![]() In any case, if someone offers you $300 to accept the lens, you certainly should. The real question is if it is better than a kit zoom on APS-C digital. Actually, it seems to be a well-made little lens. Mechanically, it's very smooth except for the aperture ring, which feels like it might have the same kind of corrosion problem inside it that we see in the front of the lens. Really darn good for a lens I normally would have run away from, especially given that it's a wide zoom (not a good thing for old lenses). The tree bark is quite sharp and the bokeh and colors are nice, although contrast is pretty low. That was shot wide open (and none of the photos here was edited in any way but scaling). Ok, since it appears safe to use, how does it do? Pretty well, actually: In any case, the glass looks surprisingly clean and clear, with only a hint of an internal cleaning mark. My best guess is that somebody cleaned the front element and the cleaner reacted with the aluminum to create these metalic corrosion spots. Funny thing is that they are metalic dots, not spider webs, and they are on metal inside a lens that looks like it was wearing a protective filter all its life. I, and probably everybody else, thought this was fungus. However, the problem with this lens is clearly visible inside it in this self portrait (taken in a mirror): ![]() ![]() The dirt on the lot was mostly on, not in, things. It might be most accurate to say it cost about negative $300. This was the obviously unhappy lens in the eBay photos of a visibly dirty-looking some-things-broken lot that sold for way less than it should have in part because this lens was there. Sharpness: 7 Aberrations: 9 Bokeh: 9 Handling: 8 Value: 10 Low contrast, gap between close focus and macro Actually is as versatile as intended, good "old" IQ
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |