|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Ferronsnicola www.juzaphoto.com/p/Ferronsnicola  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Pros: weight, dimensions, cost, focal length, aperture, construction, yield* Cons: front element movement during focus, yield* Opinion: If you buy this lens, you do it for its pros: weight, size, cost, focal length and aperture that really allow something unique until now. I took the lens on the first day available for purchase, not in pre-order, after seeing the first reviews. I was therefore aware of its strengths and weaknesses. The construction, contrary to what was noted by another reviewer, in my opinion is of an excellent level for the band in which it is placed. The control ring is fluid and well rubbed, it seems almost mechanically coupled to the lenses, the barrel is made of plastic but without various creaks from poorly assembled lenses, the bayonet is made of metal and pairs solidly to my R6. If the merits are absolutely easy to evaluate (I have never taken a UWA for size, weight and price since I make a fairly limited use of it), the cons are a little more delicate to treat: the lens optically has a fairly accentuated barrel distortion, as well as a strong vignetting (further emphasized by shooting at a distance of reduced maf), using canon software these defects will never be visible, even on the raw, but with third-party software (LR, PS, C1 ...) they are shown in all their non-splendor! What is the "good news" in all this? That contrary to what happened in the past, the focal length is calculated on the correct image, so a distorted raw shot has an effective focal length of 13-14mm. Positive or negative? I am all in all happy with this fact: if I make a Milky Way, I don't care about the distortion and I'm happy to have an even wider angle of view, if I take a picture of architecture, the incorrect shot I don't even go to look at it! And I still have in my hand a perfectly linear 16mm shot, without distortion (the correction, whether optical or digital changes little ...). Rather I like less the movement of the external lenses during focusing: in practice the length declared by the house is almost always unreachable, when it is mounted -even infinitely- the front element protrudes a few millimeters, at close distances of mafrge of over 1cm; when it is off the lens returns completely, but then the cap is mounted which is about half a cm thick. It is not a drama, we would miss it, but when you take the measures for the icu could be misleading, that's all... Summing up, for me it is an absolutely successful goal, which I would definitely buy again! Before it came out I couldn't wait for samyang to make his 18 available for RF (which hasn't arrived yet...), but now I have this 16, smaller and wider! Clearly, those who make extensive and exclusive use of a UWA, can NOT hope that this 16ino can be his definitive lens, comparisons with the L series have been seen and for certain things they can also be similar, but at 360 degrees this 16 (obviously and rightly) is not on the same level! sent on March 11, 2022 |
 | Canon EOS R6 Pros: autofocus, image quality, general speed, ergonomics, weight, viewfinder, keys and rings, ui, customization Cons: screen articulation: I would have preferred only tilt; aesthetics: unappealing and a bit toy Opinion: I took the R6 after having had the 5d4 for two years and used it in various situations for more than 6 months. Compared to the 5D I gained lightness, volume, operating speed, precision and speed af, evf, a third customizable ring, 1 stop of dynamic range (...), silent shooting and articulated screen; I lost 33% resolution (but not detail, the 5D4 has the AA filter much more intrusive, in fact the R6 rarely shows moire'), the main screen slightly smaller, screen on the shoulder disappeared (although now and' really not very useful in my opinion, all the info is in the viewfinder), ovf. The beauty of the optical viewfinder is now unsurpassed, but the good evf are very close (and that of the R6 is excellent), the evf from its has the great advantage of showing directly how the photo is exposed: very useful in the presence of strong lights / shadows, and makes the manual shot much more pleasant, even with vintage optics. Beyond the comparisons, I think this R6 is really exceptional, the reasons why I took it are all the pros listed in the comparison with the 5d, in particular af, weight, size, usability with vintage optics. The AF is really amazing, an absurd leap in quality, for the details there are many reviews, to the undecided I recommend trying it! The files produced are at the top, as well as the colors. The electronic shutter, even if it is not stacked, has an excellent reading time... The compact size and the low weight, as well as allowing me to carry more equipment on the same level as a bag / backpack, have allowed me to build a small set of compact and light lenses to travel very light, maintaining quality