Excellent optics for the price that are suitable for casual shooting. Do not shoot sports unless you have access to light filters; otherwise, you are free to do so. While taking photographs of natural settings while utilizing light filters, such as polarizing and gradient filters, the resulting images are noticeably more stunning. Since all three lenses—the 18-55, the 35 1.8 (indoors), and the 55-200 IF-ED (full set, best value for the money)—have filter threads measuring 52 millimeters, it is…

For a very long time, I was unable to decide between the Sigma 70-300 and the Nikon, and as a consequence, the Nikon proved to be the superior option. For those who write that it's a bit dark in the room, then the aperture is written on the lens, and expecting from him that he will be like portraits with 2,8 or 1,8 is stupid, and I can't imagine in what rooms such a lens might be needed, the second was written about slow autofocus, when compared with 35mm 18-140, I didn't see a difference; the…

No matter how stupid it may sound, but often even took portraits of him. Below are 2 photos of an example of photo quality, without fsh (I didn’t add sharpness, etc., just the built-in filters of the camera). Has pros: For the price, this is the best solution. In terms of image quality, it is not inferior to a TV set from a full card. I especially liked the sharpness, after other crop lenses, this is extremely noticeable. Also a good stub. Got cons: Terrible lens hood: creaks, spins, shakes. A…

I took it to the d5100 in addition to the kit 18-55 lens, the overall impressions are positive. Comes with hood and pouch. The most affordable lens of this quality and performance. Has pros: Excellent zoom, autofocus, wonderful bokeh, excellent stabilizer - pictures come out without moving, pleasant to look at and feel. Has cons: Dark, it is moderately expressed, for example, in cloudy weather. There is slight color chromatic aberration at 300mm for objects against the sky. With a hood…

This is my first lens, like the first DSLR, a 5100 carcass. I am satisfied with the purchase. There are, of course, some minor drawbacks, but they are corrected in more expensive telephoto cameras, and this is an ordinary budget telephoto lens. Pros below: Regular budget telephoto lens with autofocus and image stabilization Its cons: Weak in aperture ratio, but in daylight and evening lighting conditions it is quite enough, all the more budget lenses have about the same aperture ratio, but I’m…

In general, the device is good. Satisfied. Got pros: Decent zoom. An excellent stabilizer at any distance with adequate shutter speed. Good optics, compared to a whale, the colors are more vibrant and realistic. Fast focus. Works great with depth of field. Different cons: In autofocus, he lives his own life, which was not observed on others. In the same position and focal length, it can take its own focus for each picture. This behavior is unfortunately not predictable. Autofocus also resembles

I bought this gun because I wanted to shoot birds and objects that I couldn’t get close to. I was surprised by the price, sharpness, which is at a fairly high level, although the more you hold down the aperture, the more of the frame will be sharp. The maximum sharpness across the frame is around f 11-16 and around 70-200mm. I was also surprised by the stub, you hold down the focus and the picture freezes, but it doesn’t always save. I focus on one point, and there are no problems with…

Although there are drawbacks, but let's be honest, at this price, these are more features. Although it lathers from 200 mm, the picture is still clearer than on nikkor 55-200 (I tested 55-200 before buying). The stabilizer is really excellent with a shutter speed of 1/15 without problems (with the necessary skill, 1/4 is also possible). In general, I am satisfied with the choice.

All in all, an excellent piece of glass for its price range. If you put it on instead of a whale, you immediately notice that it is sharper. A focal length of 300 mm is enough for everything, even small birds are quite handy for taking pictures of them. It is quite possible to forgive for the rotating front lens - but an excellent optical stabilizer is put there. Included is a solid cylindrical lens hood.

This lens, and also considering that previously there was only Nikon 18 -55, with which they bought the D 3100 camera itself, is really cool, the goods themselves were brought almost a week earlier than stated. They started testing it as soon as they got it, everything works, everything suits. Approaches well, sharpness too. Everything is as stated. Many thanks to the seller. This is my first purchase on this site and very successful.

The disadvantages mentioned above are not all manifested. The lens hood is easy to install and remove, auto-tuning is almost the same as that of Kit18-55, for a professional it can be slow, but this is not a professional. The front lens extends and rotates, but you don’t need to twist it. With a hood, the front glass is also covered. Dark is also relative. Expected the worst. In general, I doubted very much whether to take it or not. I was thinking of picking up a more expensive model. Make…

I have been using it for more than a year, it gives a good picture on the D7000. It washes the background well, when shooting portraits (I can’t compare with fixes), focal lengths make it a good travel zoom. It annoys me with slow autofocus, which sometimes also smears, a moving trunk that rotates when focusing. In general, for such money, normal glass, price / quality corresponds.

He took 55-200 in return for work in the theater. The focal lengths cover everything you need, but are very dark. ISO has to be pressed . Horror. Accordingly, in a room without a flash (theater, gym, etc.), due to high ISO, it is difficult to get a good picture. The stub is good, but it grabs rather slowly and does not always help when shooting moving (dancing) people. I use it for a short time, but the feeling that the picture in comparison with 55-200 is better. Especially portraits. At the

The lens attracts with a price (11,399). The weak point of the lens is autofocus, and everything connected with it! In low light, autofocus misses are common. Where the Nikkor 18-105 confidently clings to the subject, the 55-300 helplessly crawls with its "trunk", and only 2-3 times does it manage to confidently cling to the target! The motor sounds like the one in Nikkor 18-55, and the speed is the same. In addition, the focus ring is blocked when the switch is set to the "A" position, and it…

For such money - an excellent zoom lens, it is convenient to shoot animals, birds. You just have to remember to tighten the aperture on very distant scenes, otherwise the depth of field is small, not everything always fits into it. for my taste, the real aperture is 8 and higher, but with VR you can shoot with this and not only during the day - I shot it with my hands at 300mm for 1/60 of a second shutter speed - it turns out sharply.

I bought it a week ago for 12800. Very pleased with the quality (made in China)! Portraits in soft colors are not bad, of course, the same "fifty dollars" will draw everything more realistically and with high quality, but now it's not about him). As a macro lens not suitable. I managed to click the birds - like a telephoto camera for photography, it showed itself perfectly, but with one correction - autofocus does not have time for fast moving objects, so it smears a lot in this situation, for…

This lens is my first love. It was with him that my acquaintance with the world of telephoto began. It had to be sold in order to switch to 70-300 VR - it is devoid of all the shortcomings of 55-300. But after 3 years, I was so tormented by nostalgia for its colors and tactile sensations that I bought it again! Unlike the hard, sharp, fast and cold 70-300VR, the 55-300 is a very creative soft-focus telephoto more suited to nature photography than dry industrial reporting.

For the money, excellent optics for leisurely shooting. If you don’t use light filters, don’t shoot sports - feel free to take it! When using light filters: gradient and polarizing - all the same, with them in nature, the pictures are much more beautiful. The 18-55, 35 1.8 (indoors), and 55-200 IF-ED (full set, best value for money) have 52mm filter threads, allowing the same filter to be used on all three lenses , and when buying 55-300, you will have to buy a filter for it separately, the…

Filming a theatrical scene with a flash. Everything is super. Focus is more than enough. Tried with flash and without. If the lighting is excellent and these are inactive objects, then without a flash at ISO 600-800 and a short shutter speed you can shoot, it comes out just amazing. And if they are dancing, then in order not to press the ISO, you need to connect a flash, though it gives a red tint with general plans, but everything can be removed in Photoshop. The portraits are simply…

I really love this glass. If it were not for the need to sometimes shoot in dark rooms, I would use it almost all the time. A little soapy at 300mm, but not always and not critical. Autofocus is not the fastest, although I got the hang of shooting even sports. Lightweight, comfortable, sharp enough - in general, for such money, there are only advantages. Of the analogues, there are 55-200, the 55-300 has a better picture at times.