broken calsan
Registered: May 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 1058
|
|
Review Date: Sun, 8 November 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Positive aspects of the product (pros):
|
Really small. Good contrast & resolution
|
|
Cons:
|
Not much bokeh at normal focal lengths
|
|
Positives: Proof that you don't need to be rich to get a good lens. Best used as a daytime lens, where a larger aperture brings little benefit.
I've compared this lens against my Sigma 17-70 (which is a very good lens) and at the same apertures and focal lengths, it appears to produce the same amount of detail, plus contrast is actually better than the Sigma. Small size of the lens doesn't intimidate your subjects or give you a back ache carrying it around. Doesn't obstruct the built in flash at any focal length, vignetting is acceptable. Polarisers and filters are cheap because it's so small. Worth comparing size and quality against, for example, Canon 18-55. For the image stabilised canon, you get a max aperture of F4, a filter diameter of 67mm and 475g lens, plus plastic optics. This is half the size, cheaper and has ED glass elements.
Weaknesses: small aperture, however it's a small price to pay for the convenience this lens offers.
Bokeh is non existent at normal focal lengths, because it's neither long enough or fast enough. However when focused on a close subject at 55mm and wide open it produces an acceptable circular bokeh - but not in the same league as the FA50 (Nor for resolution).
Purple fringing at the wide end, but the K-7 can correct that automatically.
Conclusion: This is a good lens for general use and unless you need a more specialised lens, this won't let you down.
I've had this 9 months now and it's my most used lens these days - it is without quirks or weaknesses. 99% of people should buy this lens first. Plus they give it away almost free with a new camera. What's not to like?
My review was for the WR version.
------------------------------ Calum
|
|