and flexibility at an excellent level. The reduced draft (like all ML) allows me to use all the analog lenses I have without problems, for fun and for pleasure :) The construction quality in my opinion is very high, and it does not seem inferior to 5D as others point out ... only the articulated screen is less robust, but it is for construction, there is little to do! I think this R6 was a great buy, the price although it is higher than the previous 6d2 (with which it has nothing in common, but just zero!) is absolutely competitive in the market given its performance! sent on March 02, 2022 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Pros: construction, sharpness, speed, precision, yield, price on used Cons: heavy and bulky Opinion: It is an excellent lens, built like a tank and with the perfect rendering, fast and precise, a sports lens of excellence. It's big and heavy, which is why I sold it. Surpassed by the RF model that weighs half a KG less and takes up so much less space in the bag, not without compromises (less robustness, zoom ring fludity and multipliability ...). It shares EVERYTHING with the 3 series, so spare parts will be available for a long time, buy it serene on the used! sent on November 22, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Pros: rendered, knows how to be sharp and poetic, is a lens to have ... small size (no joke) Cons: Construction under tone for an L, lensing autofocus... heavy, but there is worse Opinion: The surrender is magical, nothing to say... I had the sigma 1.4 and there is no comparison. The blur is beautiful and even at closed apertures it remains very nice, in particular I noticed that it is more pushed in this at f2.8 than in the full-aperture sigma (and the sigma has never disappointed me, indeed!). The colors returned are beautiful, the rendering in fantastic backlight, the sharpness is excellent even at full aperture and even in the most peripheral areas, closing increases the contrast, a little sharpness (which becomes perfect) and the chromatic aberrations disappear, which in any case are not annoying. Among the pros I also put the size, it is in fact quite short even if cicciotto. Compared to the new RF it is shorter even adding the adapter! The autofous is slow, but precise; the weight is considerable, but not dramatic... The construction is what leaves me a little bitter, the focus ring has a bit of play, not being tropicalized it is easy to find a few grains of dust between the lenses (although they will never be a problem in the photos), the front element moves during focus. The part of the barrel on the bayonet side is covered with rubber, but in a short time (it does not always seem ...) this coating begins to "melt", and will be sticky. To solve this problem there are various solutions, the cheapest (zero cost) is to remove the coating gently and the plastic core will remain, otherwise you order a Chinese spare part without rubber, because with the original spare part the problem will recur. sent on November 22, 2021 |
 | Canon 5D Mark IV Pros: robustness, ergonomics, image quality, advanced functions, menus... Cons: ? Opinion: It is probably the last canon reflex of professional range without vertical grip, very high quality in every field and I have never found a defect. The autofocus is great, fast and accurate, but the tracking compared to the most modern and advanced mirrorless is no longer up to par. On the other hand, it has a godable optical viewfinder, which mirrorless cameras do not have (now and maybe never, who knows...). Other things I would not be able to add, but it is a machine that I would definitely recommend! sent on November 22, 2021 |
 | Canon 7D Mark II Pros: general speed, autofocus, burst, complete and simple menus, af dot arrangement, ergonomic, buttons consistent with other canons Cons: iso tightness and dynamic range are not in step with the current apsc, but even in 2014 they were not at the top. missing some modern features, sometimes useful, such as touch and wifi Opinion: It was my first Canon SLR (I came from the Pentax system, abandoned for autofocus), the autofocus is from another planet and the vast availability of lenses made me greatly appreciate the choice made. The autofocus is still current, the speed and constancy are very high, the tracking is lower than the most modern and advanced mirrorless. The image quality was slightly lower than the Pentax I had (K01 and K3), but it was only noticeable at high sensitivities. However, I took shots at 12800 iso with a final quality much more than satisfactory ... I really appreciated the ergonomics, the robustness, the arrangement of keys and rings, after selling it I switched to the 5D mark IV and I felt like I was holding the same machine. It is a machine of substance, if you need speed characteristics, robustness and ergonomics it does not have many rivals, if not at higher prices among the full frame (or the d500 which still costs more and you mount different lenses). sent on November 22, 2021 |
 | Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Pros: compactness, lightness, af, sharpness, construction Cons: vignetting, distortion, tele side diaphragm Opinion: let's start from the defects: the brightness is known a priori, and in any case the difference is not transcendental compared to the classic 5.6, 2/3 stop ... if for the use you intend to make of them are so essential it is clearly not the right optics, but in that case I would say that an f4 is better, where the difference is 1.67 stops. As far as I am concerned, the use I make of it is a battle, I have no pretensions and for now it has never been a problem; vignetting and distortion are there, slightly more marked than in the L series, compromise still acceptable (and easily coregible), especially if you are looking for the pros: record size and weight! The images you get are sharp, contrasted at the right point, I did not find optical defects such as flare, reflections etc. I was just looking for a compact and light all-rounder to take me on excursions, trips or quiet use, before this I used the EF 3.5-5.6, quite more voluminous and a little heavier. Combined with R6 and 5D respectively, the difference in size and weight becomes remarkable... and the quality of the shots? I would say very similar, in some things the EF is better (detachment of the planes, or in any case brightness), in others the RF is better (contrast, af, stabilization ...). The sharpness I would say is comparable, I have not had the opportunity to make "scientific" comparisons since it makes very little sense on such a perspective! The construction, even if it is cheap, is of quality: there are no games in the as in the EF, the rings are very precise and the problem of zoom creep is not even remotely present, a frequent problem in this type of zoom that is often remedied through a lock button, not always comfortable sent on October 19, 2021 |
 | Pentax SMC DA* 300mm f/4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pros: Sharpness, construction, overall image quality, size and weight Cons: Autofocus, lack af limiter, autofocus, autofocus Opinion: The lens is fantastic, very sharp, I had it for more than a year between 2017 and 2018, I still remember how much I could crop without worries ... Even the colors, the blurry and any other optical feature are really at the TOP, too bad for the engine af... it made me sell all the Pentax kit from despair, wildlife being my favorite genre. I got to try another one recently and the autofocus (on the same machine, the k3) worked better, but always in hiccups... sent on July 15, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Pros: all Cons: nothing Opinion: It is not serious to put Pro: Everything, Cons: Nothing, but when you try this goal, those that are usually optical defects (aberrations, fringing, vignetting, sharpness drop at full opening...) here give a mix of magic. The defects are not dramatic, the lens remains clear, the aberrations solvable, the vignette idem! Closing the diaphragm the defects disappear and the yield is superimposed on a 35 designed according to modern standards, but I use it practically always all open or almost, closing the diaphragm the lens becomes replaceable by any good zoom, which gains versatility. I often use it at 1.4 also for landscape photographs: in photography the impact counts a lot, and this at 1.4 (without correcting its "defects" in post production) has more than closed and "perfect". Autofocus may not be a sniper, but used on 5d4 never caused me problems (and anyway I wouldn't call it slow). sent on June 07, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Pros: lightweight, super sharp, excellent stabilization, good blurry, autofocus very fast and precise Cons: nothing relevant Opinion: "Scientific" objective, made modern therefore perfect (very sharp already at full opening, from corner to corner). I don't have much to add compared to the list of pros, to the amount you buy it used is absolutely worth it. Until a couple of years ago, I was hoping canon would also make the 50 1.4 on the line of this lens (and 24 and 28), which is quite compact, lightweight, very efficient and stabilized. The 35mm focal lends itself well to many genres and if you like this lens it is a must, especially to photograph with little light (f2 and 1/3 of a second freehand, better than the fixed 1.2). The blurry is great, but not as magical as the 35 L series 1. Highly recommended sent on April 16, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Pros: All Cons: Nothing, not even the construction, since the plastic is just a coating! Opinion: It has any value you can think of: it has all the qualities of a super portraitist (blurred, colors, contrasts) and even the sharpness is super, already at TA and from corner to corner! I also tried to put the 2x III (270/4, light and compact!) and the quality remains very high! The Af doesn't miss a shot on 5d4. The sharpness (which normally in portraits if it is too much is not a value) still manages to make the complexion in a "soft" way (I do not know how it is possible... the lashes are perfect, the pores are not seen or almost...), the blurring is really magical, the flare and the effects against light are magnificent... On the construction, since someone has inserted it among the cons, unfortunately I tested the goodness... and removing the plastic outer parts remains a block of metal and glass! 10 vote without ifs and buts! sent on June 25, 2020 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Pros: wow effect in photos given by optical rendering, colors, blurry, compactness, lightness Cons: I would have liked a less cheap construction (especially the af ring, although almost useless, not fluid and with a few too many games) Opinion: In my opinion it has all the advantages of a dreamy, vintage rendering, with powerful bokeh and all the other features that you read in the forum and in the comments. It is NOT an optics for those who expect sharpness from board to board already at full opening, for that you have to close at about 2.8. If you are looking for this parameter it is not the optics for you (maybe take a sigma art...). Instead it is the optics that is right for you if you are looking for the magic yield that this lens can give you (as well as so many other vintage lenses, here you also have the fast and precise af - if well calibrated). I prefer this lens to 1.8 by far, not because they are not good, but because it is the TA yield that makes the difference! The sharpness in my opinion remains more good, what drops a lot is the contrast, they appear aberrations and fringing, which however are part of the dreamy yield (and possibly remove without too much problems). The only thing I would have appreciated, would have been a build quality just superior (especially the dial and its games). What could be better? Staying in Canon the L 1.2... same optical philosophy, push further! In this case it also greatly improves the build quality, but also doubles the weight! sent on June 25, 2020 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Pros: price, weight, optical quality, af, stabilizer, zoom block Cons: size, front element game Opinion: I recently took this lens, after several months of "study" to have a everything do with excellent optical qualities, but at the same time easily transportable to the neck or in hand for a long time. The lens is sharp to all the focal points, already from the whole opening and from the angle to the corner (which over time has made it known), the price at which it is located is low, although lately with little more you can find a good specimen of 24-105 L first series (net of its flaws...). The autofocus is fast, quiet and precise (without having to perform miscellaneous calibrations for f/b focus), the stabilizer is very effective. The main reason why I chose this lens to the other alternatives (f4 constants, or even some universal f2.8) is the weight, the nearest competitor was the 24-70/4 that would not have offered me superior optical qualities, if not 2/3 of stop more at 70mm, but 1/3 less at 24mm and 35mm less side canvases, all at a cost more than double (justifiable, if you need the peculiarities that a series L offers). Among the cons I put the dimensions, because anyway "could be more compact" (yes, but then maybe you sacrifice the optical qualities...). Lastly, the game of the frontal element. Others before me pointed out this flaw, but inside of me I thought "ok, it will be something practically imperceptible, on a lens of economic invoice is normal...". In fact, the game is noticeable, walking with the optics in hand, the simple vibrations of the walk you hear the noise due to internal games (it is not the stabilizer, as in some sigma...). In practice it is nothing serious and moving the front element with the hand while shooting, even at full aperture, the quality of the image is not affected. Let's say this flaw would be important if it were an L-series... For the (carefree) use I will make of it, it is the best you could want! Promoted with flying colours! sent on June 15, 2020 |
 | Manfrotto Element grande in carbonio Pros: Light, perfectly stable up to 4kg, relatively low price given brand and materials, closed size, quick to open and close despite 5 sections, including precise head Cons: Minimal head, has no control over the clutch; it's not always easy to tell if the head is well screwed Opinion: I have this tripod for about 1 year, I used it to make landscapes without any problem with 5d mark IV and relatively light optics with the head supplied (rarely with 70-200 2.8 is II) and never disappointed me. The priority use I make of it is with the 5d and the Tamron 150-600 g2 with a 900g scale head, for a total of about 4kg. Even here I was never disappointed, the stability is really good, even to make shots with stabilizer disabled at 600mm. Once I tried to mount the 500/4.5, but with the 5d it was not possible to balance it except by mounting an additional bracket, which I did not have at the time. In this configuration (about 5kg) it was absolutely unstable, I'm pretty sure the problem was mainly balancing, but I never got to do other tests with a similar and well-balanced weight. For the use I make of it, I could not ask for better, especially at the amount paid out! sent on April 25, 2020 |
| Manfrotto Element grande in carbonio Pros: Light, perfectly stable up to 4kg, relatively low price given brand and materials, closed size, quick to open and close despite 5 sections, including precise head Cons: Minimal head, has no control over the clutch; it's not always easy if the head is well screwed Opinion: I have this tripod for about 1 year, I used it to make landscapes without any problem with 5d mark IV and relatively light optics with the head supplied (rarely with 70-200 2.8 is II) and never disappointed me. The priority use I make of it is with the 5d and the Tamron 150-600 g2 with a 900g scale head, for a total of about 4kg. Even here I was never disappointed, the stability is really good, even to make shots with stabilizer disabled at 600mm. Once I tried to mount the 500/4.5, but with the 5d it was not possible to balance it except by mounting an additional bracket, which I did not have at the time. In this configuration (about 5kg) it was absolutely unstable, I'm pretty sure the problem was mainly balancing, but I never got to do other tests with a similar and well-balanced weight. For the use I make of it, I could not ask for better, especially at the amount paid out! sent on April 25, 2020 |
 | Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Pros: Construction, super stabilizer, tropicalization, fine calibration dock, integrated swiss ark attachment, focal range (and maximum focal), lock to any focal, magnification ratio, fast, blurry autofocus, optical yield Cons: color aberration (red-blue), slight sharpness drop from 550 to 600 (especially when used on apsc) Opinion: I write the review after about 1 and a half years of use on canon 7D mark II and 5D mark IV. I start from the cons, both more accentuated on the dense sensors of the apsc: 1) the chromatic aberrations are removed with a click, and decrease by closing the diaphragm, so it is not a big problem. 2) the sharpness drop is quite physiological for all extreme focal zooms, when I had the 7d I often snapped at a maximum of 550mm, which in fact does not change anything as a field angle compared to the maximum focal, while on the 5d this drop is not visible and therefore not m I'm having trouble getting to the limit. These small defects are opposed by many pros, I dwell only on some of the written ones: "the autofocus holds very well the tracking of the subject (it also depends on how the machine is set) and is very fast (in my experience faster than the canon 400 L, of which In my opinion it is also sharper on two specimens tested). The stabilizer allows extreme shooting times for a 600mm (I paying attention and without leaning I managed to shoot at 1/40). The last treat, recently discovered and only on the 5d mark IV, with the canon 2x III is maintained the focus both from the viewfinder and in live view; in addition, the optical yield at 1200mm, even at full opening, is respectable (I published 2 with this pairing, marmots and gruccione), among other things the extender also corrects the chromatic aberrations. I didn't buy the 2x to use it with tamron, but given the quality I can get, in extreme cases I don't have any trouble using it. Let's be clear that the quality does not remain the same, but compared to a 2x digital crop the detail is much higher and keeping the whole file, this will be much more workable! A small comparison with the main competitors that I made before deciding which one to buy: the tamron g1 has a slightly lower cost, but loses many of the pros of the g2 version (af slower, no dock, no tropicalization, lower construction, nothing ark swiss... and the quality over 400mm decays much more consistently than the g2. The contemporary sigma I considered it a middle ground between the g2 and the g1 tamron, in the sense that it has some of the modern features that the g1 tamron does not have, but the optical yield and construction are very similar to the g1, it did not convince me even for the very cold colors it churned out. The sport sigma did not really take it into account because of the weight (1kg plentiful more than the others), it definitely has a superb construction, many features, but the optical quality of the specimen I tried was still lower (and the higher price). These are the considerations that led me to choose the G2 tamron, the fact remains that these zooms are often subject to optical variability from one specimen to another, so I am well aware that my comparison has no absolute value. sent on August 24, 2019 |
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
