bridges's reviews

  • Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    range, IQ

    Great build quality, no zoom creep at all. Fantastic range, can't beat this for a DX body.

    sharper than my 17-55 f2.8 this is the one to carry around

    reviewed June 4th, 2008 (purchased for $720)
  • Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    no VC

    Great IQ, sharp as can be. Tested in shop with VC, but VC was noticably soft, while this was tack sharp. Went for this even tho using Nikon.

    VC is sharp stopped to f5, but you don't buy f2.8 to use at f5. I'll keep my 16-85 VR for general work and this for f2.8 work.

    as for noise, don't notice it. Bit wierd having AF ring move vs SWM, but really, not any louder than mirror slap. SWM is faster tho.

    reviewed December 30th, 2009 (purchased for $360)
  • Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    fast, smooth
    size, zoom ring turns 'wrong' way, plastic filter ring

    Zoom is smooth like other recent sigmas, HSM is fast, quiet. Hood is smooth to put on, but feels not secure.
    Construction feels solid, tho I prefer Nikkor ON/OFF switches to Sigma's.

    There's no full time manual override, not an issue for me. Zoom turns the wrong way, that's quite poor on their part. No weather sealing, also a bit poor since it'd be trivial to add that rubber seal at the mount at least.

    Barrel extends when zooming, and the Barrel surface itself isn't smooth, that doesn't feel so good.

    reviewed November 8th, 2010 (purchased for $670)
  • Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    silent, Sharp, fast AF
    not accurate AF, slow with IS

    good 100mm macro lenses, it's well built but not heavy. Not sure it meets requirements for 'L' sign like others, maybe Canon is getting lax on this?

    focus limiters is needed, if IS is on it hunts a lot. If off, may as well get the no-IS and save $$$$. I use tripod anyway.

    compared it to the Sigma 105 Macro it's a bit sharper, but not sure if worth the extra cost. Against the old non-IS, it's similar, maybe the non-IS has a slight edge. It comes down to tripod and cost again.

    reviewed January 6th, 2011 (purchased for $988)