answers: 234

  1. Alexey DV
    28.07.2015

    What are you, I never dragged a barrel on Arkasha, the young one is simply, categorical ... My eldest son is almost like that ...

    Reply

    • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
      28.07.2015

      Photo to the studio. Well, at least one of your masterpieces from any D-eshechki :)
      I just want to understand what level you are professional :)

      Reply

      • Alexey DV
        28.07.2015

        Come on ... Show me yours, I'll give you mine ... Okay ???

        Reply

      • Alexey DV
        28.07.2015

        Keep quiet about something ... Looks like there is nothing to show ...

        Reply

      • Alexey DV
        28.07.2015

        I threw test pictures in reviews of 35-70, 70 -300VR ... Not lazy will see ...

        Reply

  2. andrei2911
    28.07.2015

    Arkady, test Tamrons 24-70 and 70-200. On the D750, the Tamron 70-200 resolves 21 megapixels out of 24, just like the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f / 1.8G. Then tell me - why do I need these fixes ...;)

    Reply

    • Peter Sh.
      28.07.2015

      I compared Tamron 70-200 2.8 and Nikon 80-200 2.8, in ballroom dancing competitions, on the D610.
      The light is bad, everyone is moving fast.
      Tamron missed stable 2/3 shots. Nikon missed 1/10 shots.

      So what's the use of all these laboratory permits?

      Reply

      • Passer
        28.07.2015

        I have not heard such reviews. The other day I will get 70-200 to my D750. I hope to successfully refute your statement. Since Tamron 24-70 in terms of focusing is simply magnificent. Unsubscribe in the same thread.

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        28.07.2015

        SW Passerby, theories are refuted or confirmed. We are talking about the test results, i.e. about the facts. It is impossible to refute them.

        However, you really need to do something similar to find out, first of all for yourself, which lens is more suitable for you.

        Reply

  3. Rei ayanami
    28.07.2015

    [+] [+] [+] Alexey DV
    [+] fotika

    Reply

    • Dmitry K
      28.07.2015

      finally. In defense of the camera, I’ll say that he was forced to spend 3 days, which means it’s self-defense

      Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        28.07.2015

        Dmitry K plus. Aleksey DV will deduce whoever you want :) He says that he is 47 years old, and according to all his comments you can see youthful maximalism, and the flickering of peep-peaks as someone already said here. It feels like he is 15 years old. Photo on Nikor 80-200mm MK3 focal 200, aperture 2.8

        Reply

      • Star boring. Igor
        28.07.2015

        47 to me, he's over 50 and he's retired :)

        Reply

      • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
        28.07.2015

        Aleksey DV is probably like Benjamin Button :) He's got his youth at 50 now :) Oh, I envy him. Young, naughty, in the full dawn of strength, and it's all in 50 years !!! God grant that everyone has fun at 50.

        Reply

      • Alexey DV
        29.07.2015

        Thank you for your kind words, friends ... Do not be offended if you said something wrong ...

        Reply

  4. Alexander Trekhsotkovich
    28.07.2015

    Another photo on Nikor 80-200mm MK3 focal 200 (300mm including crop), aperture 2.8 carcass as in the previous photo D300s

    Reply

  5. Alexander Trekhsotkovich
    28.07.2015

    Another photo on Nikor 80-200mm MK3 focal length 200 (300mm including crop), aperture 2.8 carcass D300s / s-male, alpha-male :)

    Reply

    • Alexander
      09.08.2015

      Also focal 200, but already Nikkor 70-200 F4 on the carcass D7100 (exterminator of Alfazamets). Blurring the background in my opinion is not worse, but how are you ????

      Reply

  6. Alexander Trekhsotkovich
    28.07.2015

    Another photo on Nikor 80-200mm MK3 focal length 200 (300mm including crop), aperture 2.8 D300s carcass and the same magic bokeh that I like in high-speed televisions, the background is simply blurred into slivers, and the object seems to be cut out of the background, that's why I I adored this lens, this is the thing for the portrait, unlike poltiynikov, and 85ok which, together with the background, blur the ears and do not cut the object from the background.

    Reply

    • Alexander
      09.08.2015

      Really good blur, but the 70-200 at F5,6 is probably not all that bad either. By the way, on the carcass ... Nikon D100 (which by color simply wipes the lower part of its carcass on the alphasamts) .. Did you like it?

      Reply

  7. Alexander Trekhsotkovich
    28.07.2015

    And also a beautiful bokeh at 200 mm f2.8 D300s, my opinion is that the lens from the review is good, but on f4 it will not be able to give such a creamy bokeh as on f2.8. I mean that the bokeh on f4 does not blur the background enough, and the details on the background distract from the main subject. After all, this is a telephoto, not a reporter, his vocation to take portraits on the fly, the pictures of Arkady in the review are wonderful, but on f4 in the background distracting undeveloped people and stuff, from the main rider in the frame. My opinion is there is money-f2.8 VR2, there is no money-f2.8D MKIII. With f4, it will always seem to you that you have not got enough, and one way or another you will have to sell f4 and transfer to 2.8, and this is an extra waste of money in our already not rich life. This one is from a number: to have a girl with 2 breast sizes, and dream of a chic beauty with 5th size. Take the best right away to later think not about something better, but only about shooting and composition.

    Reply

    • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№
      28.07.2015

      agree

      Reply

    • Alexander
      09.08.2015

      But I doubt it, however…. The truth is not 300s some thread overgrown with moss, but a decent D7100 (in normal hands), the focal length is not even 200, but only 120, hole F4. Bad background blur?

      Reply

  8. Alexander Trekhsotkovich
    28.07.2015

    Lens: Nikor 80-200mm MK3.
    Focal: 200 mm. Aperture: f2.8 Camera: D300s
    Televisions, unlike the 85-s and 50-s, drive into the background very little space, due to which there are less distracting details against the background, this is perfect for portraits, the viewer's attention will definitely not run into the background :)

    Reply

    • Basil
      29.07.2015

      In this frame, there would be x ... on the top left of the newlyweds with a flash on the take-off - Such a frame would be !!

      Reply

  9. Alexander Trekhsotkovich
    28.07.2015

    It's a paradox, but having a Nikor 80-200mm MK3 lens for a whole year, I always shot with it only at 2.8 !!! And when I tried a fast telephoto lens, my Nikkor 50mm f1.4G sits tightly on the shelf up until the days when I gave up commercial photography and sold the telephoto lens. Only then did he put on a poltykiyik again, and realized that after the telephoto 50 and 85, this was not at all the same. Maybe this is my personal opinion, but I think that the combination of focal ranges in the region of 14-24mm and 70-200mm is divine, and everything that is in the region of 24-85mm is dull ... giving a mediocre picture. Yes, I do not argue that a frame can be extended by 50mm due to good expensive props, due to a naked girl, due to large breasts, due to makeup, correct light, composition, but whatever one may say, frames from super shirikov and telephoto cameras are monumental and divine after you have pressed the shutter button, with these lenses you still have a “masterpiece” button on the camera, and you forget what processing is in general.

    Reply

    • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№
      28.07.2015

      Again, I agree, everything that is close to the angle of view of the eyes of people is simply tired, each has 2 fifty dollars under the eyebrows :)

      Reply

    • Alexander
      09.08.2015

      I consider it my duty to apologize to Trehsotkovich. There was a sin; - I suspected him of being bad ... But what about big tits - he said, so immediately ... like a stone fell from the soul! Our person. It is necessary to shoot this only on Samyang 14mm F2.8 in focus on a full frame, and 70-200 here seem to be not very ... Dear!

      Reply

  10. Star boring. Igor
    28.07.2015

    Thanks to Trehsotkovich for 2,8, and Arkady and Fotik - f4 impressed. According to my needs, the principle turns out to be both necessary (heavy sigh). I will remain a cap for the obvious - glasses are for different tasks and each is beautiful in its own way ...
    Actually, I was planning to take an 80-200mm MK4, but after an unsuccessful purchase of a used 17-35 and stories about whistling and dying motors ... It's a pity - by eye the 80-200mm MK4 still resembles this f4 from the review in sharpness ...

    Reply

    • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
      28.07.2015

      Star boring. Choose Igor first of all with a wallet. So I was guided by this when I took Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 MK3 for 25.000 rubles. I took the BU but in a chic condition, actively used it for a year, and sold it to the next user. I did not notice any whistling of the motor, but maybe because I am a very accurate user, after each shooting I remove the dust from the lenses with a brush, I never wear a protective filter, but I always wear a hood. As soon as I finished shooting, I put everything in a photo backpack and put on all the covers, both back and front, but I saw a lot of photographers who throw a lens into a backpack without covering it with either a front or back cover, and there is always dust in the backpack, that's it and then the motor may whistle and all that follows. You just need to be careful about the technique, and it will last a long time. She is not worth a penny in fact.

      Reply

      • Star boring. Igor
        28.07.2015

        the wallet is the hardest, used prices are +/- the same :)
        17-35 f / 2,8 (picture, f2,8, dying whistle) or 16-35 f / 4 (guaranteed sharpness, 3 stops on BP)
        80-200 f / 2,8 mk3 (picture) or mk4 (picture + sharpness and whistle again)
        And then there's this 70-200 f / 4 sweetie for letf and vaasche (sharpness, 4 stops on BP)
        Now I don't understand at all about BP - before everything was simple for me - the brighter, the better, and now I don't even know, especially since I will take Df in Russia in the fall, and there it is transcendental ...

        Reply

  11. Med
    28.07.2015

    But as for me, the focal 200 eats up space, the picture turns out to be flat. For facial and half-length portraits, this is good, but for everything else ...
    For example, the last photograph with a typewriter taken, say, at 50mm 1.4-1.8, would have looked more spatial and voluminous, IMHO I repeat.

    Reply

    • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
      28.07.2015

      MeD, in your own way, you are 100% right, which means your focal length is 50mm. Photographers are all different. Someone, for example, generally likes to take a facial portrait on Fish-eye, well, do not fight with him because of this, and do not be rude as some here do. To each his own. I also only expressed my point of view on the account of televisions, and on account of f4. Although f4 from this review I did not have. I had only Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 MK3 and I really liked him. Perhaps taking off this new f4 from the review, I would also like something about it. In general, all Nikon brand lenses are wonderful, but each is remarkable in its own way, each has its pros and cons. And it’s wonderful that now in the 21st century, with the help of such resources as Radozhiva, you can exchange your good and bad experience regarding different techniques. So to say, before buying, know what it is cool and what are the disadvantages.

      Reply

    • Alexander
      09.08.2015

      In my opinion, focal lengths from 50 to 135 are good for a facial portrait. Longer ones give the effect of a flat face, and shorter ones, on the contrary. ... And some people even go with such a "bulging" face; - the peoples of the Far North and Alaska are very fond of such effects ...

      Reply

  12. Yarkiya
    28.07.2015

    I do not agree with Trekhsotkovich about UG at 24-85, but I will support 2,8 versus 4, because I myself prefer 105mm 2,8, while I would like and want 70-85mm but f4.

