|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Bonvi www.juzaphoto.com/p/Bonvi  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: excellent sharpness even at EDGE, low distortion, blurred (for an excellent f4), excellent IS, "macro" and hybrid IS, construction, weight and size Cons: at the moment no Opinion: I took it for a short time to replace the 24/105 lens that I enjoyed despite its limitations (on FF I immediately found the edges a little sharper, with openings to the landscape as f8). I was able then to compare them in the same "condition" and I found the 24/70 lens an excellent and better than 24/105 in all respects: excellent sharpness at all focal lengths (especially at the edges there's really no comparison ), distortion (contained dates focal lengths and significantly lower than the 24/105), blurred (pleasant thanks to the 8 of 9 lamelline vs 24/105), IS (4-stop, absolutely silent and very useful for quasi "macro" being the same "hybrid" also used on the 100 2.8 L IS Macro), "macro" (there are "satisfied" with a reproduction 0.7 instead of 1: 1 but you have the convenience of having the lens always "ready" for use , with an excellent detail and as said with a hybrid IS in the case of free-hand) .rnCostruzione, size and weight are other positive elements but broadly in line with the 24 / 105.rnPerde "only" on hikingfocal length (105mm somebody can make comfortable) and the price (although using the current cash back the difference is significantly reduced) .rnLa function "macro" is very usable, of course you can not expect the working distance or blurred of a 180, but it's like having almost a 100 L IS macro always ready to use; is not just for those who do not consider it necessary to have a macro lens dedicato.rnAlcuni highlighted in a past issue of "focus shift" to the maximum focal length (70mm) and "subjects" very close (less than 1 meter); I did various tests but I have not found anything really limiting use common. sent on May 27, 2014 |
 | Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Pros: quality, construction, weight, capacity, macro, IS Cons: IS dated, loss (acceptable) quality with 1.4x extender Opinion: It 's my paintings "long" I have chosen for its versatility (including macro) compared to other objectives and its light weight makes it suitable for hunting photo exhibition. It 's very clear on its own, while losing a bit with the 1.4x extender but remains at a good level and without the need to close particularly the diaphragm (which is smooth semiduplicato). The IS is dated, two stops, but it works just as well and is very useful to reduce the time when needed. I also use it as a macro lens which gives very good results considering the focal length and minimum focus distance of just 1.5 meters. sent on February 28, 2013 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: quality, construction, stabilization, weight Cons: no Opinion: It 'a great lens, sharp at any focal length and aperture, with an excellent performance in color. It 'safely used with the 1.4x extender, allowing you to get to 280mm at f5.6 with a quality that is maintained at high levels. IS fantastic last generation that retrieves 4 stops. Sleek and stylish, a must-have lens. sent on February 28, 2013 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: focal range, construction, IS Cons: is a "handyman", but good quality Opinion: And 'perhaps the lens I use less among those who have, simply because I consider it a great all-rounder and then to use when I go out with the camera and a single lens. if the port instead slower then often he stays at home, replaced with goals I best serve the wide angle and telephoto. I consider it still a good choice for those who just want to travel light, to the limit with a single lens. From the best between f5.6 and f8, but also good at f11. The IS works very well and allows you to shoot without a tripod with the same focal length, with times slower than in the 17-40 (in which we travel light and do not need the paintings are normally the two lenses that port). sent on February 28, 2013 |
 | Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Pros: quality, construction, weight, resistance to flare Cons: I would say no, if I have to write something that perhaps the lack of IS on occasion without a tripod and maybe inside, it could offset some of the opening f4 Opinion: It has an unbeatable value for money, very nice colors and excellent sharpness. Using it on APS-C is not affected even at the edges of the worsening quoted by several who use it on FF. I use it a lot for landscape shots, normally closed at f8, which is in my opinion the best opening in terms of PDC and sharpness. If you do not have an absolute need for a larger aperture is absolutely preferable to the 16-35 f2.8, considering the price much lower. sent on February 28, 2013 |
 | Canon EF 1.4x III Pros: quality, construction, convenience, weight Cons: price Opinion: It certainly is not given but I find it a good way to stretch the mm and light weight while maintaining good image quality. RnLo use the 70-200 f4 L IS (280mm f5.6 where it maintains the exceptional quality of the lens is not multiplied in all openings) and the 300 f4 L IS (420mm f5.6 with a minimum decline of sharpness but it is still a great way to have a good telephoto 400mm light and "cheap"). sent on February 28, 2013 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
