Najlepsi telezoom for the poor and for those who can buy them equipped according to their real needs, not according to the results of space TESTING dxomark. In this price category is the choice of either unstabilized pouzivana sigma 70-200f2.8 (price for 5-6 pieces per year taut around 400EUR, necessary to use only with stativom at foteni from hand to 1/320), using Tamron 70 -200 f2.8 macro (Robi Horsie photos as the 70-300), using Nikkor 70-300. Who wants to force power: f2.8, it should be after the OS version Obžera Sigma, or Tamron - but both go out for a minimum 600EUR. Regarding najpriamejsej competition is a Nikkor 70-300. It is better processed, a negligibly faster and my experience AF is possible and equally rapid, almost slower but more precise, the Tamron and 1 of 10 Focus either falter or netrafi at all, even after prolonged focus. Image quality is up to each individual assessment, but for me personally is when fully sheltered sharper than Nikkor. On fotenie cameo somewhere around 120 mm (in DX) is making amazing photo. 5.6 When the image is so sharp over 270 mm, then be it unusable for any serious photo. Fotenie atrocities or sport also to be somewhere around 260-270 mm, then it rapidly pada sharpness. If a man holds to 200mm and has a good light and with a team will shoot even a fast sport, sharpening When it is light and prosecute the comparatively expensive lens. I had the opportunity to accumulate almost unused Nikkor 70-300 per este slightly lower amount than the price of the Tamron and I have decided to Tamron, because for my needs, it is a better choice in those situations where the use it has a sharper photos, aberration free (what is a big problem Nikkor), without Vignette when fully open. On the edges, the sharpness a bit lost and the fact there is a better Nikkor lenses, Tamron's blade main and 60% around the center, but for me it's clearly a better choice. Many people are considering a heap cheaper 70-300 or 70-200 or 80-200 brighter. Tie large "dela" Although render the impression, and for people who often shoots photographs sport, it is an obvious choice, but it can also be appreciated that the size and weight. 70-300 is a third shorter and lighter half. And it is also useful for portraits. And besides najdrahsieho Nikkor 70-200 neither of those f2.8-objective is not under sharp F3.5. 2.8 to be taken in conjunction with glass Foti only when the light is weak or are we praising kamaratom. Tamron 70-300 Although nobody neohuri seeded for the camera, but the resulting photos Moza 70-200 compete mostly with double the number of optical members.
The lens is not wrapped or packed only in "bubbles", nothing, just hard Cardboard form. It has absolutely pouch or sleeve that I knew, and it does not bother me, but that is not packaged or just a little sedated so that untreated nan direct shocks, it surprised me. A lens on the way from production to all those intermediate storage had to use theirs. Zoom ide somewhat unevenly and a little stiff. Zoom to be slow because the lens looks very weak flat sealing, be internally-swirl of the air (and dust) to minimize as much as possible.
Translated by Google Translate