|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Alcarin www.juzaphoto.com/p/Alcarin  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Pros: handyman high quality, excellent reportage night Cons: resistance to flare, construction, weight, distortion at 17, relatively limited focal range Opinion: (1) Construction: low quality, all plastic like many other ef-s objectives. Also suffers from zoom creeping and there is a tendency to suck up dust, even if in my example is not as strong as I've heard elsewhere: it is dusty inside only during a safari. (2) Optical quality: superb, for me it is perfectly usable already at room temperature. What is certain is that in some f2.8 flaw is known, the sharpness is good but not stratospheric and there is a visible decrease in quality towards the edges. Diaframmando properly the optical quality is excellent, the purple-fringing is very low. From my point of view, however, usabilissimo in all conditions and almost all focal lengths. Why almost? Because personally I find the optical characteristic most odious of this goal, the presence of a pronounced distortion at 17 mm and its surroundings. If I get the chance, in fact, often prefer to use the 10-20hc @ 17 mm rather than shoot at 17 with the 17-55, which gives the image distortion in my opinion unpleasant. (3) Operation: silent autofocus and good / excellent, selection keys, precise and solid. No problem in these respects. The IS is absolutely cutting edge and allows various safety stop times lower than the minimum considered canonical. (4) Review: It is absolutely excellent perspective in relation to the overall quality. And 'in fact a true all-rounder, and during my travels where the claims are photographs must be smaller than in the shots prepared and reasoned, can not be replicated and never leaves the lens. I personally believe that the scope of its preferential use both the reportage is also defends pretty well in the half-length portrait, where the opening relatively high and the relative proximity of the subject is already quite get blurred backgrounds, and the bokeh is nice. I find it very usable even in close-up photography. Where it really excels, however,, Is in the reportage night where the range of focal lengths, combined with the large aperture and image stabilization makes it possible to use the machine in a manner not unlike as you would during the day, giving photographs of great impact. As a handyman is therefore highly recommended to me. The flaws are many and great, of course it is a compromise like all things of this world: (a) the focal length limited to 55 mm (about 85 mm eq) can be used in a manner inconsistent ups and various products, so if you are lovers of this type of photography you take a superzoom or be prepared to bring along another angle. (B) the weight is impressive is a barrel stocky and tough, I find it uncomfortable for example, mountain outings and replace it in these cases with the 18-55. (C) distortion at 17 mm, here you can not do anything, unfortunately, I consider the real flaw in this vein. (D) poor build quality: here, surely a better quality would have been better, but I can not recommend quest'ottica for this reason, after all I've never had problems with soundness of any kind. (E) resistance to flare relatively low, attention to this aspect ... look good shots after they are made, you might see cute little ghosts, rather ricomponente and redeemed avoided as far as possible the stray light. If you do not find it too cumbersome bought and used the hood, although personally I prefer to 'defend' the flare slightly changing the shots ... I do not find an insurmountable problem. (F) is EF-S and therefore fit only aps-c, and this is obvious considerations are pleonastiche. Therefore, in summary my opinion is that there is no optical handyman best you can mount on a aps-c, essentially 'all-powerful' and the highest levels of comfort and operability currently achievable with a non-pro SLR reportage night. The alternatives then are a few: I do not like the 17-40 on aps-c, you lose even the ability to make bustsas it should. The 15-85 can entice to the handful of millimeters more, but in general, the use is substantially similar to this here 17-55. If you prefer a 18-200 then it means that you have other needs: go elsewhere. His only rival is the 5D + the 24-105, that means that I can be considered a configuration 'handyman' best. Users of aps-c sensors warned ... if you want a handyman to report and if you have the budget, buy it. sent on September 13, 2012 |
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
