|
The af-s 80-200mm f/2.8 is also available under $1k in places. It is supposed to be a little sharper and faster focusing than the AF-D ones.
|
# ¿ Aug 6, 2012 19:37 |
|
|
# ¿ May 19, 2024 18:54 |
|
Paragon8 posted:reliability.
|
# ¿ Dec 1, 2012 00:57 |
|
So, dumb question - how can I tell if I got a bad copy of a lens? I ordered a nikon 50mm f/1.4D from KEH a while back (I'm way out of the return window) to replace my broken f/1.8D (stupid baby), and everything I shot with it looked really soft compared to both the broken f/1.8 and another f/1.8D I got to use in place of the 1.4 over the holidays. The f/1.4 looked soft compared to two of my other lenses as well (a nikon 80-200 af-s and a tokina 100mm (?) macro). I visually inspected the glass and the diaphragm and everything looks fine to me. I guess my question is, how can I tell that I'm not being crazy and confirm that there is something actually wrong with the lens? Are there any tests I can run?
|
# ¿ Jan 7, 2014 00:27 |
|
nielsm posted:A simple test? 50mm f/1.4D (at f/1.8) on the left, 50mm f/1.8D (at f/1.8) on the right
|
# ¿ Jan 7, 2014 04:28 |
|
gvibes posted:Thanks, I just printed out some random test pattern I found online, and it looks like my lens is broke. Dammit.
|
# ¿ Jan 18, 2014 01:23 |