|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Petr2 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Petr2  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: high definition image from the center to the edges, compact and lightweight, for what I'm concerned I have not detected the focus shift problem that would occur only in very special situations, inaudible stabilizer and the latest generation, quite good resistance to flare. interesting macro function that can allow a certain risultati.Autofocus great although that of the Canon 17-55 is of aps-c was something little to 24mm inarrivabile..rnDistorce. Cons: between pro was going to also enter the build quality, except that a few days ago I noticed specks of dust beneath the front lens after 10 months of not even heavy use. rnParaluce very rigid plastic with having to break at any moment. Opinion: Paid 600 € cashback again thanks to Christmas last year, I am quite satisfied and sincerely, for my store, I do not feel the lack of another all-rounder of the same focal length with f2.8 aperture. Mounted on 6d there remains attached almost constantly, so I sold the Canon 17-40 f4 why do not use it more and also because lower than the 24-70 f4 in terms of contrast and incisività.rnSono still disappointed by the quality of construction because after less 10 months of use, under the front lens settled the dust particles sucked most likely after "closed". And thank goodness that is weather sealed ... For this aspect is much better than the 17-40 f4 that does not stretch when increases focale.rnMi excursion seem to find myself dealing with another (albeit good) Canon 17-55 is f2 , 8 vacuum cleaner ... I have a 20-35 f2.8 L and after 20 years has no speck of dust, but this, like the 17-40, extends internamente.rnLa macro function is interesting,but obviously only usable with still subjects because you have to get close so much that if it was some little animal or insect for sure there would not be there to be filmed ... rnLo stabilizer is incredibly effective: I took a picture of half a second (present in my gallery ) and I was impressed by the lack of micromosso.rn sent on October 16, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Pros: Very compact, well built although plastic, fast autofocus, good zoom range, also suitable for full-frame cameras, good sharpness and resistance to flare. Cons: vignetting obvious, but easily corrected in post production; the absence of the stabilizer. Opinion: I bought this lens from Japan after taking a 6D used, paying about 160 € with expenses including customs of 32 €. For the price at which you can find it used the council for its compactness, its good optical performance and reliability USM autofocus. I replaced it with the "loser" Canon 24-70 f4 is usm l because I needed the stabilizer when I'm not going to bring the best of 17-85 treppiede.rnLeggermente is usm F4-5.6 as sharpness is also brighter .rnIn ultimately a good lens that can give beautiful soddisfazioni.rn sent on May 14, 2015 |
 | Canon EOS M Pros: now bargain price, portability, image quality identical to that of the various 550d, 600d, 100d and 650D through the sensor 18MP APS-C, well-defined screen and menu very intuitive as other EOS. Cons: For someone slow autofocus, but not for me.rnmancanza an electronic viewfinder or at least in Galilean because sunny days on the screen can not see anything and it's up to frame groping. Opinion: Bought new 250 € with 22mm f2 lens and f-m, adapter and external flash would say that that price is not anything like it around. (Go to Mediaworld online, I never thought that they had the lowest price of the web ...) rnLe compact evolved the kind of Canon s110 and s120 cost more or less the same and have only a sensor 1 / 1,7.rnGrafica menu equal to that of the other Canon cameras, so very intuitive. rnHo found the responsiveness of the autofocus absolutely adequate to my needs. If you want to shoot landscapes (even in low light), portraits and static subjects it is perfect. it probably is not for fast-moving objects, but not my caso.rnHo bought apart 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS used paid only 110 € and it seems to me that as a definition can not be foodies. The only drawback is the very low resistance flare.rnrnIn definitive consigliatissima.rn sent on April 08, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 20-35mm f/2.8L Pros: Very sharp, metal building exceptional, compact, fast autofocus although it uses the old scheme arc. Cons: Chromatic aberration rather high, ghosting, vignetting at F 2.8 out of full frame.rndistorsione evident at 20 mm.rnNon there are replacement parts, so that, once you break something, you stick to the tram ... Opinion: I own this lens for a month, but, however small it is my technique, I can say I have pointed out quite clearly the merits and difetti.rnLo use on full frame Canon 6d. In a review of Pine DiCaprio is considered lower than both the 17-35 f2, 8 that the 16-35 f2, 8. But we are talking about a review of the 2004.rnNonostante this, I decided to buy it and found it to 400 euro .. The specimen shows signs of wear, but better than I expected, given that, at a minimum, 18 years old on spalle.rnConfrontato with the 17/40 F4 I have, I must say that at the level of contrast and sharpness you do not notice the differenza.Anzi, from F4 onwards it is also a bit more detail. rnAutofocus fast, although it is not ultrasonic. It 'sa bit noisy, but it sounds to me piace.rnDa a feeling of enormous strength when you pick it up, being all metal. rnPurtroppo, using Photoshop DC, does not appear among the objectives for which it is provided for the correction of chromatic aberration and distorsione.rnLa sore point is its aberration chromeica that appears when you take pictures in notturna.Il 17-40 suffers much less, but God forbid ... rnPiuttosto visible vignetting at F2, 8 on full frame, the rest fairly correctable in post - ghost in produzione.rnEffetto backlight. compared with the 17-40, the latter widely winner emerges. rn sent on May 23, 2014 |
 | Canon PowerShot SD300 / Ixus 40 Pros: very compact, almost does not feel in the pocket, good resolution of the movies for that ', "vintage", overall picture quality, natural colors natural and not overly saturated. Cons: lack of stabilizer, lack of manual controls and a bit 'expensive compared to concerrenza, poor battery life. rn Opinion: It was my first digital camera, purchased in early 2005 in a foreign website, since the price is not just popular with the proposal which was in Italia.rnMi gave beautiful shots that I keep ancora.rnA due to the lack of stabilizer, I changed it to a Panasonic in 2009, but the leap was not exciting. sent on February 01, 2014 |
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
