|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Maushoot www.juzaphoto.com/p/Maushoot  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM Pros: manegevole, suitable for macro photography and portraiture, clarity, value for money Cons: nobody Opinion: Optics that was created to be used in macro photography thanks to the minimum distance of focus, but that can be used with outstanding results even in ritratti.rnL'ho used both on FF that on APS-C, in the latter case with a conversion ratio of 1/6 as in my case, maybe it was a bit 'too long if used for ritratti.rnMateriali as standard in L-series lens Canon, robust but at the same time not very cumbersome (except when mounting the flashy and useful lens hood) .rnNitidezza exceptional aberrations and flare completely under control even in difficili.rnPer who plan to use it mainly in portraits, the minimum focusing distance is a big advantage because it allows to approach even less than 50 cm from the subject without focusing margin of error on the eyes, something different for example for L 135 f2, where necessary distance himself from the subject than metro.rnLo stabilizer perspective on the fixed focal length is definitely important to be relevant and useful, that from this point of view theor it makes it preferable to 135, although the quality and sharpness of the latter are definitely a cut in altro.rnOttimo more the value, use can also be found at 500-600 euro and in this case absolutely recommend it to have in their luggage (although clearly not a lens that you always carry with them around unless we take care mainly of macro photography). sent on October 26, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Pros: robustness, stabilizer, sharpness, use even in extreme conditions. Cons: price, weight Opinion: This is clearly a lens is not easy to "manage", weighs almost 2kg hardly suitable for long trips because it also clearly needs to be accompanied by at least one optical (the perfect match you are obviously with the 24-70 f2 .8) .rnSuperati trauma arm to carry this light (I highly recommend you equip your machine to a wrist support because it really helps a lot), it is definitely worth for results that restituisce.rnA all focal lengths and in all openings results are extraordinary, unnecessary repeat what are the most appropriate use but when you get to a certain level I think this lens is a must.rnL'ho even compared with his younger brother, always stabilized 70-200mm f4 and objectively The difference is noticeable, not so much for the brightness but mainly because the "Biancone" f4 already cuts like a razor and the sharpness is really amazing, unlike the "Whitey" that f4 suffers a po'.rnIl grande weight and stabilizer that compensates for up to 4 stops make it practically impossible to camera shake when shooting at 200mm (in this case always recommend a safety margin that means taking at least 1/125, then a lot depends on your hand) .rnScattando to TA and very long focal lengths (over 160mm) and in conditions of bright light, I find just a little 'flat the blacks, but in post just tighten a wire (-10 -15 Lightroom as a reference) and their depth back certainly adequate to return the correct contrasto.rnMateriali exceptional robustness same level, dials focus and management focal fluid and precise that run smoothly without giving any feeling of imperfezione.rnFlare aberrations and controlled even in extreme conditions, I give up laboratory tests because in the end are the field trials that do justice or not a lente.rnIl price is the sore point, but on the other hand taking into account the evolution of these lenses are quite rare even used very keen fine. Inon addition those planning to buy it must keep an eye some cash back offered by Canon that could save a good 10% on the nuovo.rnSempre admitted that the budget is not unlimited, I suggest a good photographic experience before making this purchase to make the most of this lens. It 'sa bit like buying a supercar, not for new drivers! sent on October 26, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Pros: Robustness and manageability, sharpness even at room temperature (about 5D MIII) Cons: nobody Opinion: If you like the pictures or photos ambientati style reportage and street, for which you need a lens manegevole and fast, here it is the 50 f1.2 optics for you, clearly if mounted on immense body FF.rnQualità to all the openings, do not personally the shot never up to f1.2 unless there is a real need for light, but also in this case the lens behaves in admirable fashion without showing any defect. Going from f1.2 to f1.8 - f2 image quality clearly increases a little ', but the difference is really lieve.rnSu 5D MIII, which bears great high ISO without returning an annoying noise, and shooting at f1.2 ISO 1600 is pretty much more light "day" on a person's face with the light of a candle in a dark room! rnrnLente manegevole compact and with the right weight on the one hand returns precisely feeling of strength, on the other It provides the right balance to the body macchina.rnAutofocus fast (I use almost exclusively the focus spot and of 5D MIII is virtually instantaneously). No stabilizer but absolutely do not feel the need, I do not remember it a shake-out of a picture taken with this lente.rnInsieme all'85mm f1.2 L lens is the brightest by Canon, given that I do not see imaginable dating a "cartridge belt" of objectives, rather all'85mm because the scope of use is more ampio.rnMolti wonder if there is difference of approximately 1000 euro with the younger brother 50mm f1.4, the answer is: it depends on what we expect from their photo. If there are "satisfied" of a good quality then the 50 f1.4 is certainly good, if you want the leap then go to 50 f1.2 is necessario.rnLa difference also highlights firmly in extreme conditions, for as a backlight driven to TA with 50 f1.2 still returns of well-defined contours of the figure and "sharp" with aberrations in control, something different with the 50 f1.4 wherethe contours are noticeably pastosi.rnA I think the lens "normal" is a view that should not be missing in the bag of a photographer (although need for capacity and experience for its use), and from this point of view Canon beyond his concorrenti.rnLente that holds very well the price of used also, and this is an aspect that should be taken into consideration when purchasing. sent on October 26, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Pros: Brightness, sharpness, robustness Cons: Not stabilized, minimum distance of major fire Opinion: Lens portraitists pure, highly addictive because you can definitely remove the subject from the background bokeh returning a soft and mellow without necessarily reach the maximum aperture of f2. A bit 'stiff because clearly 135mm fixed not be used very often, then the combination with at least one other pair of lenses is of obbligo.rnPersonalmente love to use it to F3.2 - f4 and already gave me magnificent shots, to use a TA only for the real needs of light. For example it is fantastic for example take with this lens f2 with cloudy sky sheltering from strong shadows, in which case the measured exposure spot on the face returns on the same light almost Studio! RnrnLente project rather old but still gives shots superb for its sharpness already f2, please also however have a hand surgeon because at 135mm IS without the danger of camera shake is always present, in which case you must constantly keep an eye on the shutter speeds that should never be slower d160-200 of secondo.rnTenendolo in the hand feels the quality and robustness of optics as well as the impressive hood as well as offering excellent protection against dust (the lens is not Tropicalised) allows use even under strong luce.rnrnLo liken to 100mm f2.8 L macro (also this fantastic portrait lens) in one respect, the 135 having a minimum distance of focus rather important (close to metro) does not allow a lot of the shots "invasive", in substance to get a close-up where all the face covers the entire frame, it must be to crop the picture in post. Unlike the 100mm above, which has a minimum distance of fire much lower, it offers this vantaggio.rnE 'fantastic to match for a session of shots at 24-70 f2.8 sent on October 23, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II Pros: construction, manageability, speed AF, brightness Cons: edges pasty wide openings, light flare and aberrations in extreme conditions, the price more than double the 17-40mm f4 Opinion: I am more and more for the practical tests on the ground that the empirical laboratory of focus chart that will not fully apply in realtà.rnrnLente obviously suitable for both outdoor and indoor scenic shots for its luminosity (churches, aisles, interior architectural structures etc. .). rnDa definitely his best on FF though on APS-C also find a more suitable area of ??applicazione.rnrnDistorsione important to 16mm but sometimes it can just be desired and sought and can make it more "exciting" shots. rnViceversa TA f2.8 edges are very mellow and of limited use for example in size prints generose.rnHo noticed in extreme conditions (see the sun inside the lens) a major flare and aberrations a little 'fastidiose.rnrnLo consider it a bit' brother of the more economical 17-40 f4 L which is slightly more flexible since giving up just one strand of wide-angle, earns less than 5 mm focal length lunga.rnNon very much agree with the policyCanon to provide a 16-35mm that would then assisted to a 24-70 or 24-105, so you would purchase a very expensive lens that is going to overlap for most of the standard zoom focal above (see Nikon also offers 12-14), for example the quality of the 24-70 2.8 L series II between 24 and 35mm is also superior to that of the 16-35mm.rnD'altronde the Canon 11-24mm is still unapproachable for standard budget! rnrnPuò be also suitable for tight portraits if you want a fun "creative distortion", or 30-35mm for portraits ambientati.rnResta to understand whether it is worth compared to 17-40, having used both on 5D MIII bearing very good high speed ISO, I have to say that this camera body today is not worth investing about 900 euro more for more light but this will be offset by the technical capabilities of macchina.rnDiscorso different on other versions of FF that would benefit much more of the steps of brightness that has compared to the 16-35mm17-40mm.rnC'è also to say that in comparing the two (because this is also practical) 17-40 is easily used to 400 euro, while the 16-35 to no less than 900, and then in the proportion gap in price between the two widens even più.rnrnIn substance, worth it? RNA my opinion depends on the type of photos you like best and make the kit you have. So if you are very fond of panoramic photos taken around 18-20mm and these are the majority of those we do then 16-35 is the right lens because the image quality is superior to these focal compared to 17-40. rnTuttavia if these are not primarily our photos and you also own the 24-70 series 2.8 L II then in my opinion you should have one lens over 1000 Euros for "only" 8 mm more grandangolo.rnCiao at all. sent on October 23, 2015 |
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
