Happy owner of a Nikon D3200 slyly offered by my wife (because I criticized - as would any good macho who believes everything about everything - his shots with a small compact camera) and after I felt like a conductor 2CV front dashboard of a space shuttle, I was quickly attracted to the close-ups. Obviously, the goal comes standard (18-55mm) was quickly curb my new artistic impulse.
After searching and reading some forums, it was decided to acquire a lens with Macro function ... Glups prices! A beginner absolute zero (-280 °) should he put over 1000 for fun to make macro taken? Each according to his budget will for my part, the day matron.
In this jungle of offers, how to curb the urge visceral neophyte to equip the "top over the top" for fear of having a junk (which will necessarily be the cause of its poor shots)?
Was I going to risk endangering my image of perfect man who knows everything about everything with a goal from the comments this:
- The chromatic aberrations (I know I'm not colorblind)
- A contrast suitable ONLY
- A propensity to "flares"
- A not inconsiderable weight
etc ...
Of course yes because if the shots are missed it will be the fault of this target 130;)
So for you novice Geek macho bad faith (like me), I have taken the plunge with a comment that advised this instrument for wildlife shots (perfect for my 3 year twins).
Result, I go to a Mozart shooting for a round not:
- Portraits are sharp, bright,
- Bright colors (in a ball pool - dixit my wife, "it looks like a Kodak pub")
- Macros see where it is believed the camera lens in the eye of the grasshopper,
- Zooms a hummingbird hawk-moth (diurnal butterfly) net hover
For the ball I am, this acquisition is perfect.
Perhaps a distant day, I will not be satisfied with the contrast level and I décèlerai chromatic aberration in the corner of a reflection, but by then, I'm having to shoot everything that comes under my zoom.
