RCE Foto

(i) On JuzaPhoto, please disable adblockers (let's see why!)






Login LogoutJoin JuzaPhoto!
JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).

By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.


OK, I confirm


You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here

Accept CookiesCustomizeRefuse Cookies

Trippode
www.juzaphoto.com/p/Trippode



Reviews of cameras, lenses, tripods, heads and other accessories written by Trippode


Microsoft Translator  The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator.

fujifilm_xf33_f1-4wrFujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR

Pros: Build quality, ergonomic rings, silent AF, waterproofing, sharpness superior to the competition.

Cons: Standard hood that comes off easily and plastic, made painful in macro with extension tubes. Costicchia.

Opinion: I made the transition from 35 1.4 to 33 not because I was unhappy with the optical rendering of the 35 but for the hope of having a better autofocus for example in the hook in the detection of the eye in portraits. Often the 35 with AF on single point in S mode in the bursts mistakes the MF, and leaves a bitter taste in the mouth knowing that it has lost the fleeting moment. But I finish complaining about the 35 to talk about the 33. I compared it with its brother and I find it very similar in the qualities such as blurred and plasticity, improved in all the defects of the previous one such as TA sharpness both at the edges and in the center. Well done Fuji! I would say, but there is a caveat that I also found with the 56. They are lenses with many lenses and bright, and sin of a constitutional factor, they are not for macrophotography. I used extension tubes and did some tests not very detailed but sufficient to see the exaggerated field curvature, let's say that they are not planar in focus, and no one on the internet detects the thing as if it were obvious that you need the dedicated macro to make macros. At the time analog was not quite like that, just a cheap 50ino with its tube to get not miracles, but at least a decent yield. In this I find myself better to use other smaller lenses such as the XF23/2 or the 50/2 with a macro ring to get excellent results. This is also thinking of those who hope to rephotograph film negatives instead of scanning them.

sent on April 23, 2022




 ^

JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.

Mobile Version - juza.ea@gmail.com - Terms of use and Privacy - Cookie Preferences - P. IVA 01501900334 - REA 167997- PEC juzaphoto@pec.it

May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me