I'd call a 10, and since I haven't shot with the 580 ex-ii, I can't say if it's better or worse, so I went with a 7. Rating: 7

Product Details: "mecablitz 58 AF-1 digital" by drew - posted: Mon May 14, 2007 - Rating: 7.00

Last Review Posted by Peter Pauer - posted: Wed July 9, 2008 1:24pm

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 20014

This was one of the first lenses I purchased and it has survived a lot. Over time it has developed lens flop (front of lens goes down as you zoom in) and the lens will not stay at any zoom setting it slids in and out fairly easily with gravity. I still use it as a kayaking/canoeing lens where I do not want to risk anything expensive. Rating: 6

Product Details: "EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM" by drew - posted: Wed May 23, 2007 - Rating: 6.00

Last Review Posted by Peter Pauer - posted: Wed July 9, 2008 1:10pm

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 936

I find it to be a excellent great performing lens. It is big, the filter size is 105mm and the polarizer for it cost me 260$ . And it is heavy but with practice can be handheld, though a tripod really is recommended. It works well and produces good results with both a 1.4x tc and with the 2x tc, I have not yet tried with both tc a the same time. Rating: 10

Product Details: "120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM" by Peter Pauer - posted: Wed July 9, 2008 - Rating: 10.00

Last Review Posted by Peter Pauer - posted: Wed July 9, 2008 1:01pm

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 867

very compact lens for a 150mm macro. Works very well for both closeups and for general shooting, produces very sharp clean images. Can be used with either a 1.4x tc or a 2x tc, but lens automatically disables autofocus if it detects a TC Rating: 9

Product Details: "150mm f/2.8 APO macro DG" by Peter Pauer - posted: Wed July 9, 2008 - Rating: 9.00

Last Review Posted by chocolatluv - posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:08pm

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 20904

I wanted to purchase a telephoto lens to round out my camera equipment bag. After months of research and interviewing other photographers I purchased a 100-400 IS f5.6. On my first outing of shooting snow geese and tundra swans I thought the results were not as clear as expected. I re-read the instructions and tried again with no improvement. Called Canon technical support, sent the lens back and it turned out the back focus was not working properly. On my next shoot I was thrilled with the results clear focus, image stabilizer works well for taking bird photos. Used with a polarized filter and f22 to f32-produced waterfalls with a beautiful soft veil. At an evening pro baseball game I was able to get shots of my favorite players in action. This lens doesn’t work well in low light but I mainly bought it for photographing nature, air shows and sporting events. I’m pleased with this lens and would recommend it to a friend. Rating: 9

Product Details: "EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM" by drew - posted: Wed May 23, 2007 - Rating: 9.60

