|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
PaoloMcmlx www.juzaphoto.com/p/PaoloMcmlx  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM Pros: High sharpness, excellent backlight resistance, very fast and very precise AF, very low distortion, blur simply beautiful... I can say unique given the focal lengths involved, excellent construction, absolutely functional lens hood so much so that from this point of view only its natural heir EF 24-70/2.8 L is on a par with it, the diaphragm is not circular but it is still excellent for the constancy to the various apertures, it must also be said that although not tropicalized this lens showed, At least in the case of my specimen, a really good resistance to atmospheric agents. Cons: Practically none, maybe the sharpness could have been a little higher but it must also be said that, for his time, what he can show today was a very, very high standard. Opinion: I didn't use it much because it covered a range of focal lengths that you need to have anyway but that I, for what is my way of photographing, use very little. It is a lens that in field use, always handheld of course, is appreciated for its extreme maneuverability and for the excellent balance that it showed when I grafted it on my EOS 1n and 3 with which, among other things, it allowed me to easily use shutter speeds up to roughly 1/4 of a second. The blur it generates is definitely beautiful and I must say that this is still, in my humble opinion, its greatest quality; the huge lens hood also, which in the basic idea is absolutely identical to that of the later EF 24-70/2.8 L, in addition to performing its function excellently at all focal lengths (therefore not only at the minimum focal length like those of all competitors who show a shape and configuration that in the field test allows them to be fully effective only at the shortest focal length) being bound to the lens body, and not to its extendable part, it also ensures excellent protection from both accidental impacts and atmospheric agents. Ultimately, it is a lens that, despite the undoubted age of the project, and an honestly excellent but certainly not extraordinary sharpness, for all other characteristics is at least on par, often even superior (see for example the lens hood, the blurred and the construction), to its current counterparts. sent on December 03, 2023 |
 | Canon FD 300mm f/2.8 L Pros: Lightness, compactness, great structural solidity, built-in removable hood a bit small but fully functional, additional hood very large but in most cases almost useless, very high sharpness, excellent color rendering with chromatic shades of absolute delicacy, I dare say sublime, excellent backlight rendering, extremely smooth and very well frictioned focus ring, as well as that of the diaphragms, all combined with a unique balance and handling. Cons: I honestly didn't find any. Opinion: In the 80s it was the optics of references in its category, the same thing also in the 90s in the EF version which optically is completely identical. The current versions, even of other houses, are superior in sharpness, clearly, but as color rendering, color shades and backlight I think it is still an absolute reference. I used it for years - obviously always freehand - with extreme satisfaction, and thanks to its extreme balance when mounted on motorized F-1n, with shutter speeds of up to 1/8 of a second. Now I use it very little, unfortunately the sight is no longer what it used to be, but I continue to keep it with me and I do not think I will part with it even in the future. sent on April 21, 2023 |
 | Canon NewFD 85mm f/1.2 L Pros: Relatively small and light, very well balanced and extremely manageable, excellent construction, excellent clutch and long stroke of the focus ring, excellent backlight performance, excellent hood, minimum vignetting, absence of distortion, monstrous opening especially in relation to the era in which it was presented. The sharpness is really very good at the larger apertures, excellent from 2.8 onwards, drops a bit at 11 and 16. Cons: Basically no one because, in all honesty, in the 70s, 80s and 90s there was nothing better. Opinion: I bought it mainly because using only slides of low sensitivity it was extremely useful in low light conditions, where in fact it provides an extra gear, also I found it excellent in half-length portrait, especially in indoor shots with only ambient light. It is also excellent in the American plane, for the portrait in the foreground instead you have to be a little careful about possible distortions on the face, in these cases in fact I find 100 or 135 mm preferable. sent on October 28, 2022 |
 | Canon EOS 1V Pros: Solid, heavy, tropicalized, yet very easy to handle due to the excellent ergonomics when equipped with the PB-E2 booster. Cons: Nobody. Opinion: I have three, all in the HS version, which although heavier is the one that guarantees the best grip and maximum ergonomics, as well as a handling that you would not expect from a 1.6-kilo SLR. The AF is simply lightning fast, as well as extremely precise, and in use it is in fact almost infallible. Extremely useful is the possibility of reducing the focus points from 43 to 11 in order to match them with the SPOT reading. The light meter is extremely precise, I find very useful the shooting cadence at 10 fps that if today it does a little tenderness in 2000 was an absolute record, and that still remains today among the film SLRs. In two words it is certainly the best film SLR ever produced by Canon and in essence also the most performing SLR - ever - as regards, of course, chemical photography. sent on October 14, 2022 |
 | Canon FD 135mm f/2 Pros: Excellent sharpness; excellent flare tightness; excellent construction; absolute distortion control; excellent clutch of the focus ring with an extra long stroke and absolute precision; compact; relatively heavy but still very, very handy. Cons: Practically none, perhaps the built-in hood is a little short in canvas to the diameter of the front lens, but the excellent backlight seal means that the image quality is not affected. Opinion: I kept it and used it for many years and with extreme satisfaction, although always a little in a condition of subjection to 100/2. With the subsequent purchase of the 135/2 L (EF) I thought I would make a decisive leap forward from a performance point of view... but in fact I was deluding myself! At the central apertures: f 4 - 5.6 - 8, it shows something less than the EF, but at TA and f 2.8 the performance is equivalent, as well as those at the more closed apertures. Where, however, he takes a resounding revenge is in the backlight where, unlike his heir, he always shows an absolutely exemplary behavior. Ultimately it is an excellent lens, only slightly inferior to the next EF on the sharpness front, but absolutely able to hold the conronto in any other situation and, even, to be superior in flare control. sent on October 22, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Pros: High sharpness, very good backlight hold, AF very fast and very precise, minimal distortion, blurry simply splendid... indeed unique given the focal points at stake, excellent construction, absolutely functional lampshed so much that from this point of view only the previous 28-70/2.8 L is on par, circular diaphragm, very efficient tropicalization, excellent handling. Cons: Practically no one, perhaps the sharpness could have been a little higher but it must be said that twenty years ago his was a very high standard. Opinion: I use it little because it covers a range of focal points that you still have to have but that I, for what is my photography, do very little. It is a lens that in the field use, always freehand clearly, is appreciated for its extreme handling and for the excellent balance that shows engaged on my EOS 1 V where, among other things, it allows me to easily use laying times up to 1/4 of a second. The blurr that it generates is absolutely unique and this is, in my humble opinion, its highest quality; the huge lampshon also, in addition to performing its function excellently to all focal points (therefore not only at the minimum focal point like those of all competitors who with their configuration, in fact, perform their function only at the shortest focal point), being bound to the body of the lens and not to its extensible part, also ensures excellent protection from both accidental shocks and atmospheric agents. Ultimately it is a lens that despite the design seniority, and a clarity honestly not irreproachable, for all other characteristics is at least even, often even higher (see for example the lampshed, the blurred and the construction), to the current counterparts. sent on May 01, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II Pros: Excellent sharpness from edge to edge and evenly distributed throughout the focal excursion; excellent construction, extremely robust, relatively light, fast and precise AF, excellent tropicalization, circular diaphragm, the blurry is very pleasant beyond the focus plane... much less however in the previous area, really excellent the backlight seal, very well correct distortion, MMaF very contained. Cons: In fact none or at least: in four years of use I have not yet found one. Opinion: This is a very successful objective. I've had his forefather for a dozen years, a good target, but that's way superior to him in everything. I delayed buying it because I was a little skeptical about the construction and what to say... the very moment I held it in my hand the first time, and tried to vary the focal point, I immediately had to believe it again. Optically speaking he is only a very distant relative compared to his predecessor, to the point that this is not only superior to him in a more than manifest way but I would say that, also thanks to the many small constructive precautions that the first model did not have, between the two objectives the only things in common are only the focal excursion and brightness. The sharpness is really very high to