answers: 57

  1. Dmitry K
    27.08.2014

    some kind of orange skin came out. And so cute))

    Reply

    • Vadim
      27.08.2014

      Hepatite skinton :)

      Reply

  2. Ivan
    27.08.2014

    Shooting with an orange filter is likely ... that's right, good, but then in post-production I tone down the orange a bit.

    Reply

  3. Oleg
    27.08.2014

    Yellow. Arkady is an off-topic question, don’t tell me a lot why buying a low-cost telephoto is not a problem, but the budget wide-angle prices are starting to creep up Is this related to the design of lenses or is it marketing?

    Reply

    • Dmitry K
      27.08.2014

      They say shirikov has a very complicated structure, it’s very difficult to calculate everything there. As a result, they stand like an airplane, but vignette, distort and chromate worse than a whale for 3 rubles. A good shirik is generally a hi at the prices. As a result, it turns out that the wide angle from Mizuma looks better and is sane. But if you need to be straight generally broad, then you have to put up with the fact that it is expensive, but looks like a C grade

      Reply

      • Gene jb
        27.08.2014

        Televisions have a complex design. You just have no idea how complex the paths inside the lens groups are moving. Of the ones I analyzed, I noted the most difficult - Tamron 18-200 A14. Well, shiriks don't have such problems. They have a problem with aperture ratio and wild barrel distortion, which is inevitable in principle. So it's not clear ...

        Reply

      • AlekK
        27.08.2014

        You are wrong! Look at the classic telephoto circuits, 4 - 6 elements, wide-angle lenses have a minimum of 7, and usually 9 - 13. Your example, elevenx zoom, is inappropriate to say the least.

        Reply

      • Denis
        28.08.2014

        Like, super-width 10-20 mm is easier than a telephoto? Do not be ridiculous ... It is even visually noticeable what wild shapes the lenses have. And the low aperture only confirms that it is difficult and expensive to make such a lens.

        Reply

      • Oleg
        28.08.2014

        Thank you enlightened

        Reply

  4. anonym
    27.08.2014

    softly draws, in my opinion contrast is necessary for macro

    Reply

    • fotika
      28.08.2014

      for macro you need hands. there are people who shoot macro at 18-55, they only wear a lens backwards. and everything is ok there with contrast.

      Reply

      • Yarkiya
        28.08.2014

        I do not agree, not everyone there is okay with contrast, especially with micro-contrast.

        Reply

      • Krysvladimir
        20.07.2021

        Put on.

        Reply

  5. Photographer
    28.08.2014

    Nikon 200mm f / 4D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor is only 4 thousand rubles more expensive ... and in sigma reviews it is constantly: poorly focused ... and so on. etc…. Sigma is needed then so that people would understand - take the original! this is not an advertisement, but the truth of life!

    Reply

    • fotika
      28.08.2014

      the concept of the original and not the original is relative, for a long time Nikon had no 50mm 1.4 with a motor, but Sigmovsky rescued everyone, and he is much more interesting than nickor. Well, in general, this sigma is not a few years old. Well, at the expense of reviews (about poor focus), the hands / camera are often to blame. all that is written in the reviews, a slightly inaccurate concept and often personal opinion. I can say the opposite with a carcass like d4-d800-d610, I have never encountered problems with auto focus on most lenses. try to read the instructions from the cameras very informative books, there is a lot of competent written about auto focus.

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        28.08.2014

        The Sigma 50mm 1: 1.4 DG HSM EX was introduced in March 2008, the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.4G was introduced in September 2008, how long is it? Moreover, I suppose nikkor got to our area faster :).

        Reply

      • Eugene
        28.08.2014

        Yes, hammer you at him, he again praises his g ... oh! Let him take off on D4 and sigma if you feel sorry for money for nikkor

        Reply

      • fotika
        28.08.2014

        omg .. who praises? strange however. let the date be wrong, approx. but still earlier)

        Reply

    • fotika
      28.08.2014

      oh yes, I forgot ... they don't shoot macro with AF)))))

      Reply

      • Spider beetles
        28.08.2014

        On Nikkor 105mm af-s is possible with autofocus. : XNUMX

        Reply

      • Yarkiya
        28.08.2014

        How to shoot! And with vr also removed. Something you fotika is not in shock today.

        Reply

      • fotika
        28.08.2014

        I meant the commerce, rings, stones .. but not beetles in the backyard, although the same Chinese who extinguishes 18-55 feet upside down also does not take off in af. essentially contradict themselves, sigma turns yellow and this catastrophically affects the frame, especially af. but you need to shoot macro with af) top insoles for macro (the same Zeiss) and a bunch of anything, they don't even have af, not like a stub. most medical lenses from Nikon are also manual (from microscopes) because you need more accuracy. and 105 BP to compare with 200 f4 macro is not reasonable.

        I noticed one oddity .. it seems like a show-off .. so everything is about photographers ... but how to do it so sigma yellows, kenon lathers, nikon is cold, Zeiss is expensive, and in macro af is bad)))

        Reply

      • Yarkiya
        28.08.2014

        Well, in general, I didn’t write anything about this Sigma, neither good nor bad. I liked the review, but glass is glass, one is worse than the other, one is yellow and the other is green. To do this, we go here to learn about the properties of various lenses. And since I am constantly experimenting with macro photography, I protested by not seeing the right information.
        And about 105 vr in vain you, quite a professional equipment.

        Reply

      • anonym
        28.08.2014

        I will support fotika. How does Sigma stay afloat for 55 years, if everything is so bad? " It's a pity for money for nikkor "- write the arbiters of destinies. And if there is nikkor, then it's a pity for some space Zeiss, then Lake? A vicious circle framed by show-offs.

        Reply

      • Lynx
        28.08.2014

        Drag it completely off on autofocus. And even often not on macro lenses, by the way

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.08.2014

        tell this to the guys who take off their jewelry, where only the rental light with the installer is $ 50.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.08.2014

        Of course, we all understand that serious shooting for serious catalogs is for you on Nikkor 40 / 2.8, just like serious shooting for many glossy magazines is not a narrow format with all sorts of D4s and 1DX. But for amateur photographers and, moreover, a simple macro, autofocus is really in demand and sometimes seriously helps out. That is why it is not entirely correct to write in general “oh yes, I forgot… macro is not removed with AF))))), because“ macro ”is a loose concept. Actually, that is why the readers rebelled.

        Reply

      • Yarkiya
        29.08.2014

        What is the matter with you today, Fotika? What are $ 50000 for rental? But where do you get such numbers? Damn well, actually already! But why the hell did the photo surrender to me, if only I could give 50 tons of greenery for the rental of various tzatzeks. Or will you say that a couple of zeros accidentally slammed?

        Reply

      • Lynx
        29.08.2014

        Have you ever eaten with them in one cafe? or straight hands shook?
        What is the whole point of your pompous statements besides a slurred desire to stand out?

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.08.2014

        I'm sorry that I affected the all-knowing) with 0 I was not mistaken of often 3 happens. it’s just that there are people who take completely different money for shooting, and is better at reaching that level than trying to get personal with lenses.

        there are decorations that cost a lot, and they need to be sold a lot. the better the photos, the more they are sold))) and if you are not familiar with the spotlight, its cost and complexity of work, then collect the briefcase and go to school.

        I can explain in detail how much it costs to remove a poster (calendar) for gas stations in Europe, with 12 cars and models. and believe me there are not 3 zeros))) you do not need to react to everything with foam from your mouth, if someone has seen or even heard more than you) the main thing is to crap, then praise yourself, because you crap. and then take 2000-4000 for shooting and talk about the fact that sigma is bad and nikkor is good. or even write if I had 50, then I would ... that's your level. 000 is a penny, just nada strives to earn money.

        at the expense will stand out ... again, a strange remark. out here only a select few can write about the quality of the lens, and very biased? In some ways, 300ovich was right, but he still did not fully understand me about the "trough". No one and nothing prevents you from learning English and visiting at least the sites of not our redneck photographers, and reading and learning. and see how much a normal shooting costs. and at the expense of hands, ate and drank. yes it was))) I'm not ashamed that you can learn and listen. and if one of these people gives the opportunity to teach and tell, then I do not mind.

        ps and stop already thinking that since we have a bunch of optics and we give it, then we need to crap everything we write, good and bad, from head to toe. in my opinion, “you” want to put a tick: - ha! I crap that illiterate kent from the store)))

        Reply

      • Yarkiya
        29.08.2014

        Fotika buddy, for God's sake, do not take everything personally, there was absolutely no desire to humiliate or insult you. If you thought otherwise, then please forgive. I just really like that Arkady works with you. Please do not stop your cooperation.
        But do not forget, however, that readers of this resource are most likely amateurs and enthusiasts, in the good sense of the word, even if they earn money by shooting (most likely they are not the majority).
        You just abruptly jumped from a banal aftofocus to auto-advertising shooting. I wouldn’t want to jerk, but what if you are Hollywood, don’t give an example where millions pay to rent a studio.

        Reply

    • AlekK
      28.08.2014

      If you were to call Nikkor 180 mm f / 2.8 ED Ai-S speaking about Nikon, then you could believe that he is one of the best Hundreds of Herculeanites in the world, and so ...

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        28.08.2014

        Actually, the fact that 180 AI is one of the best for me and indicated in the MK3 review, and the fact that I need an autofocus lens was probably somehow passed by ears :).

        Reply

      • THE
        29.08.2014

        Duc, you specify. This lens is autofocus, just not adapted for modern digital mirrors.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.08.2014

        We are talking about the Ai-S lens, what autofocus? Christwhat is going on in the comments!

        Reply

      • Lynx
        29.08.2014

        hell and israel.
        nefig was contacting this store, the universe was offended))

        Reply

      • fotika
        29.08.2014

        there is not so much time like you have to monitor every post and take offense)))

        Reply

      • Lynx
        30.08.2014

        what a horror!

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        29.08.2014

        If you knew how many comments are filtered and how many users are added to the blacklist :)

        Reply

  6. Dim
    29.08.2014

    Some strange even inexplicable hatred for Sigma can be traced in some comments, as if people are not actually engaged in photography, but are in religious sects :) I have two Sigma lenses, there are problems with focusing on one of the three carcasses. I believe that these are not Sigma’s problems, but an example of the usual dishonest squeezing of a competitor from the market.

    Reply

    • Dmitry K
      29.08.2014

      Well, about dishonesty, it’s you who bent - in the end, this sigma takes away bread from Nikon and not vice versa. Let them do their FF better)))

      Reply

    • anonym
      30.08.2014

      How does it (bread) take it away, if it is “shitty”, as others write here. I did not understand what has FF.

      Reply

      • Dmitry K
        30.08.2014

        Sigma has its own camera and glass under it, but ff is not. Here I say that it would be better if they doped their system than they did to someone else's lenses.

        Reply

      • anonym
        30.08.2014

        Well then, some more advice from Dmitry K - what to do to Zeiss, Tamron, Tokin, who also takes bread from Nikon?

        Reply

      • Dim
        31.08.2014

        In my deeply subjective opinion, Arkady's remarks on third-party technology such as: nuts, not latches on flashlights, the mysterious lack of switches on lenses for a specific brand (Nikon in this case), etc. are explained by the presence of corresponding patents for brand holders (enough (recall Nikon's claim against Sigma for copyright infringement of the Image Stabilizer). Apparently big companies are fighting with competitors in such a simple way, and personally for me, as a buyer and lover of the Nikon brand, this is unpleasant, since the competition is not due to quality improvement or price reduction, but due to the injection of money: into lawyers, muddying in the mass media. information, stupid restraint of progress ... This path will ultimately lead to what happened to Sony and the like.

        Reply

      • Oleg
        31.08.2014

        What happened to Sony, if not secret?

        Reply

      • Dmitry K
        31.08.2014

        Well, again, why do you think that someone should adhere to gentlemanly rules in the competition? If you do not like the machinations of competitors, make your camera and glass to it. If you climb into a strange field, be prepared for the fact that you are not welcome there

        Reply

      • Oleg
        31.08.2014

        Well this is understandable, but with Sony what happened ???
        They have a complete openwork on mirrorless cameras, they make matrices for half the world, video equipment is at the level ... God grant everyone that this happens to him

        Reply

      • Dmitry K
        31.08.2014

        and hell knows what happened to Sonya, it is necessary to ask Dim. Interestingly, the nickname is leaning? )))))

        Reply

    • Anonymous 1
      30.08.2014

      Among all the utter nonsense that many forum participants carry and which place in personal correspondence on mailboxes, business comments occasionally come across ... Optically SIGMS are often not bad at all, but here's how to explain that both I and my four colleagues have different SIGMAs (24-70 / 2,8; 20 / 2,8; 28-105; 50-150; 17-24 (?)) All, as one, went out of order (mechanical disorder, electronics failure). They were purchased, as you know, at different times by different people in different stores and used in different systems. None of these lenses have crossed the 5-6 year threshold of life. What is it??? We tried to repair them several times in the authorized centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg, so some of the copies did not attempt to fix them at all. For many years the name "Sigma" has caused me a sharp rejection, although, yes! - when they were in good working order, they gave a decent image.

      Reply

      • Do_Oraemon
        02.09.2014

        EX-series? I doubt it. How many sensible photojournalists and artists use sigma - you can not even imagine. True, these are mainly wide-angle and super-wide-angle. But “Tamronov” they will not find in the afternoon with fire. They say - "trash."

        Reply

  7. Spider beetles
    30.08.2014

    A hypothetical story about fabulously expensive jewelry shooting is great, but it in no way negates the fact that it is possible to shoot macro with AF. At least green from show-off. And what lens it is possible to do, I indicated. I used it myself and still use it, i.e. I checked everything in practice, without pathetic fables about some snob-gods from the photo.

    Reply

    • Lynx
      30.08.2014

      yes, yes.

      Reply

  8. Cheatak
    30.08.2014

    damn and not tired of the blog author to test everything,
    the source will run out soon, when he looks around ...
    in any case, it’s good for us readers
    strength and health to you, ARKADY….

    Reply

    • Jury
      30.08.2014

      Good toast :) I join :)

      Reply

      • Cheatak
        30.08.2014

        Thank you Yuri for your support,

        hold on to ARKADY, maybe something similar will go,
        what would be easier for you ...

        Reply

  9. sergey
    30.08.2014

    Good lens for portraiture. I like it. Thanks Ark. for the test. I'm waiting for tests on y-tube. PS The autofocus in this glass is slow, but not overshot (on the canon). :-)

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer