nohm's reviews

  • Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR AF-S Nikkor

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    tack sharp; built like a tank
    more consideration could have gone into the ring placements

    I first rented this lens to test, and let me just say that I ended up paying late fees because I didn't want to return it back to the rental shop. This glass is quite an improvement over the already superb predecessor, the 80-200 f2.8 in all areas.

    I have a knack for shooting under poor lighting, and the VR on this telephoto just made shooting effortless. I got very sharp images at 1/10sec and down to 2/3 steps lower using VR and proper shooting techniques.

    Now that I own a copy, I'm very pleased with the consistency the glass brings me.

    This one is the breadwinner, so anyone considering this lens should stop hesitating; hurry up and save enough money to'll thank yourself later when you look back.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006 (purchased for $1,300)
  • Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF DX AF-S Nikkor

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Lives up to pro-line standards if you received good copy of lens
    Inconsistency with quality control of each individual copy of lens

    As many have mentioned before, its tricky to get your hands on a good copy of this lens from Nikon. I've tried renting a few copies and taking sample shots with them, and the image quality did vary between them.

    Needless to say though, the ones that were "proper" produced images fit for a pro-line lens among the Nikkor lineup. f2.8 all throughout is a necessity for indoor low light shooting, and this lens delivers on par with similar 17-35 f2.8 Nikkor within their respective ranges. Also, because this lens is light in weight in comparison to the 17-35 f2.8 or the 28-70 f2.8, this lens makes for a great walkaround pro lens. Would recommend if budget fits.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006 (purchased for $1,110)
  • Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    great build, image quality is
    on the heavy side, and would be better if range was a tad longer than 35mm

    The lens for photojournalism. It seems that many people don't know much about this lens and would rather take interest in the newer 17-55 f2.8 DX. In my experiences with both lenses, I would consider the 17-35 the better performer across the board unless you're in need of the extra 36-55 that I found somewhat of a wishful "could have" for this 17-35.

    Although my copy was a bit soft at 17mm end, all around this lens is sharp, minimal on chromatic aberrations, and contrast is excellent. Again, because this is pro line, the aperture is constant f2.8 throughout, so it's great for low light. Creates realistic bokeh.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006 (purchased for $1,000)
  • Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED DX AF-S Nikkor

    9 out of 10 points and recommended

    Maybe I lucked out when I got a copy of this lens as park of my D50 kit, but this lens was great while I still owned it.

    It's undeniable that there is softness around the wide end, and the distortion will require some post production tweaks for those who need everything parallel, but besides that, the color and contrast were consistent enough to produce great images on my end. This lens truely is underrated, and it's unfortunate that Nikon quality control kinda copped out with here.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006
  • Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Nikkor

    10 out of 10 points and recommended

    Whenever I hold this lens, I feel like I'm holding on to a heavy artillery shell because of its rock steady build, weight, and tremendous image quality. Warning to those who are on active shoots that last longer than 2hours...this lens will pull a number on your wrist.

    This lens is expensive, and one should consider before hand if they should opp for a wider lens because I did notice myself wanting more wider range.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006
  • Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G AF Nikkor

    8 out of 10 points and recommended

    Although this lens is made from plastic and feels like a toy, I would consider this a respectable piece of glass. For what it's worth (as a budget lens), the lens offers acceptable contrast and color with minimal chromatic aberration.

    However, my copy had some trouble with focusing under low lighting (even at f3.3) as the lens constantly tried to hunt down the subject and created alot of noise while at it. Also, this lens would require a wider lens to compensate for the short range on the wide side.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006
  • Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor

    9 out of 10 points and recommended

    If I could start over, I would have gotten this prime with my initial dSLR.

    The lens build is acceptable and doesn't feel cheap IMO.

    Color seemed a bit cool on my copy, but contrast was superb.

    The bokeh is a tad unrealistic, but creates beauty in it's own right.

    Since this is has no SWM, the lens does produce some moderate focusing noises.

    Metering indication comes out a tad overexposed, so adjustments will likely have to be made.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006
  • Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro

    9 out of 10 points and recommended

    Was a bit disappointed with the lack of a "snap" in the sharpness, but this lens does produce wonderful color and acceptable contrast.

    The lens is fairly compact for a super tele, but the barrel extends out nearly 50% of the body when zoomed out to the max 300mm (may cause unbalance in handholding).

    Build quality is great with the velvety texture yet sturdy feel that Sigma's offer.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006
  • Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF

    9 out of 10 points and recommended

    The poor man's 17-55 Canon/Nikon equivalent lens.

    I didn't mind while I owned it. :D

    The image quality is barely any different than my new 17-55, if not slightly better on the wide end.

    For those of you sulking in depression over not being able to afford those expensive pro line lens, wake up. This lens is more than qualified to fullfill your needs at a much cheaper price.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006