    Reply

    • Alexander Trekhsotkovich
      28.07.2015

      Hi Yarkiy, I don’t make you agree so to speak :) I just voiced what I think about this. What I like does not have to please the whole world. We are all so different. The lens, it's like clothes, XXL suits me, but to someone L, well, now don’t kill everyone who doesn’t want to go to XXL in a hoodie :) That's the forum, so that everyone expresses their opinion if everyone like me he painted in detail WHAT he likes the TV set, and for what, and would have attached it from a photograph, it would have been much easier to judge a particular lens. And here there are only disputes sometimes, instead of constructive and objective evidence of their opinions. Photos taken on this lens show especially awesomeness of the lens, here you showed your photos, I really liked them, especially the last ones that you threw a link to Lynx recently. If you, for example, said that you took all those photos on the lens, for example, 24-70mm f2.8, then I would agree that this glass is beyond praise, and I would be imbued with respect for it. Here's how to prove the coolness of a glass. Sometimes a good photograph speaks of the lens for more than 1000 words.

      Reply

  13. Konstantin
    29.07.2015

    Arkady, good afternoon! Tell me, pliz (you have experience)! In terms of color rendition and sharpness, how much does this lens differ from 70-300 (we are not talking about aperture ratio). The question is simply in finance! Thanks!

    Reply

    • Med
      29.07.2015

      Tamron AF 70-300mm f / 4-5.6 Di VC USD

      Reply

      • Oleg
        29.07.2015

        MeD, although I am not Arkady, I will add my own 5 kopecks. Specified by you Tamron g..vno rare cut. It focuses quickly, but almost always by, chromatite always and everywhere, the stabilizer gives out its presence only with a squeak, and does not affect the quality of photos at all ... If we compare it with a lens of 70-300 class, then only with a native one, the one that is VR

        Reply

      • Med
        29.07.2015

        Strange, all reviewers speak well of him. But I will not argue, I did not use it myself.

        Reply

      • Oleg
        29.07.2015

        Perhaps there is also a variation in the quality of specific specimens, but I came across a frankly weak lens. Even in comparison with the old Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6G this Tampon could only disappoint. Old man Nikon, though not very fast, but very accurately aims, in contrast to the discussed lens, which instantly focused ... into milk. And it also happened and sighted and suddenly let's crawl back and forth from infinity to MDF.
        PS I used both glasses on the D7000 and D90.
        PPS The person who bought my subject was very pleased (in conjunction with the D800)

        Reply

      • Med
        29.07.2015

        Many glasses open on FF, perhaps this. Well, thanks for the tip, I thought about taking such a glass, but I'll think about it for now, because I'm sitting on the crop.

        Reply

  14. Madness scif
    29.07.2015

    Well, something about the fixes you bent ... his amateur nikkor af-s 85. 1.8g will tear like a rag in detail, sharpness and drawing - that's just the autofocus speed ...

    Reply

    • Alexander
      09.08.2015

      Also interested in comparing two lenses; - 85 1.4G and 70-200 F4 on one carcass, one plot at the same time. So on the F4 we had to look for the difference very, very scrupulously, with a microscope…. As for the clarity of the picture, the majority of votes preferred 85. And well deserved! But!!! This is when photographing with a tripod…. but "from hand" 70-200 F4 as you have deigned to express "tears like Tuzik a rag" not only 85-ku, but also a number of fixes without a stub, if the shutter speed is not shorter than 1/400. The stab is really good. I liked the comparison of 70-200 F4 and 70-200 F2.8 more. Amazing glass; - at 2.8 the clarity of the picture is about the same as that of the other at F4 !!! But I prefer the one that is smaller, lighter, more comfortable ... cheaper ...

      Reply

  15. BB
    09.08.2015

    To fix
    "There is a 'VR ON / OFF' button on the lens to turn on / off the stabilizer"
    - again - switch :)

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      09.08.2015

      fixed.

      Reply

  16. ICD
    11.08.2015

    Arkady, good day!
    I have long been waiting for a review of the 70-200 lens on this site. Cooperation Arkady and Fotika cheers and Thank you.
    Arkady, I would still like to hear an opinion about this lens in terms of optical characteristics, usability compared to 70-300 vr, 80-200 (III), 70-200 2.8.
    If possible, please add information to the main text of the review, so the review will be more informative and the information in the comment feed will not be lost.

    Reply

    • ICD
      16.08.2015

      Arkady, I'm still interested in answering my question. The question is not idle because I am the owner of 70-300 vr, and although the lens for today is completely satisfied, sometimes thoughts about a possible replacement flash.

      Reply

      • Lynx
        16.08.2015

        All this is in the reviews. Read

        Reply

      • ICD
        18.08.2015

        I would not ask if it were in the reviews. Specifically, there is no comparison in this review. A cursory mention that 80-200 per stop is not lighter for comparison.

        Reply

      • Lynx
        18.08.2015

        there is no direct comparison, there is as much data for your own comparison.

        Reply

      • ICD
        18.08.2015

        I could tell my opinion about the lenses. If you have experience of use and have something to say.
        And it would be better not to answer ... Honestly. With the same success, you can send to study performance characteristics.

        Reply

      • Lynx
        18.08.2015

        study TTX.
        Your question is initially incorrect.

        Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      18.08.2015

      The question is too voluminous to be answered and answered like this.

      Reply

      • ICD
        18.08.2015

        Of course the question is not cheap.
        But you have experience using these lenses, so I’m sure that there is something to say. Once again, I would like to hear an opinion, I do not count on absolute truth.
        Perhaps, if there is strength and desire, it is worth making an article-comparison about autofocus telephones Nikon (something like articles about portraiture and about fifty dollars).

        Reply

      • Alexander
        22.08.2015

        If everyone is happy with 70-300, then use it and enjoy the result. Arkady is right; - it is very difficult to compare because of the many parameters and nuances in working with lenses. Took Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f / 2.8 G ED VR II (FX) from a friend for comparison with my Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f / 4 G ED VR, took paired shots (maybe even saved somewhere in the archive) and I can say with confidence that even in the open, the 70-200 F2.8 is exceptionally sharp, light, with excellent color rendering, excellent stub, deserves admiration for the picture quality. Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f / 4 loses very little to it in resolution and in that there is no hole 2.8 but ... it is MUCH Lighter, smaller in size, faster in focusing. In the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f / 4 reportage it will do almost everywhere and without flaws. If the situation allows you to take your time, then the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f / 2.8 G ED VR II will be just SUPER, if ... you ignore the price. As for 70-30 vr, of course it loses to the aforementioned Nikkoras both in design, aperture ratio, stabilizer, and in resolution (especially at the long end). But with good quality, the price is acceptable for an amateur! You always want the best ...! Only now you drew attention to the fact that Arkady has quite a lot of beautiful photos, and the lenses and carcasses are very different; - ranging from "ancient" and to expensive super new products. Apparently, a lot is decided by the unusualness of the plot, composition, perspective, light, mood, fantasy in the frame and much more, which creates its attractiveness, and the glass and the carcass are essentially secondary.

        Reply

  17. wharfage
    07.10.2015

    Thank you, as always interesting!

    TO FIX
    on its body, the lens has a special place for installing a tripod cap. Sorry foot

    Reply

  18. Ivan
    13.11.2015

    Please advise, for shooting birds and other fast-running wildlife on a sharp crop camera (most likely D7100) it is better to take this lens or an older and heavier, but also lighter Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f / 2.8G IF-ED?
    Thank you.

    Reply

    • brighty
      13.11.2015

      There he is, with a gun.

      Reply

      • Jury
        13.11.2015

        Serious gun :) And in this nature of the birds still need to search

        Reply

      • brighty
        13.11.2015

        You will be surprised, as I was in my time, it turns out that in this area and even a little further south, almost in the desert, in the drying up river beds and streams, there are more bird species than in any other place on the planet. This has to do with seasonal migrations and something else that I don't know. It is here that their "routes" are migratory, so in addition to local birds, foreigners also drop in, who just stay and relax, and who and bring offspring. Something like that.

        Reply

      • Jury
        13.11.2015

        Surprised - it's a fact :)

        Reply

    • Lynx
      13.11.2015

      two hundred is not enough.
      “Out of poverty”, at the beginning you can take 70-300, but in general you need something like a light three hundred, plus a good 1,5x or 2x converter in addition.

      Reply

    • Alexey
      02.12.2015

      judging by the reviews, Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f / 2.8G IF-ED has a design flaw - focus shift. the problem is irreparable because it is inherent in the design of the lens.
      When buying this lens, consider this feature and how to get around it. The problem has been discussed in forums since 2010))).
      it is possible that it was less noticeable on the D700, but on modern FF it is easy to determine.

      Reply

  19. brighty
    13.11.2015

    Actually, for birds, 200 mm will not be enough. Sometimes 300mm is not enough. One friend generally walks with a 600mm fix. Purposefully living creatures in nature removes.

    Reply

    • brighty
      13.11.2015

      Well, the birds, respectively.

      Reply

    • brighty
      13.11.2015

      And here's another.

      Reply

      • Lynx
        13.11.2015

        good!

        Reply

  20. Ivan
    16.11.2015

    I shot all this season at 300/4 (without AF-S which) for a full 12MP frame.
    Switching to a more modern crop will give me the same EGF of 200, but with the convenience of a zoom. And probably with a large aperture of 2.8
    Or go to 300/4 AF-S (the focus speed of the previous upset)?
    I definitely won’t carry around for weeks with 500-600 mm. And they cost in space, but my idea is not monetized.
    So, colleagues:
    lightweight 70-200 / 4
    light 70-200 / 2,8
    or fix 300/4
    ?

    Reply

    • Yarkiya
      16.11.2015

      No, dear, you ask difficult questions, and the financial component is not easy. 70-200 2.8 is the same professional for a lot of money, plus versatility compared to 300 mm fix. 70-200 4, this is a budget option of excellent quality. And 300 mm is just an old screwdriver fix, not cheap, by the way.
      If you do not often use focal lengths from 70 to 200, then it may make sense to take 300 mm, but you need to look for just that, because the older three hundred are inferior to it optically and do not have autofocus. Although screwdriver autofocus for liveliness, it’s still a pleasure.
      Perhaps 70-200 f4 plus 2x tele-converter, the best option for money, quality, speed and convenience.

      Reply

      • Ivan
        02.12.2015

        In the secondary market of zooms 70-200, options 2.8 (MK3 of 2002) and 4 (2012) are comparable.
        Which one is sharper in the center and focuses faster? Really F4!?

        Reply

  21. Sergei
    20.11.2015

    - At the cost of the new Nikon 70-200 / 4G, you can easily buy the new Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1: 2.8D MKIII, and many users will puzzle over which lens to purchase. On the one hand, the Nikon 70-200 / 4G has an amazing stabilizer, a built-in motor, convenient focusing, N-enlightenment and other goodies, on the other hand, the Nikon 80-200 / 2.8D MKIII is 1 stop lighter .-

    I don't have birds - the pool with mermaids and 70-300 is very dark. This is where the question 70-200 / 4 vs 80-200 / 2.8 arises. They are in the same price and the aperture is important for me, but there is one important but - the D610 camera, how the motor works, I did not check all the SWM lenses with me, but all the time I often come across negative information.

    Reply

  22. Sergei
    20.11.2015

    Mermaids !!!

    Reply

  23. Alexander
    21.11.2015

    Let's start with the bad ones. Heavy lenses cannot be moved quickly. 80-200 is a good lens, but ... 2.8 is "working" on condition of portrait LARGE plan, where special permission is not needed. Long-range group plans will be 2.8 noticeably lower in quality. And then ... the group sex must still be put in the DOF; - also confusing. The point in 2.8 is already dubious. In reality, 80-200 is noticeably inferior to 70-200 in resolution at all focal lengths (at 200 only in the center it is a little better, but loses in the field; - for a full-frame carcass, this is important). The plots are dynamic; - stub 70-200 does NOT save. At the short end, 70-200 is still wider and very sharp, and this is an important detail ... Now about the good; - The D610 allows you to use ISO 3200 without problems, 6400 is sometimes not bad either. Taking into account the “nimble” and stable autofocus, the choice would have stopped in this case at 70-200f4 (with all the sympathy for the 80-200).

    Reply

  24. Alexey
    02.12.2015

    Arkady again does not mention the "scourge" of many Nikon lenses - the focus shift problem.
    in the version on 2.8, the focus shift is a real problem; in 4 focus, the shift is still noticeable if desired, but due to the greater depth of field the problem is well masked.
    I see evidence of focus shift: there may be a tiny touch at shorter subject distances but DOF will have it covered. On a related topic, faster lenses find it easier to focus accurately (shallower DOF and more light = easier focus differentiation) but are more prone to focus shift. Compared to the 70-200 F2.8VRII I think the new lens has a slight advantage because, though it is focussing at F4 and therefore with more DOF and less light, it is not subject to the more notable focus shift of the older lens between focusing aperture at F2.8 and shooting aperture when shooting at F4 or smaller.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      02.12.2015

      When working with this lens, focus shift is the last thing you can gripe about :)

      Reply

      • Alexey
        02.12.2015

        Yes, often everything is perfectly masked by a large DOF.
        Arkady, the question is not about what to find fault with, but about the description of the lens features - is this the point of the review? if it is interesting to read only the laudatory, you can open Nikon's ad)))
        many nikon lenses have design problems and, as a result, focus shift. before it was hardly noticeable due to 12MP, now it is noticeable at 24MP and 36MP.
        if you don’t know what the problem is, you can search for a problem for a long, very long time why the AF worked poorly)))
        although the problem is not with AF with a lens feature at all)

        Reply

      • anonym
        02.12.2015

        how did you get sick

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        02.12.2015

        "In 4 focus shift is still noticeable if desired, but due to the greater depth of field, the problem is well masked."

        If I want to, I can find any flaw on any lens :)

        Reply

      • Alexey
        02.12.2015

        I don’t think so.
        The focus focus problem is one of the most serious in the work of the pros.
        it leads to problems with getting into focus and getting technical marriage.
        you can correct the distortion, HA, talk about the picture, but if the focus didn’t get where the picture goes to the basket.
        as a rule, in serious reviews they do a test for focus shift or at least indicate this feature.
        preview, photozone, tests for photolife, camelab, etc.
        don't mind if the lens costs $ 100. It's a shame when its price is $ 1500 or more with such a defect.
        touches the situation when an amateur spends 1500 dollars or more on a lens and then in a simple test on a tripod sees a "creeping" focus)))

        Reply

      • Alexey
        02.12.2015

        here with the preview. people saw a problem on version 2.8

        focus shift is just due to the stopping down of the aperture. Also VR is off.
        Did some more testing earlier around 100-130mm at closer focus distances, to quantify how much focus shift there is. Unfortunately it seems that even at 10m and under focus distances, there can be pretty noticeable focus shift. I think that the lens is pretty much unusable at these middle focal lengths at apertures other than f / 2.8, unless you can tolerate a good amount of focus error / front-focusing.
        I just did some comparison testing with another copy of the lens .. and preliminary observations suggest that this might be normal behavior for the lens (eg this behavior is built into the design). In other words, there is noticeable focus shift from 100-160mm on stopping down the aperture, that gets worse with more distant subjects.

        Reply

  25. Yarkiya
    02.12.2015

    Ray, I appeal to you! Stop it ... then just mats.

    Reply

    • Peter Sh.
      02.12.2015

      Just a person has no one to talk to. But in another way he does not know how.

      Reply

  26. Load more comments ...

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer