answers: 66

  1. Alexander Trekhsotkovich
    28.07.2014

    Here it is this MK I. This is the one I took from a friend and shot with them. The lens is great. It costs a penny (a friend took him for 60 bucks) I recommend to everyone who wants to try a telephoto camera but does not want to spend money on 2.8 aperture. His picture for portraits is gorgeous. Constructive - myatall. Thanks to Arkady for the reviewer!

    Reply

    • FOTIKA
      28.07.2014

      I note about 2.8, if the carcass is more modern (ISO allows you to be tall) then it does not always make sense in those same 2.8. against the background of 80-200 nikon and 70-210 size \ price, 70-210 is in many ways superior to older (dear) brothers.

      Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        29.07.2014

        No need to compare aperture 2.8 with aperture 4 or 5.6. Aperture is needed not only to give more light to the frame. In fact, the diaphragm 2.8 also makes a beautiful bokeh, unlike the 4th. And to compare the glass from the review with Nikor 80-200mm f2.8D I do not see the point at all. Different level and price.

        Reply

      • AM
        29.07.2014

        Just like that right away - “2.8 also makes boke beautiful, unlike the 4th one” - you can see right away - Expert with a capital letter.

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.07.2014

        I support, but I did not write about artistry and other things. lenses in the first place were created for photographing for commercial purposes and not very, about 1 years ago I might have agreed with Alexander Trekhsotkovich, but as practice has shown, even with 10 200 frames you can screw up) and whatever it is, it won’t save curve frame. and again, as practice has shown, people in photographs that look at themselves have no idea what bokeh is (in 2.0% of cases), they blur it (background) by 90 or 5.6, and only sofa analysts see the degree of blur, who shoot a little, read a lot, and believe that the full frame is a god, and the aperture should be 2.8 everywhere !!!

        do not take it to your personal account, but expensive glasses with 1.2-2.8 do not give you professionalism, but only take your money out of your pockets. in the review, Arkady proved that a lens for “pennies” can shoot no worse than 20-200 2.8.

        pps if evidence is needed, I’ll give an overview of 8 lenses with FR from 70 to 400 with apertures from 2.0 at once. so that you understand that it is not glass.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.07.2014

        When discussing, for example, a future wedding, some ask that the background should not be blurred at all, and the most annoying thing is that it is not so simple to do this on the FF, especially when shooting in the TV range.

        Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        29.07.2014

        When discussing a wedding, I sign a contract with clients in duplicate, 6 sheets each. In which it is clearly written that the photos will be no worse, no better than in my portfolio (in which almost everything was shot at f2.0 and f2.8) and no client has ever told me why you washed out the trash can and cans in the back background? "

        Reply

      • AM
        29.07.2014

        Yes, the point is not even that 2,8 is not a guarantee of a good shot - I mean that 2,8 is not even a guarantee of a beautiful bokeh, because bokeh is a combination of distances - photographer-object-background + focal length + the nature of the background itself + drawing lens; and to say that 2,8 will give a good bokeh anyway, this is the height of illiteracy. There are many lenses that with a small aperture cover give a more pleasant blur outside of depth of field than at maximum open, all other things being equal.

        Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        29.07.2014

        And you at all do not distinguish the picture taken in the SAME AND THE SAME CONDITIONS with different apertures for example 2.8 versus 4 ??? As for me, bokeh at 2.8 in the same conditions will be more interesting than at 4. And here you seem to be an expert with a capital letter. And a full frame is not a god, I shoot with an ancient KROP. But to compare glass for 60 bucks with glass for 800 bucks and say that what is over 60 is better, it already smacks of "professionalism". No offense. Arkady sorry for talking out of topic. But my head boils when the "pros" write this here. Probably glasses with apertures of 2.0 and 2.8 were invented for fools, because the “pros” under the nickname fotika are satisfied with the 4th aperture.

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.07.2014

        since the words do not take to your personal account do not mean anything, I think the debate can be finished.

        Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        29.07.2014

        Yes, I do not accept on a personal account, I generally NEVER counted anyone's opinion and will not reckon with it. It just annoys me when a person writes outright nonsense. Here is how you think if in this photo the background were not blurry but clear http://www.pekarskas.com/#!untitled/zoom/c1u2e/image1qib would she get better ??? Provided that customers liked it. Personally, I think that if the fountain in the background were sharp, then the attention from the emotions of people would go to the fountain and the background. And with aperture 2.8, I highlighted only people and their laughter, which I could not do on f4. I do not want to swear, I just express my PERSONAL opinion.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.07.2014

        Bokeh and the intensity of the foreground / background blur are different things. For example, take 300/4 and some 105 / 2,8 and look where the bokeh will be better. Everything is relative, and Alexander, I have repeatedly warned not to deal with the flame on Radozhiv.

        Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        29.07.2014

        Sorry Arkady for writing so much. But according to your message fotika is not a flame? I believe that both his and my messages are from the same berry field. I'm not the only one here) I hope for your understanding. And it is clear from the correspondence that it was not I who started “this”.
        About what the background blur depends on, I also know:
        - from background remoteness
        - from aperture
        - from the focal length of the lens
        -from matrix size
        I read a lot of books about photography, and I do it professionally, that is, I don’t troll from the couch, I work as a photographer and I write everything that I write exclusively from experience.
        And it annoys me when “this” is charged.
        Anyone who loves to read such "practical" advice from fotika and go to a wedding on a whale 18-55mm to shoot, he will say, but… uh, the diaphragm does not affect anything! And then he will get stuck when he realizes what's what. It will stick possibly on money or on the fist of the newlyweds.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.07.2014

        Ayanami crying with bloody tears.

        Reply

      • anonym
        29.07.2014

        RAY SING THIS 300tku nafig! and how you are ordered with an agreement for 6 tunes about banks and garbage bins

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.07.2014

        Calm, comrades, only calm.

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.07.2014

        there is a good phrase, only the defeated is nervous and bully)))
        moreover, a person made it clear that he never considered anyone, why then read reviews and write comments.

        ps well, people who think about shooting will not have cans, waste bins and other things in the frame))) if we offended you with something, then forgive us stupid and not experienced. we will no longer give Arkady bad and dark optics for reviews, otherwise all banks will not be smeared)))

        Reply

      • AM
        29.07.2014

        Given the lack of a precise definition of "bokeh" as a term and the lack of an analogue in Russian, I cannot agree with you. Moreover, it is impossible to say which lens has better bokeh - this is very subjective (of course, if you do not take very extreme cases when comparing the “dark” 18-55 and the fixed with / 1,4). What you call the degree of blur is referred to by many photographers as cream bokeh - it's easier to get it with tele-lenses, Hollywood bokeh with circles is easier to get with a fast lens.

        Reply

      • Lynx
        29.07.2014

        a person-trehsotkovich, for a person who “never reckons with someone else’s opinion” you somehow get too excited, proving to everyone and everything that you do not reckon with them and showing your personal opinion. )))

        Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        29.07.2014

        All men. I got it. I am silent. You are all right, but I am wrong. Your took. I'm just an amateur) I'm a sofa photographer))) I am silent. I am silent.

        Reply

      • Vladislav Gavrilyuk
        31.07.2014

        in general, I will support trehsotovich - but a little not because.
        no need to align 2.8 and 4 (5.6), not because of only bokeh.
        a more open hole allows you not only to get more light, not only to paint bokeh but also -
        a) select (or separate) objects that do not differ significantly in their position from the plane of other objects.
        b) soften everything - no need to throw tomatoes * sharpness is our everything * - compare the skin in a woman's portrait (raw material) by 5.6 and 2. 2 - it will be a few times more pleasant.

        Reply

      • Jackie
        31.07.2014

        I won’t throw the tomato, but, IMHO, for the female skin of Imagenomic Portraiture in Lightroom, you can use it with post-processing with much greater effectiveness.

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.07.2014

        and in pursuit, for example, there are fifty fifty 50 which give nicer bokeh than 2.0 50.

        bokeh forms the shape of the petals, not the size of the hole.

        if I’m wrong, then correct)))

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.07.2014

        well, in general - the optical scheme, the petals - this is already secondary, they do not affect the open one.

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.07.2014

        Well, I mean fifty dollars, for example, sandwiched to 2.8.

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.07.2014

        Well, about the open ones I am aware of)))) I did not correctly express myself initially)

        Reply

    • Vladislav Gavrilyuk
      31.07.2014

      "Portrait of a woman (raw)",
      Of course I don’t give raw photos to anyone, but here we are engaged in sofa analytics, this is also an argument))

      Reply

  2. Jury
    28.07.2014

    The lens is interesting, it is strange that the "circular saw" gives at F10. It's a pity that we have no offers for 60 bucks :)

    Reply

  3. Andrii
    28.07.2014

    Your photo, Arkadiyu, with a leather post, set all the colors. Kindly, with the growth of the site, growth and author's master;)

    Reply

    • THE
      29.07.2014

      You are funny, Arkady in his reviews never tries to show his professionalism. These photos show only the capabilities of the lens, but not the correctness of the photo (even by the rules). I note that in older reviews, photographs are much more interesting. And if you want to see the author’s skill, use his website (please do not confuse with the forum).

      Reply

      • Andrii
        29.07.2014

        In any vipad on the basis of photos robimo visnovka about photographic technology. It’s surprisingly, I’ll sit for years at a sham and a frame for a blog, I won’t, but I don’t show my professionalism. The bar is all worth it and reach a high level. I think that the author is still working on the automatic ... About “gratuitously” - Arkady Razumny Cholovik and the project has long been commercial and to bring his own devidendy. For yomu dodatkovy respect) Success in tsіkavіy spravі!

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.07.2014

        As for dividends, Radozhivka moved to a new hosting for weeks, costing 50 euros per month, the income from advertising, which is practically not on the site, just compensates for the hosting costs, so do not think that Radozhivka makes millions on reviews of the legendary “MC Cimko”: )

        Reply

      • Andrii
        29.07.2014

        Є speech important for pennies: your reputation, your design, any additional site. I want to ask your kitchen, I’ll ask you, I’m probably re-opening mezh.

        Reply

  4. anonym
    29.07.2014

    we are looking at the lens, and not at Arkady's ability to shoot, to conduct so many reviews, I think he’s not tired of all that much ... probably it’s hard to surprise a person with something, either with glass or with comments ...
    and so he’s done, writes and writes, does a very useful thing for us, and for free

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      29.07.2014

      Well, for the reviews, I’m really shooting a simpler reportage to feel the lens.

      Reply

  5. Yarkiy
    29.07.2014

    All the same, I could not stand it and bought on Ibei for $ 150 70-210, just not the same as in the review, but which f4. Here he is on the site too. I fully confirm that the lens is simply magnificent. I don't care that the focus is not very fast and buzzes loudly, but the picture from 1986 is magical. Previously, I could not get enough of portraits with a 105 mm micro 2.8 Af-s vr, but now 70-210 pressed it.
    I highly recommend who do not mind a couple of hundred bucks.

    Reply

    • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
      29.07.2014

      Congratulations on your good purchase. Good shots.

      Reply

  6. anonym
    29.07.2014

    And where is the pig's squeal, foam at the mouth, Bonapartism, Mr. Fourth Diaphragm?

    Reply

    • FOTIKA
      29.07.2014

      that I think it’s enough to collect agro already) did not understand each other initially. why kindle a war)))

      Reply

  7. THE
    30.07.2014

    The instigators REY kneels and punishes just mercilessly, for your information.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      30.07.2014

      Oh, by the way, about Ray you can flame as much as you like :) this is an exception)

      Reply

  8. Vitaliy U
    07.08.2014

    FOTIKA, greetings from Nikolaev! Regarding this glass: it fulfills its mission of a budget portraitist with a bang. It had 70-210 f 4, I did not notice a radical difference in the picture, compared to 70-210 f4-5.6 (at which f 4 remains practically up to 135 mm), but in terms of size and weight, the difference is noticeable. At the long end, on the open, it lathers, of course, but this is a common defect in more expensive devices. Solid, old glass!

    Reply

  9. Andrei
    24.11.2014

    What is optically better for portraits?
    This one or the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm 1: 3.5?

    And if you compare them, what are the advantages of this or that? (besides the manual focus Vivitar)

    Reply

  10. anonym
    21.02.2015

    here I look all obsessed with holes. it’s not a camera or a hole that shoots, but a photographer. polemics can be finished. You can take a magnificent photo with an ordinary whale lens with a small hole. but again the photographer takes a picture, not a camera.

    Reply

    • Alexander Malyaev
      21.02.2015

      And where does the hole? If with regard to Nikon 70-210 f / 4 and f / 4-5.6, then if we ignore the picture and the hole, for example, the way of zooming became the decisive factor for me.

      Reply

  11. Vladimir
    15.07.2015

    What do you recommend taking in an appendage to 50 mm, this lens or something like 35-135 for crop? (Portrait shooting)

    Reply

    • Peter Sh.
      15.07.2015

      Vladimir, Nikon 35-135 is one of the worst native lenses. I am not inclined to scold them at all, but he is generally very sad.
      For portraits on crop, any TV set is suitable. Whale 55-200 for crop will be better than this, it seems to me. If you want to blur the background to zero, then you need a fast fix.

      Reply

      • Vadim Ogolyar
        10.08.2015

        55-200 terrible glass.

        Reply

    • BB
      15.07.2015

      Jup-37, for example :)

      Reply

    • Star boring. Igor
      15.07.2015

      Nikon 70-210 f / 4

      Reply

  12. Vladimir
    15.07.2015

    To Peter Sh. Fix is ​​available, a whale 55-200 once bought, when it was still worth 900 UAH, but I was safely gouged it when they robbed the apartment, so not very good memories are associated with it))
    Regarding this lens, it doesn’t seem worse to me than 55-200, the reviews in the comments are normal and on YouTube too, but I'm interested in the problem with dust
    There was still an idea to take a 70-300 sigma, but I think such a big focal point will be worthless

    Reply

    • Peter Sh.
      15.07.2015

      The effect of a vacuum cleaner will be in all zooms, except for prof. class, type double ring 80-200 f / 2.8.
      In general, if you don’t shoot thousands of frames every day, you don’t need to be afraid of dust, you just have to blow it off.

      This lens is very good, I have it. Take it, you will not regret it. I use it constantly, it sucks in so much dust.
      The main thing is that it should be “D”, because it has a new focusing system, while it was faster than all other Nikon telezoom.

      Reply

    • Peter Sh.
      15.07.2015

      By the way, on the crop, this lens just perfectly serves as 150-300mm on the FF, when there is enough light. I only use it on Crop as a TV set and use it.

      Reply

  13. Vladimir
    10.08.2015

    The lens is very suitable, if possible, I recommend taking it.

    Reply

  14. Pavlo
    21.09.2015

    Recently. zabdyaki tsy statty that look around Rockwell adding such an object at the camp of the "new". Fairness is good, good quality for a penny. The plasticity of the baby and the bokeh are even more garnie. Especially happy for the middle end. Naygirshі ask at the end 200 ... 210mm ... it is important to achieve a clear picture, especially the architecture. 70mm. at diaphragm. 4.2 even better results. Controve light trimak garno, HA not viyaviv. Є The food, the front part (that is ruffled when focusing) is moving, when walking with the blend, it seems to collapse, why is it so special, why did everything spin out? Dyakuyu for the site and look around.

    Reply

  15. Andrei
    20.11.2015

    Please help me make a choice which is better to purchase such a lens as in the review or Nikon Series E 70-210 mm f / 4
    I want to use mainly for portraits, I understand that in the second there will be no autofocus.

    Reply

    • anonym
      20.11.2015

      існує 70-210mm. f4. Some kind of autofocus through the spin.

      Reply

  16. Andrei
    20.11.2015

    I know just the price of these two approximate sp_vpadaє and autofocus 70-210 f4 is more expensive than half and half the better optical characteristics are more beautiful?

    Reply

    • anonym
      21.11.2015

      for portraits more beautifully 70-210 f4 I think in the new art bokeh і dirka krascha.- steel rozmіr (looking around ого here on the site)
      for zyomok on a sleepy day, like travel zoom 70-210 f4.5-5.6 "D" garniy baby, in a small compact rosemary.

      Reply

  17. ROOMFO
    04.10.2016

    Please tell me, is it worth buying such a lens on the nikon d5200 crop? who used it on crop?

    Reply

    • Jury
      04.10.2016

      autofocus will not be at 5200

      Reply

  18. Rinaldo
    20.10.2016

    I got such a lens almost for nothing, not the D version. The problem is somewhere from 135 to 210 mm, a very soapy picture. On the D7000, the F80 is much soapy on the film. What could be the problem? I didn’t drop it, I don’t know. Maybe this is the case. And is it possible fix? Thank you all in advance.

    Reply

  19. Edgardo
    30.01.2017

    Como siempre es un placer leer sus comentarios y sus apreciaciones sobre cada objetivo fotográfico.
    Fotografias de muestras excelentes. ¡Muchas gracias!

    Reply

  20. Denis
    05.03.2018

    Arkady, what is the size of the filter for these lenses?
    Please tell me, good afternoon

    Reply

    • Michael
      06.03.2018

      62 like the old one. The review indicates

      Reply

  21. Valery
    21.11.2019

    I choose on the Nikon d7000 between Nikon 70-210 4-5.6D and Sigma 70-300 APO DG, is there a big difference? Which advise?

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer