frederick_lau1 Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 How good (optical & mechanical) is Kiron's 24mm f2 compared with Nikon's, and also Kiron's 105mm f2.8 macro compared with Nikon's ? How much should I expect to pay for them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_barnett Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 Not sure if it helps much but I had a Kiron 28-105 f2.8 zoom with some macro capabality years ago when I had a Minolta x700. I use all Nikon gear now but I still admire the sharpness of many transparencies I took with that Kiron lense. However I did get rid of it because the aperture blades kept oiling up no matter how many times I had it repaired. Hope this helps a little. Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_ng Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 I'm not sure how much the Kiron costs, but Nikon's 105mm f/2.8 will be better optically. I haven't tried the 24mm f/2, so I don't know about that one. With everyone rushing for digital and the fact that manual lenses don't meter on the D100 and D70, why don't you get Nikon branded manual focus lenses since the 2nd hand prices are dropping? Aaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 In general, most third-party macros are very good. Inasmuch as most macro images are well stopped down for adequate depth-of-field, the effects of most aberrations tend to be minimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now