|
Author
|
|
peterpp
Registered User
Registered: July 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Fri July 27, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $3,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast lens, good performance
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy
|
|
I find it to be a excellent great performing lens.
It is big, the filter size is 105mm and the polarizer for it cost me 260$ .
And it is heavy but with practice can be handheld, though a tripod 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.
Quite happy with the purchase.
|
|
|
|
coach 45
Registered User
Registered: August 2007
Location: ct
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Mon August 20, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Constent 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
No VR
|
|
The lense would be better if it had vibration reduction but with a tripod you get great results
|
|
|
|
|
DrAnt
Registered User
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Thu November 8, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics
|
|
Cons:
|
NoVR/IS
|
|
Works great, especially when stopped down just a bit. With a 2x TC it's an amazing 600/5.6. Hard to hand hold for more than a few minutes but works great on a monopod. The zoom is a nice addition. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Margiocchi
Registered User
Registered: February 2008
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 62
|
|
Review Date: Thu February 7, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 0
|
|
I am just replacing mine, it has served me very well. Therefore if anyone is looking for a second hand Nikon fit 120-300mm f2.8 in super condition let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Luke-Fotografia
Luke-Fotografia
Registered: June 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Wed July 2, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $2,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast constent f2.8, Great zoom range, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
No VR/OS
|
|
Great telephoto lens for the price ($2,300). The 1.4x TC works great on my Nikon D300. Fast AF/AE. The zoom is a little stiff, hope it will loosen up w/ use.
|
|
|
|
|
stylgeo
Registered User
Registered: April 2009
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 32
|
|
Review Date: Fri April 3, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, even wide open, fast AF, built like a tank, great value
|
|
Cons:
|
Small lens hood, matte paint easy to scratch and peels off
|
|
I am rating this lens a 10 for what it is. I am not comparing it with other lenses because there is absolutely no lens on the market that is similar to this one: a constant f/2.8 zoom to 300mm.
I've had this lens for over a year now and I've got brilliant results with it. It's very sharp even wide open and I don't hesitate to use it at f/2.8 because I know it produces brilliant results, and that's quite amazing for a zoom lens. It does get better at f/3.2, and at f/4 it looks as if it went through serious USM in PS.
It handles purple fringing quite well, and it's only noticable wide open at extreme situations, which is easily fixed in PP.
300mm is a bit short for birding, but it does work great with both TCs. The 2x TC had to be stepped down quite a bit to get the sharpness I was after (I am a pixel peeper to be honest) so I tend to just use the 1.4x with this lens.
The lens hood is a bit small for this lens, compared with Canon's 300mm 2.8. I do get the occasional flare when I aim towards the sun, and I think that with a bigger lens hood this could've been avoided.
Some deal the lack of IS/VR/OS as a negative. Why? I know it would've been a better lens with stabilisation but people know this before they buy the lens. If it had stabilisation and it was rubbish, then yeah, that would be a negative aspect of the lens. But this is a non-stabilised lens and we should treat it as that.
I find the size and weight of it quite convenient. I hand hold it all of the time, and I only use a tripod for when I am in a hide. It's really manageable hand-held, even though there is a learning curve for it. The weight for it helps with vibrations and if you use proper long-lens techniques you'll manage to get sharp results even with slower shutterspeeds. I manage to get tack-sharp photos at 1/150 sec. regularly. At that shutterspeeds I tend to take 3-4 photos to make sure that at least one is sharp, but I never fail to get a sharp photos at that speeds, and I think that it's down to the lens' weight.
The matte paint is bad. It does make it feel a bit warmer during winter, it doesn't slip either. It does what it's supposed to do, but it's easy to scratch, and after a year it's starting to peel off. I have been treating it quite badly to be honest, but it shouldn't be that bad. My advice would be to get a lenscoat for the lens as soon as you buy it, if you want to keep it in mint condition. I don't really care about any blemishes or peeled paint as long as the lens works, but most people do.
All in all a great lens. I am in the process of buying a long prime, probably the 600mm, and I am doing my best to avoid selling this one because I really love it. My excuse for keeping it is that it's a great focal range for larger wildlife, and it's an amazing lens for BIF shots!
------------------------------
Regards,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to BirdForum.