the point that at the 300mm focal point, for example, it manages to exceed the performance of the 300/4 L IS. It is much heavier than its predecessor, about 300 grams, but the five-stop stabilizer ensures significantly higher performance, higher than the point that at 400 mm it is quietly photographed at 1/8 of a second freehand and with a minimum of attention you can go down even up to 1/4. Finally, the minimum focus distance, limited to only 0.98 meters, is very interesting, which allows you to get good close-ups up to an RR of about 1:3. sent on April 28, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM Pros: Very high sharpness, excellent blurry, RR 1:1, AF relatively fast (very fast considering it is a macro) but very precise, non-existent distortion, very efficient stabilization, semicircular diaphragm, excellent tropicalization, plastic construction but, I have to say, really great and I must also add light. Cons: Basically no one but the fact that its sharpness is not greater than that of the 100 macro USM... in short, from an L I expected something more, and even the resistance to flare is not without criticism. Opinion: I purchased it, after using for ten years the previous 100 USM macros, not so much for the stabilizer but rather for the sharpness that I expected higher than that, however excellent, of the 100 macro USM and from this point of view I must say that I was a little disappointed that, despite being of the highest level, the same is not higher than that of the previous model. On the other hand, however, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the blurry, which I honestly did not expect so high, by the very high efficiency of the stabilizer and by the quality and precision of the circular diaphragm. The tropicalization is then amazing, to the point that although I fell into a river, attached to an EOS 1n, and stayed there for a good half minute, it did not suffer any water infiltration. Lastly, with regard to the construction which, although decidedly plastic, has proved to be truly excellent since on two occasions the lens has fallen to the ground without suffering damage. sent on April 27, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Pros: Sharpness, RR 1:1; the AF is relatively fast overall, but at the same time it is fast enough to be a macro, in any case it is very precise and it is at any operating distance. The blurry is good, the construction is robust, it is relatively light and also very handy, moreover it turns out to be very resistant to atmospheric agents despite not being tropicalized. Cons: Practically no one because its only limit, namely the fact that it is not stabilized, is known a priori. Opinion: Goal of the highest quality. The sharpness is already exemplary at Full Opening and improves, a little, between f 4 and f 5.6 where it reaches its peak quality. In field use it is extremely practical and handy, I have always used it freehand, even to the most demanding RRs, and frankly I have never felt, except in very rare cases, the lack of the stabilizer; it also shows good backlight hold. His blurry, honestly a little hard, is not very pleasant in "artistic" macrophotography... pass me the term, but on the other hand it is very suitable for scientific photography by virtue of the strong impression of sharpness that it gives in the details out of focus. In the end, I find this a very successful lens and not at all outclassed by its stabilized heir. sent on April 25, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Pros: Excellent sharpness, excellent flare resistance, excellent yield also with the 1.4 X II extender, non-existent distortion, fast and precise AF, excellent RR, excellent construction, also relatively light, very manageable, archaic stabilizer but that still allows it to be used quite easily even at 1/8 sec. freehand, a gem of other times finally the telescopic and lockable lampshed in the working position. Cons: Basically none, in limit conditions just a minimum of lateral color when used with the 1.4 X II extender. Opinion: A simple goal, really very solid, on which you can always rely, infatible as a mule... in the truest sense of the word, also extremely manageable by virtue of its very low weight and size. In short, an objective that perhaps does not make us cry out for the miracle, but from which it is almost impossible to separate. sent on April 25, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Pros: Very high sharpness (extraordinary for a zoom), excellent seal even with the 1.4X II extender, Fast and precise AF, excellent construction, extreme robustness, sublime blurry (with the same focal point better than that of 135/2 L), excellent stabilizer (freehand easily used 1/4 sec. at 200 mm), circular diaphragm, accurate tropicalization, very well contained distortion, only good flare resistance... but with 19 lens groups it's frankly hard to do better. Cons: Basically none because its only limits, namely size and weight, are the obvious consequence of what is said in the PRO regarding construction and robustness. Opinion: In my humble opinion, it is the reference point in its category. I have tried for a long time all the 70-200 canon (and not only), and this condenses in itself all the numerous strengths of the various objectives that preceded it. I use it, like all my objectives, only on slide (Velvia 50 clearly) and in projection - where to understand only Kodak projectors equipped with Leica optics - its extraordinary qualities, I say literally, shine with their own light ... I very much doubt that I can ever even touch on the idea of separating myself from it. sent on April 25, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM Pros: Sharpness, RR 1X, very high image quality even with extenders, robustness, very accurate construction and also relatively light, the AF is not lightning, absolutely, but for a macro it is more than excellent, very good the resistance to the backlight, excellent resistance to weathering despite the absence of tropicalization, splendid and characteristic finally the blurry "swirly" that reproduces. Cons: Basically none since the only limits I can find him, the non-circular diaphragm and the absence of the stabilizer, had not yet been introduced in 1996. Opinion: Excellent goal. The sharpness is very high already at TA and further improves between f 4 and f 5.6 where it reaches the peak of quality; in practice I do not find its sharpness higher than that of the macro 100/2.8 L IS, but given the almost double focal point if from this point of view one of the two has a limit this, of course, can certainly not be the 180! It is undoubtedly less practical in field use than in the 100, partly because of its much larger weight and size, partly because of the lack of the stabilizer, but freehand use, which is the only one I have practised, is sufficiently comfortable and nevertheless ensures excellent results. Finally, the almost TOTAL control of the background is not possible, which thanks to its reduced angle of field, and the remarkable perspective compression, it is able to ensure... from an exquisitely creative point of view, in short, it is many times ahead of a shorter focal point, even if it were the 100 L. sent on April 24, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Sharpness, excellent construction, tropicalization, circular diaphragm, weight and small size, excellent value for money. Cons: Basically no one, at the limit a not perfect backlight hold, however inevitable in a zoom and in any case no worse than that of 135/2 L, and a minimum distortion but I repeat: these are flaws that can be charged to a fixed certainly not to a zoom. Opinion: In my opinion, this is a somewhat extraordinary objective, since it maintains a truly exemplary clarity at all focal points, and is also quietly able not to disfigure in comparison with the best fixed focal optics; all enclosed in a robust and well-structured body without even being particularly bulky and heavy, and even the blurry, although not particularly soft, contains a remarkable texture and pleasantness. sent on April 24, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Pros: Price, sharpness (from f 4 onwards), fast and precise AF, blurry, construction, weight and size. Cons: Sharpness far from exemplary at All Opening (partly even at f 2.8), indecent backlight hold. Of course it is not stabilized, but this is not a defect since IS did not exist in 1996. Opinion: Bought by B&H in early May 1996, then six months before it arrived in Italy, and from the first tests I noticed that it was only equal, as it is sharp, compared to my Canon FDn 100/2, and much lower than the latter in terms of yield in backlight (for me priority), weight, size and price. In short, a fine lens, especially at the time of its introduction, but certainly not epochal as it is always heard, and this, I repeat, was objectively evident as early as 1996. Nowadays the comparison with the competition is embarrassing, since it has been overtaken by all competitors. sent on April 22, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Pros: It has a much more affordable cost, a very low weight, the dimensions are quite minute, has an excellent sharpness, an excellent AF, and finally also has a minimum distance of making very excellent fire. Cons: In fact no one since you do not know a priori is a stabilized lens, and also the absence of tropicalization and the circular diaphragm must take for granted having regard to the very low purchase price. Opinion: In my humble opinion it is the classic example that it is customary to bring under the heading: the miracle of Fluorite! RNE 'a lens that has everything you really need, however, being the older of the Canon 70-200 (with the exception of the 70-200 / 2.8 L of course) it is clear that can not boast all the latest that technology has made available to users, nevertheless I would still feel it led to the best possible compromise between performance and price. sent on May 19, 2016 |
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
