Header banner
Revain logoHome Page

Reviews

Global ratings 44
  • 5
    27
  • 4
    8
  • 3
    5
  • 2
    2
  • 1
    2

Type of review

Revainrating 5 out of 5

Just super, it's beautifully made, I'm very happy with it.

I tried a rather extensive fleet of Nikon optics. And both fixes and zooms. The last time I shot on a crop with an AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55 / 2.8G lens. After switching to full frame, I took this particular lens. Although, after reading the reviews of some of the speakers, at first I doubted . Is it really disgusting? Brad is complete! Came to the store. I installed it on my D600 and took a series of shots. I especially paid attention to the focal length of 70 mm. because many write that it is on…

Pros
  • Sharpness, aperture ratio, color rendition, unkillable design and workmanship.
Cons
  • Weight and thread for filters 77 mm. - very expensive.

Revainrating 1 out of 5

The product is very low quality, not what you need at all.

This lens is still more amateur than professional, unlike the same 14-24 and 70-200. And mainly for those who like to impress others or sometimes even rare "customers". But not with their work, but with the size of the lens. But why do you think there are no zooms at all in real professional photography. Why doesn't Nikon (as well as Canon and the rest) shoot ads about the same 24-70 on their magic zooms? Some may say that advertising is one thing and reporting is another. But look at the same

Pros
  • The lens is well made and just gorgeous. If we consider it in a vacuum.
Cons
  • I somehow brought one from the states, but sold it, never finding any sense in it for myself. Although, of course, I perfectly understand that there are conditions in which it is actually necessary. But those who find themselves in such conditions are unlikely to buy this lens based on market reviews.

Revainrating 3 out of 5

The item is average, not sure if it's worth the money.

The scope of this lens is short-range reporting, portrait in the interior. At aperture 4 and no longer interested in this lens and I would like anti-shake. But Nikon 16-35, 4 has anti-shake, and the angle is larger. And this is another optics. In principle, a good lens, but, taking into account the shortcomings, not the fundamental advantages, I easily replaced it with Nikon 24-85G, VR. We are waiting for a new 24-70)), Kenon has already ated. I expect negative ratings, but I'm used to thinking

Pros
  • Solid. Constant rel. bore. Sharp in the center, beautiful bokeh. Top like iPhone
Cons
  • Too many unfortunately: Not for landscapes with a horizon line: thinks along the edge to the right. Focus on a plane only at 50mm, on a wide one it is more of a focal sphere.) The long end is soapy. Of course, if aperture 4 is better, but we pay for working 2,8) There is no anti-shake, well, I knew that when I took it)) The rubber bands were swollen, removed, soaked in gasoline, dried, and put aside, and in their place I glued suede on self-adhesive) The zoom quickly began to jam. It’s good that he was able to disassemble and lubricate, but this is not for long . And I don’t want to a second time) it’s difficult. At 50mm, you need to cover the window with the distance scale with your hand, there is a flash (Nikon recognized this and eliminated it in the new ones with anti-shake)

Revainrating 5 out of 5

A valuable purchase, some advantages!

I gave an example here with Tamron, and so Nikon is good in every respect in terms of pictures, except for chrome aberrations, they are not strong, but they are compared to Tamron. Otherwise, Tamron loses. But as already mentioned in the reviews, dust particles, that is, small ones, in my copy, indeed, if you look from the rear lens by pushing the aperture petal with your finger, you can see a few micro dust particles, such particles will not affect the operation of the lens a little, because…

Pros
  • High sharpness is already at f2.8 both in the center of the frame and at the edges. The build quality is pleasant to the touch. Dust and waterproof case. Good bokeh, resistant to bright backlight.
Cons
  • Chromatic aberrations compared to the same Tamron 24-70. No stabilizer.