Last Review Posted by Richard_Coyle - posted: Tue May 6, 2008 3:28am

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 8296

Update as of 5-8-08. Due to the problems with this particular lens sample, a different lens sample is being shipped as soon as it's available (currently backordered) for further evaluation to compare with the initial sample which was defective. I'll provide updated details as they are available. In the meantime, much of following review remains relevant and most of it won't be repeated. Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Lens Test vs Nikon 12-24 vs Sigma 10-20 as of 5-6-08 The new Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-16mm f2.8 Aspherical Lens has produced much anticipation among Nikon DX sensor DSLR body users, and I was one of them. To satisfy my interest in how this wide angle focal range would compare to its competitors, I’ve been eager to evaluate them side by side. Fortunately, through my favorite supplier's usual excellent service, I have just received my Tokina 11-16 lens and am now able to do so. The following are the results of this evaluation. (As a disclaimer, there was/is no “quid pro quo” involved in this or any other equipment review/evaluation of mine. I purchase all equipment for my own use and am under no obligation to any brand, manufacturer, or supplier. The following review is solely my personal opinion and perspective, based on my own photographic experience and/or use of included equipment.) As this review begins, it’s important to clarify what it is and isn’t. The Nikon and Sigma lenses have been fully and thoroughly vetted by a number of respected pro photographers, including my two favorites, Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett. Needless to say, I am not attempting to compare this review to theirs, and in fact have benefited greatly from their evaluations of these two lenses and a variety of other equipment. While the performance of these will be evaluated relative to the Tokina 11-16, that’s not the purpose of this writing, and will not include any specifications or technical lens data on any lenses, except when relevant to observable performance issues. The primary goal is to evaluate the sample of this Tokina lens “in hand”, and do so in a manner that provides a practical comparative evaluation that will benefit those interested in this DX focal range. For lens specifications and technical information, please visit the respective company websites. For more extensive reviews of the Nikkor and Sigma lenses, and others, visit these websites: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/index.html http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm Now to the evaluation: LENSES INCLUDED IN THIS REVIEW (alphabetically): Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4 G IF-ED AF DX Lens Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC Lens Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Aspherical AT-X 116 Pro DX Lens EQUIPMENT USED: The equipment used for this evaluation includes the Nikon D300, D200, SU-800, SB-800, Gitzo 1228 CF Tripod, Arca Swiss B1 Ballhead, various RRS Arca Swiss style L-Plates and clamps, an Expodisc, as well a various other miscellaneous equipment. The lens test chart is composed of a 60” x 40” foam board for DX sensor perspective, marked from the center to right edge in 1mm proportional increments. It includes a Gretag MacBeth color chart and Norman Koran 2003 lens test charts as outlined in his website located here: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#using TESTING PROCEDURES: The lenses were tested from their minimum focal length through 16mm only, since this review’s main objective is to evaluate the Tokina lens, which has a maximum focal length of 16mm. They were also tested from their widest aperture through f/11 only, since lens diffraction beyond f/11 negatively impacts the results with the two DSLR bodies used. All lenses were custom white balanced prior to the test chart and brick house sequences, using the Expodisc. (Interestingly, the difference between the Custom WB and Auto WB on the D300 with flash was very minor.) Auto WB was used on any other images. When photographing the test chart, and in other tripod situations, the Nikon body used was set to Mirror Lockup and triggered by a remote release. The DSLRs were leveled with a shoe mount bubble level, and measurements taken to confirm proper centering and perpendicular lens orientation to the test chart. Also, the chart was lighted by both ambient daylight and by two SB-800, one on either side, with diffusers aimed into umbrellas and triggered with an SU-800 set to TTL with -1 EV compensation. Finally, the outside sequence was photographed during overcast conditions with light remaining consistently flat to minimize exposure differences. FACTORS EVALUATED: 1) Lens construction and operation/handling 2) Auto Focus/Manual Focus operation/performance 3) Resolution both center and edges 4) Exposure variance/Light falloff 5) Color rendering per color chart 6) Custom WB and other settings 7) Color contrast and accuracy 8) Chromatic Aberration and Flare EVALUATION RESULTS: 1) Lens construction and operation/handling: All three lenses are well constructed and feel solid in handling. The Tokina is heavier than the other two, with more metal. But both the Nikon and Sigma are well built, with the Nikon taller like the Tokina, and slightly thinner and lighter than the Sigma, which is the shortest. The Tokina and Nikon include indented front caps while the Sigma’s does not, being thinner and more difficult to remove even from the sides. The Sigma also has a finicky rear cap that only mounts from one position, instead of from three positions as do the other two. Finally, the lens hoods on the Tokina and Nikon slip easily into place and lock securely with a click, while the Sigma is difficult to mount properly, constantly being mis-aligned, and, when it is in place, is very tight fitting. Other than these complaints, all these