moizes 2

Lives in United States Brooklyn, United States
Works as a prophotographer
Joined on Aug 19, 2003

Comments

Total: 114, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

My copy of this lens is razor sharp thru the zoom, especially at 400mm. Stunningly sharp lens, even wide open! Way better than any 70-200 with any TC. So, I do not need both of my 70-200 anymore, especially outside. To work in, I'll wait for good 135/2 with VR, from Nikon or third party manufacturer, to use it wide open.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 12:49 UTC as 3rd comment

Not impressed. It is not a world Leica level. Very few images are deserve attention.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 13:30 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies

Come on, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am first on line to get it! I gonna give $200 for this monster, and pay for delivery! Insurance on the house, as usual!

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 10:16 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: Only f9 equivalent in m4/3.

It is still 2000 f4.5 equivalent on 4/3 sensor.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 10:11 UTC

RIP, Michael! You were greatest!

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 21:39 UTC as 128th comment
In reply to:

SETI: Not as good as Canon 24-70mm mkII

andrewD2. True. I've seen no images at 42MP. I've seen a lot at 50MP. While I am Nikonian, have to admit that Canon 24-70-2 is better. Simply like this.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 16:38 UTC

Life-less low contrast images. At 24mm, only central circle is sharp, with excessive amount of CA. Lens needs more expensive glass elements to get real contrast, more aspheric surfaces to be sharper to extreme corners, better MC to suppress haloes. Take it back, Sony, improve it, right now it is not the stuff to sell itself for asking price. Sorry. Your new 85 is out of questions, BTW, great lens. (My own conclusion). Gentlemen, let us keep discussion civilized.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 13:18 UTC as 29th comment
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2487 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: $1,699 for body-only. Mirrorless enthusiasts say that mirrorless cameras cost less to manufacture than DSLRs, but that doesn't seem to be reflected in their prices.

New Pentax. IBIS. The best huge optical VF. Full frame. Great highlights/shadows range. Astro, lah-lah... A lot of toys more... Beautiful set of new lenses to choose from. $ 1800. Something to think about for newbuyers, doesn't it?

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 21:17 UTC
On article Seriously sharp: Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM samples (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: I'd wait for Sigma to release the 85mm F/1.4 ART. You can be certain that it will be cheaper, sharper and will work well with the upcoming Sigma E-mount adapters.

Why not? I am Nikonian.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

moizes 2: My congratulation to designers of such the significant optical achievement! Very representative images posted for very first introducing of the one of the best zooms ever! Actually, I am very critical, ah... hmmm... sometimes, but not today! Nice job, guys, well done! I looked carefully at the all, but special attention to worker alone with ropes on the front. Wide open at 400mm, hand-held, the combo shows unthinkable before for any zoom detailing and sharpness! It is the ZOOM, Ladies and Gentlemen, ZOOM, not the prime, and almost of the same, if not the same quality, as the any 800mm prime is. What should I say? It cost every penny you gonna pay for it!

@Androole. Yeah, look at his "hard whelm" - the central label - looks like this is curbed with scalpel. 100% crop! At 400mm (actually 800!) wide open, 1/60, bad weather, hand-held!

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 16:44 UTC

My congratulation to designers of such the significant optical achievement! Very representative images posted for very first introducing of the one of the best zooms ever! Actually, I am very critical, ah... hmmm... sometimes, but not today! Nice job, guys, well done! I looked carefully at the all, but special attention to worker alone with ropes on the front. Wide open at 400mm, hand-held, the combo shows unthinkable before for any zoom detailing and sharpness! It is the ZOOM, Ladies and Gentlemen, ZOOM, not the prime, and almost of the same, if not the same quality, as the any 800mm prime is. What should I say? It cost every penny you gonna pay for it!

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 15:45 UTC as 36th comment | 2 replies
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (555 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: My first thought of this review is: $249 for a thumb grip. WTF is it made from???

@Tapper123 - Correct. It is not the thing which is selling itself. But initial price of the camera is already above the sky. This plastic thumb thing costs to manufacturer $ 0.5, at most. So, show some mercy to customers, do not scare us out.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 23:04 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (555 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: My first thought of this review is: $249 for a thumb grip. WTF is it made from???

Made from what you have already said... Looks like they lost their mind completely... For the small piece of plastic $250?

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2016 at 20:46 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Julius: Unbelievable details, I have never seen before.

Easy. At the both sides of 2 people on the walls or floor there are points of the flat field - absolutely symmetrical without any CA. Every decentered lens has more CA on the wrong side, as well as loss of resolution on the same side wide open. Even one of my trying copies of 90 AA ($4000) was decentered, so price has nothing in common with QC. Gentlemen, do not try to look more knowledgeable than you are, look funny.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Julius: Unbelievable details, I have never seen before.

@ Julius. Indeed! We will see the QC on every copy when it go to the mass production. So far this copy of the lens is unthinkably good - there is no even trace of decentering. Have never seen anything better at 24mm wide open - among zooms, of course!

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 04:22 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2487 comments in total)
In reply to:

moizes 2: Sorry, really great lenses, but no IBIS, no deal. Looks overpriced without it.

Don, take a look at Sony Rumor - Nikkors thru NEW adapter are blazingly fast!

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2487 comments in total)

Sorry, really great lenses, but no IBIS, no deal. Looks overpriced without it.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 14:07 UTC as 499th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Theory, or HOW you talking it, is contradicting to reality. So, this theory is wrong, or you, gentlemen, are wrong. Time will tell, let us wait!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 01:40 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Guys, 1/3 of my lifetime - probably! - hah - I am spending to the top pro lab on the Ave U, Brooklyn. Do you REALLY think I do not know differentiation between sensors sizes, ISO used, MP quantities? (And correlation between those parameters, BTW). That is why I am calling you "Theoretical" photogs! Sorry, but enough said.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

Howard S: So they "squeezed" a 300mm f4 into just 2.8lbs, the Nikon weighs less than 2lbs and the Canon 2.63lbs

Of course, gentlemen! Lost cause! Very last thing, again. As I already said, my 300/4 on my V2 is acting like 850/4 lens, ISO 200, f4.0, 1/1000sec. Two files, from D800 and V2, coming out ABSOLUTELY identical to my OLD eyes, EXIF's are identical. Of course, magnification, S/N ratio, AOV are different, but there was not hassle with heavy/small/big photons at all! Simply identical files but due to way smaller sensor of V2 the file from this body was professionally unusable. Smaller sensor is producing less data, that's all! So let me hide behind my practical experience, you guys stay with your theory - why not!

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2016 at 12:28 UTC
Total: 114, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »