A week ago I decided to get this lens. It is mounted on a full frame Nikon D700 that I use. Paid for with one's spirit. When shooting with this bundle, it is a great pleasure since it is light and it does not occasionally attract attention that is not essential. Incredible crispness can be seen everywhere. All of the matrix's pixels are rendered in detail while using RAW. The colors are rendered really accurately. Because I have a 24-70 f/2.8 lens, I have something to use as a standard of…

Of course, it is not a wide-angle lens, but these criticisms are more pedantic given that the focal length of the camera is 50mm. Again, I was aware of what I was purchasing, but I think it is important to point out that there is not a stub on it. Of course, in the majority of instances, it will not be required on it; however, the fact remains that you will mess up ten out of every five hundred photographs due to the absence of a stub. The work is precise and has depth. I put in a lot of effort

Now that I've had my first fix, it's time for me to write a short review about it. For a considerable amount of time, I debated between the 50 mm 1.8 and the 1.4. I decided to get 1.8 after taking a few test photos with it. The picture quality was not to my liking. Greases. Inaccurate focus. It would appear that the lens also needs some sort of correction. It was determined that we would replace the lens with a 1.4. Nevertheless, in order to indulge in this luxury—which required an additional…

Go along, you newcomers. It is not necessary for you to post evaluations if you do not comprehend the reason behind why you require such glass. I noticed here that someone mentioned that the aperture ratio is subpar, which makes sense given how unclear the picture is. Yeah, he possesses a depth of field of millimeters; hence, he referred to the blur zone as the soap zone. Just putting on the poker face. There were a total of four fifty dollars: this one, 1.4d, 1.8d, and 1.8g. Take 1.8g with you

I bought it to replace a sigma that was very similar to it (you can read my review of it here). I came to the conclusion that I required a fifty dollar lens that was lighter, more compact, and had a resolution that was more consistent across the field. I shot some photos, and the following are some thoughts I have after comparing Nikon and Sigma on the D800: When there is an open hole, the contrast is lower, but the edge resolution is higher. XA is noticably inferior since there are a greater…

Has pros: Aperture, bokeh, color reproduction, almost no XA, normal work on mine from f1.8 (I think this is very good) Got cons: Lack of VR (noticeable after using zooms with VR, VR2) shooting at f-1,4 is a big problem, autofocus is slightly slow (but I think it’s not scary for a portrait lens)

Has some pros 1) on an open aperture, excellent bokeh. 2) 9 aperture blades 3) autofocus is very fast. 4) if an excellent staffer will run with his feet. Different cons: The price - 13 tyk is certainly a bit much, but if anything, he will perfectly cope with his task in full frame. Production China. Bland falls.

In the store, make sure the emphasis is accurate! It's possible for the findings to vary depending on the carcass! As I printed off a copy on my Nikon D60, the head and waist pictures were sharply focused, and the full-length photographs had clear front focus throughout. Back focus was achieved by the same lens on the D7000 in both the head and waist pictures; however, in the full-length photos, it "flew" even further back, behind the subject. Fixable on the D7000 by changing the focus…

I took it to replace the one that came with the whale, and the one that came with the whale is now stored away. The lens is of the highest quality. When attempting to take shots of the topic and the street. Everyone who is interested in fashionable bokeh should purchase it so that they may be satisfied that their money was not wasted. My sole request is that the production process use metal rather than plastic, and that the hood be made of metal. After the autofocus has been applied, the…

I purchased it in a Nikon store approximately five years ago at a space discount (for them) of approximately twelve thousand dollars. When the increase in the rate is taken into account, the price per unit is roughly equivalent to what it is now for 24–25 thousand (as it costs at a minimum on the Market). With all of its perks. Because of the camera's shallow depth of field, it enables photographers of skill to create photographs with a high degree of artistic expression. It is also good when…

In point of fact, this lens was intended to be used as a fast lens (for those who aren't familiar with the term "fast lens," it refers to the ability to open the aperture wide and snap photos of a high-quality in a shorter amount of time while simultaneously lowering the iso value). Because of this, there will be no blurring in the images that are captured, and you will be able to take clear photographs without the need of a tripod even in dimly illuminated environments (making it excellent for

Using the Nikon D7100 camera that I have been using for over two years, I have been utilizing the lens. It is recommended to use apertures between 4.0 and 8.0, even though the bokeh will not be as smooth as it was when using wider apertures. The lens is not terrible in general and produces a picture of a decent quality beginning at aperture 2.8. chromatic aberrations, as well as a small size and vignetting. Aperture 1.4 appears to be more of a marketing gimmick than a genuine need when viewed…

Nice lens, no backlash and no squeaks, the motor allows you to use autofocus on budget carcasses. Mounted on a NIKON D5300, it works fast, takes beautiful pictures. Supplemented with a regular 18-55mm, but looks more solid. It was purchased at CSN for 30k in March 2022, the kit also comes with a hood and a fabric muzzle. Has some pros Aperture, as a result, the ability to reduce the depth of field, is very fast, the weight is invisible. It has its own focus motor. Its cons: not identified, but…

I am completely satisfied! Opinions about sharpness here, I look, differ, but with f2.0 everything is chiki-farts. Under certain conditions (i. E. rarely) at 1.4 to 2 I happen to be XA. And let me remind you that it loses version D only in terms of AF speed, but in other parameters it’s better, who doesn’t believe, there is evidence =)) Different pros: Aperture)) Tenacious AF. Decent drawing And what's not typical is a decent price! The construct is awesome. Different cons: I thought AF would

A good lens for portraits and other leisurely shooting, however, due to the outdated optical design, it seriously loses to more modern counterparts in quality. Aperture 1.4 is not working even on the Nikon D750 (24 MPix), so there is no point in overpaying for additional aperture. It is better to buy an analogue from Sigma or Tamron. Got pros: - Sharp from aperture 2.5 - Excellent bokeh - Beautiful three-dimensional picture - Pretty accurate autofocus - Lightweight and compact - Has moisture…

Excellent glass, from which my passion for photography began. I bought it as a portrait lens for a kit kit (D60+18-55VR). It behaves great, is not afraid of rain (the gum is only covered with salt, well, it is under the filter, of course). I recommend it to everyone who photographs people on the crop. Pros: 1. Aperture. 2. Sharpness. 3. Bokeh. 4. Minor HA. 5. Beautiful drawing. 6. Lightweight and compact. 7. Hood included. ) Some cons: 1. The speed and tenacity of focus can be better, but

You need to have such glass in your arsenal. But I wouldn't rely on him. I'll probably get rid of it, I'll take AF 1.8 With its pros. If the focus is exactly hit, then the picture is sharp as diarrhea. In the dark at D4 ISO 6400, you can forget about puff. Earn some money in CS and the picture will just download. And the color reproduction is true. In general, I recommend it for leisurely shooting. Has some cons D4 has a great advantage, rate of fire (11 fps)! But, with this 50 / 1.4, all the…

So it's time to write a small review about my first fix. So, initially I chose between 50 mm 1.8 and 1.4 for a long time. After a few test shots, I bought 1.8. I didn't like the picture quality. Greases. Inaccurate focus. The lens, apparently, also required adjustment. It was decided to exchange the lens for 1.4. Although, I had to pay extra for this pleasure (in exchange for a more expensive model) several thousand. (But it was not in vain. The quality of the picture and the 1.4 lens itself is

An excellent lens if used for its intended purpose (portrait, product photography, even landscape). It behaves very well on inexpensive cameras like D40x. Different pros: A very pleasant and high-quality image (a combination of sharpness over the entire area of ​​​​the frame, contrast, color and very pleasant bokeh). The appearance is very solid (but not tired) with a small weight and acceptable dimensions. Got cons: "Macro" at an average level (chromatic oberations are visible, a slight drop…

I bought it in a Nikon store about five years ago at a space (for them) discount for about 12 thousand. Taking into account the jump in the rate, it’s about the same as now for 24-25 thousand to take (as it costs at a minimum on the Market). With its pros. In skillful hands, it can take very artistic photos due to the shallow depth of field. It is also good with a clear lack of light (aperture 1.4 - more than almost any "zoom"). The picture is good, with the right focus, everything is sharp and