components work as intended. As for general operation and handling, all three mount quickly, easily, and securely to the DSLR body. All are “G” designs with no aperture ring on the lens, and have IF elements with no filter ring movement during focus. However, during zooming, all three move somewhat, with the Tokina and Nikkor doing so within the confines of the lens barrel, and the Sigma extending the front ring slightly. As for zoom and focus ring placement on the barrel, while the Nikon places the focus ring to the rear at the mount with the zoom ring to the front, the Tokina and Sigma use the more traditional reverse orientation. (The Sigma’s focus ring rotates in an opposite direction to the other two.) Either ring orientation/rotation direction works, and it’s just a matter of what feels best. If you’re used to the older Nikkor zooms, the traditional front focus/rear zoom of the Sigma and Tokina will feel more natural, except for the focus direction on the Sigma. But since many newer Nikkors now use the reversed ring position, you may already be familiar with the feel of this Nikkor lens ring placement. 2) Auto Focus/Manual Focus operation/performance: The Tokina AF is driven by the DSLR AF motor, as opposed to the Nikkor and Sigma, and this lens isn’t compatible with the D40 and similar bodies. Tokina also takes a totally different approach to the AF/Manual switching by implementing it into the focus ring. To switch from AF to manual, you pull the focus ring toward the body, and visa versa. Unfortunately, there is no manual override during AF operation. It’s either in AF mode or Manual mode. Also, with this sample, the focus ring didn’t always positively active AF operation. Even when it seemed to click into place, AF was occasionally less than accurate. It sometimes took several cycles before it started to AF properly, and on one occasion it took dismounting and remounting the lens to return it to proper operation. (Just in case, the lens contacts were cleaned, with no change.) And of major concern was that this lens also experienced difficulty focusing at certain apertures, as will be discussed later. This created a real problem with its overall performance and ultimately its desirability. The Sigma on the other hand, doesn’t include a separate AF/Manual focus switch on the lens barrel for Nikon bodies, and also won’t allow manual override with the focus ring during AF operation. In fact, it constantly “fights with you” if you try to do so, jerking the lens back to the predetermined AF position. The only way to operate this lens manually is to change the focus mode to manual or “M” via the body’s front selector switch, which precludes the more convenient AF override with manual lens adjustment/fine tuning via the lens focus ring as on the Nikkor. On the positive side, this lens incorporates an internal HS motor which is similar to the Nikkor’s AFS AF motor, with AF quickly and accurately acquired. The Nikkor implements AFS high speed operation, which is compatible with the D40 and similar bodies, and uses a AF/Manual or Manual two position switch on the lens barrel, which is different than the other two lenses, but similar to most Nikkor designs. It also allows for manual override during AF operation, with the focus ring easily switching the lens to manual focus mode as you rotate it with the AF activated. AF was always accurate and snapped into place, and MF was accurate and easy to implement. 3) Resolution both center and edges: As the test chart examples reveal, all three lenses exhibit very good resolution at the center at f/5.6 and above. However, it’s at the edges and the extreme wide aperture that problems arise with two of them, the Sigma for edge resolution, and the Tokina for f/2.8 and f/4 apertures. The Tokina’s lens resolution is very poor at certain settings. It’s possible the results are unique to this certain sample, but I’m unable to determine that possibility. The overall behavior was erratic depending on the lens settings, but consistent with these results throughout the testing process. Of the discrepancies, the worst performance occurred at f/2.8 to f/4 for both 11mm and 16mm, the tested focal lengths. The results may have been exacerbated by exposure variances, which will be discussed next. Suffice it to say that the images were definitely not focused properly, and show elements of ghosting or double imaging. It’s difficult to define this without seeing the images, some of which will be posted accordingly. The Sigma is very good in the center focus at the focal lengths of 11mm and 16mm at f/4 and improved to excellent by f/8. But as mentioned by several reviewers, its edge sharpness doesn’t hold up as well and is consistently of slightly lower quality, but not drastically so. Overall, it has very good to excellent resolution in much of the image area. The Nikkor is the most consistent of these three lenses, with center sharpness coming in as excellent throughout, except for very good at f4 and 12mm. The edges also exhibited consistently fine behavior, with only minimal drop in resolution, even at f/4 for 12mm, where I still rank it as good to very good. Overall there is very little variance in the excellent resolution for this lens throughout it’s tested range of 12-16mm and f/4-f/11. 4) Exposure variance: At smaller apertures, all three lenses expose about 1/3 stop within each other for the same scene and lighting. At wider apertures, and depending on the focal length, the Tokina and Sigma exhibit more variance, with the Nikkor remaining stable throughout its range. (Note: Light falloff from center to corners was not part of this evaluation.) Here are the specifics: The Tokina exhibits severe exposure variance from f2.8 through f11, the minimum aperture tested, at 11mm, the shortest focal length. There’s an immediate falloff of about -.5EV then it continues to about -7EV to -1.0EV, depending on the overall scene. At 16mm, the maximum focal length, there is much less total scene light falloff. But overall, the exposure varies widely from scene to scene, depending on the focal length and the aperture. The Sigma exhibits some scene light falloff from f4 to f5.6, and then stabilizes to a more consistent level for apertures smaller than f5.6, at the 11mm focal length,. It exhibit stable exposure throughout its aperture range at the 16mm focal length. The Nikkor starts out with less exposure than the other two lenses at wider apertures, but remains stable throughout its aperture and focal length ranges, while the other two “catch up” by lowering the exposure as the aperture becomes smaller. Its consistency is excellent. 5) Color rendering per color chart: There are slight variations among the three lenses in their rendering of the Gretag MacBeth Color Checker Chart, but these are minimal. The most difficult for all to render is the cyan square, directly above the black square in the lower right corner. They all tend to exhibit a bit more blue than is required, to varying degrees. Other than that, they show reasonable accuracy. (For an example of the Tokina Color Chart results, see the original product posting for a sample image.) 6) Custom WB and other settings: Both the Nikkor and Sigma lenses were able to achieve Custom White Balance settings on the first attempt throughout their aperture ranges tested. However, the Tokina wasn’t able to do so at f11 in spite of repeated attempts, no matter the focal length. It was able to do so easily at maximum aperture. Also, all seemed to perform well with other WB settings, including Auto WB, which produced a result very close to the custom setting achieved with the Expodisc. The only other negative influence with results came from the erratic exposure problems by the Tokina lens. Whether this was due to a faulty product couldn’t be determined, but it was disconcerting based on the anticipated positive performance this lens had in the media. 7) Color contrast and accuracy: The Nikkor exhibited slightly stronger contrast given the same scene exposure. But again, the predominant difference in these lenses regarding contrast and accuracy was dependent on exposure variance. Since the Nikkor was consistent throughout its range, it was the easiest to “set and forget”. The Sigma required some thought to achieve the same results when using maximum apertures, and at minimum focal lengths, the Tokina required constant adjustment to achieve the same results, although it was more consistent at longer focal lengths. 8) Chromatic Aberration and Flare: As other reviewers have determined, the Sigma performs very well when it comes to chromatic aberrations. The surprise was how well the Nikkor also performed in this regard, showing very little CA, essentially the same amount as the Sigma. The Tokina was reasonably well controlled with regard to CA in most situations as well, but showed slightly more effect than either of the others. It also had more problems with flare, though not to a great extent in my limited observations. The Nikkor seemed to handle flare the best, but this wasn’t tested extensively. For flare results, and other details on wave distortion, corner light falloff and other particulars, please refer to other reviewers. Conclusion: Unfortunately, I was seriously disappointed with the performance of the Tokina lens. Its design seems perfect to minimize the problems other Tokina’s have exhibited, such as CA and flare. And to this extent, it seems to perform better than other designs, based on my readings, not personal testing. However, the performance in the primary area of lens resolution, particularly at a wide open aperture of f2.8 to f4, my primary reason for considering this lens, was a real “bummer”. Whether due to faulty production, or other defect, the results wide open are soft, and exhibit severe ghosting. Other distortion, particularly CA, is evident along the edges, even including low contrast area differences. This coupled with the erratic AF behavior created a “no go” appraisal for this lens. It has been returned. On the positive side, this test confirmed other reviewer’s positive remarks regarding the comparative results between the Nikkor and the Sigma wide angle zoom lenses. They both perform very well optically, with comparable results in color rendering, contrast (at most settings), CA, AF operation, and construction. While the Sigma has an advantage in wider focal range, and more compact size, the Nikkor excels with better resolution, not only in the center, but even more so at the edges. (See the attached cropped images of the Koran Lens Test Chart in the initial product posting. These are crops of the one Koran test chart strip located in the left lower center of the complete test chart, which is shown in the image on the bottom right. The top right image is the Nikkor crop, the bottom left the Sigma and the bottom middle the Tokina. All are at 11/12mm and at f4 aperture. In the Nikkor image crop, you can still make out the web address and Norman Koran’s name, while with the Sigma image it’s more difficult, and in the Tokina it’s essentially illegible. Once at f5.6 and above, the three lenses show similar center resolution results.) The Nikkor also performs better than all three lenses, including the Sigma, with consistent exposure throughout its aperture and focal length ranges, has a substantially better manual focusing system with immediate AF override, as well as positive manual focus switching on the lens barrel. This avoids confusion, particularly with other lenses, that may occur with the Sigma when the focus mode switch needs to be returned to the AF-S or AF-C position after manual focusing. And finally, although easily remedied, the Nikkor has better lens caps included, as it should for it’s substantially greater price. But for me, all these performance positives and ergonomic nuances add up. My choice is the Nikkor, in spite of the price difference PS: Visit my personal gallery for an extensive image selection of the test results from these lenses. I’ll upload them as time permits. Rating: 3

Product Details: "Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX AF 11-16mm f2.8 Zoom Lens" by Richard_Coyle - posted: Tue May 6, 2008 - Rating: 3.00

Last Review Posted by bartolog - posted: Fri March 14, 2008 9:28am

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 4062

prime lens at it's finest a 300mm master piece. Rating: 10

Product Details: "300mm f2.8D IF-ED AF-S II Nikkor" by Richard_Coyle - posted: Tue June 12, 2007 - Rating: 10.00

Last Review Posted by michaelnotar - posted: Mon February 18, 2008 7:16pm

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 2670

i got this meter because my 608 meter went down and traded it in towards this from sekonic. i wish it had the zoom spot meter like the 608 did, seems this feature was removed from all the new meters. well its a light meter, a meter, thats it. the profile/range features seem neat, but not needed, a bit much. a great meter non the less, no exactly a tool that needs 300 features in it. i do like that the spot meter has the readout in the viewfinder, not on the outside main lcd (huge drawback on the 508). also in individual calibration for the reflected/incident reads is good (sync up the reflected off a gray card to the incident or both to your old meter). a great meter, well built, good selection of modes and triggering options. i would recommend it. Rating: 8

Product Details: "L758DR" by David Magahy - posted: Sat February 16, 2008 - Rating: 8.00

Last Review Posted by ChrisDM - posted: Wed February 13, 2008 10:09am

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 20904

This is a fun lens. 400mm on a crop body gets you some serious reach. I primarily use it for landscape photography, but it is a little heavy for longer hikes and backpacking. For this I prefer the 70-300IS... But if I'm shooting near the car this is definitely my first choice for telephoto landscapes. I also shot a few PGA Tour events with it, and was pleasantly surprised at its performance. Of course golf is a fairly stationary sport played in good light, so this shouldn't have come as too much a surprise... Some criticize the lens for its performance wide open at 400mm especially. But check out this crop, wide open at 400mm: http://www.pbase.com/chris_miller/image/91839121/original.jpg Sure it's no 400 2.8, but it also doesn't cost $6500 and doesn't weight 12 pounds... It is an excellent and versatile value. Hope this helps, Chris M www.imagineimagery.com Rating: 10

Product Details: "EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM" by drew - posted: Wed May 23, 2007 - Rating: 9.60

Last Review Posted by DonNoble - posted: Thu January 31, 2008 8:00pm

[ POST A REVIEW ]

Views: 2807

A great tool! The line of sight limitations bites me frequently - I forget to turn it over when moving to the other side of the camera (or my human light stand moves). Often, however, there is enough reflection around that it works in surprising situations, even completely blocked. Rating: 9

Product Details: "Nikon Speedlight SB-800 TTL Flash" by drew - posted: Mon May 14, 2007 - Rating: 9.33

Next Page »