|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Paolo Loro www.juzaphoto.com/p/PaoloLoro  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Nikon 100mm f/2.8 Series E Pros: Fifty size, featherweight, manual focus, optical and mechanical quality, negligible cost Cons: nothing Opinion: I agree with all the comments that have been made before me. Compared to the classic 105 2.5 ai-s, this one loses something in terms of optical performance, but it is even smaller, lighter, smoother and pleasant to handle. And here we come to the substance of the matter. A 100 mm 2.8 as small and light as a fifty, of excellent mechanical quality and more than decent optical quality, which can be purchased for 100 euros, really makes you think. Focus? If you don't do weddings or sports photography for a living, but you are a normal amateur photographer, even more so of landscape, what is the problem of focusing by hand? Carpal tunnel? Short-sightedness? Manual focus, for me, is pure enjoyment, like deciding shutter speeds and apertures the old-fashioned way. It's not that thirty or forty years ago we didn't know how to take good pictures. And in my opinion, the more action is left to the manual skills of the photographer, the more fun and satisfaction there is in photographing, and if you take some photos, so be it. But here we enter the subjective and everyone is free to believe that they cannot do without the latest huge, superstabilized, tropicalized, razor-sharp, very heavy and very expensive zooms that are close to them choosing the subject to photograph and the time to do it with artificial intelligence. Also there: I own two old tiny nikkor zooms, the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G and the 35-80 f/4-5.6 AF D which cost a few tens of euros and weigh less than 200 grams, of disconcerting optical quality in relation to weight and cost... Basically, with three small fixed cameras such as the 100 2.8, the 50 1.4/1.8 (or the 35/2) and the 24 2.8, one mounted and the other two in your pocket, you go away comfortable and relaxed with everything you need in 90% of cases, you spend a chip, you take reasoned and good quality photos, you move a little to choose the shots and you certainly have more fun than being Sherpas with backpacks full of the latest glass that you "must" use to delude yourself into thinking you can make sense of the mortgage payments needed to buy them (I'm not talking about professionals, of course). Then, for heaven's sake, the combinations are countless, but undoubtedly this 100 is incompatible with almost all zooms that would involve an overlap, or almost, of focal length, and in my opinion it makes sense to combine only with fixed ones. sent on March 06, 2024 |
 | Nikon D70 Pros: color rendering, detail, contrast, shadow opening and high light hold, etc. Cons: resolution, speed ... Opinion: My digital premiere. Even today if I look at the photos taken with the D70, I am amazed: the photos are simply BETTER than anything I had after (including the D850), except, perhaps, the D700. I remade the same trip abroad this year with the D780 that I did twenty years ago with the D70, and I rephotographed the same places at the same time with similar light conditions. Well, it is incredible the difference in favor of the D70 (photos viewed on LG 4K 43 inches), wonderful complexion, impeccable color rendering and realistic colors, total reliability in all conditions of shadows and lights, very little waste. The only limit is the poor hold at very high ISO, however I remember that at the time at 1000 or 3200 iso it was a huge leap compared to film. When you have equipment that satisfies, it is fundamentally wrong to change it to follow fashions. To think that I had two and I gave them away... The monkey is our worst enemy and technical progress is 95% fluff, if you think that twenty years later the sensors return poorer results. sent on June 25, 2023 |
 | Meike 85mm f1.8 Pros: Lightness, price, optical performance, complexion yield Cons: nothing for what it costs Opinion: I bought out of curiosity this lens, in the most recent and lightweight version, with Canon R mount. This is an economic lens (just over 200 euros) and light (358 gr without hood, 385 with), diameter of 67. The object is beautiful and, although not as consistent as a 700 gram zeiss, it still looks solid and returns a good feeling. I arrived today and I immediately made an empirical and quick comparison on Canon R (sensor 30.3 mp), at ISO 200, with Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 usm, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is usm II, Canon RF 24-105mm F4L is usm and compared to Nikon with Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ex apo hsm, Zeiss ze/zf.2 Makro-Planar 100mm f/2, Nikkor 85 f/1.8 af/g, Nikkor 105 f/2.5 k mounted on Nikon D780 (24.5 mp sensor). I shot scenes with strong contrast and portraits in backlight. I considered sharpness, color rendering, high light holding, shadow opening, to all apertures. My test is merely indicative, insufficient compared to the variety of real situations (for example in terms of autofocus performance in the most varied light situations, robustness, etc.), I also did not have the opportunity to compare the Meike in question with the new Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM, which is its most direct competitor. The comparison with Nikon would require a complex analysis, given the lower density of the sensor of the D780 and the need to carefully configure both machines with parameters as corresponding as possible, which I did not have time to do: I limit myself to observing that, in general, on Nikon the shadows are more readable, but I can not express other judgments (for example the blur of the Nikon 85 1.8, the best portrait lens I have ever used is pictorial, while I have not yet evaluated the bokeh of the Meike). However, from these first tests the Meike was a great revelation. It is extremely sharp (even superior to the Canon 24-105), excels in color saturation and general color rendering and complexion in particular, while maintaining a natural appearance (with the Canon R's sensor the result is remarkable). The autofocus did not give me problems, while the Canon EF, with the adapter did. Narrowing the comparison between this Meike and the Canon 85 EF, from what I have seen so far, the Meike wins across the board: weight (the Canon EF with the adapter weighs 535 grams, and the new RF does not weigh much less), price and, from what I have seen, optical yield. Sobriety and portability are essential factors in street, travel and small outings, because they allow you to immerse yourself in the scene and photograph with ease. I can even bear the opprobrium of the electronic viewfinder of mirrorless in view of their portability (heavy lenses on mirrorless are a contradiction) and today you can move very light without sacrificing the quality and brightness of the optics; in this perspective, this Meike, combined with the Canon R 50 f/1.8 (160 gr) and the Canon R 16 f/2.8 (165 gr), on the Canon R or on more recent cameras such as the Canon R8 (of only 461 gr), form an attractive kit. Nikon Z also has some very light fixed lenses, which can be combined with this medium telephoto lens, such as the 26 f / 2.8 (125 gr) or the featherweight 28 f / 2.8 (115 gr) and the 40 f / 2 (170 gr). If weight is not a problem, the initial savings alone are not worth in themselves to compensate for the greater value preserved over time by the original optics, but we are talking about figures (200 euros) that do not ruin anyone. On SLR instead I would not go to question the nikkor 85 1.8 on the handy D780, but I would also struggle to remove the 85 ef Canon from the good old and light 6D. However, this lens is definitely worth trying. I reserve the right to update this initial assessment after a congruous use in the field. sent on May 29, 2023 |
 | Nikon AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 D Pros: resistance, price Cons: Stiffness and play in the focal length variation dial Opinion: I align myself with the review that preceded me: slow without infamy and without praise but able to honor the most common needs; it is solid, aesthetically pleasing, returns a good feeling except for a certain rigidity and possible play in the focal length variation ring; Overall the value for money of this glass is more than good. My opinion makes use of an empirical comparison, partial and without any claim to scientific, of this lens at focal lengths 35 and 50, iso 200, on nikon D700 and D780, aperture 5.6 with the following optics: NIKKOR 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D, 28-300 f/ 3.5-5.6 G ED VR, 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED G, 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G, 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 D, 35-80 f/4-5.6 AF D, 35 f/2 AF-D, 50 f/1.8 AF-S G, 50 f/1.4 AF D, ZEISS ZE/ZF.2 Distagon 35mm f/2, ZENITH HELIOS 58 F/1.2, SIGMA 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG MACRO. I filmed with everyone the same scene strongly contrasted. I considered sharpness (also) at the edges, opening of the shadows and tightness to the highlights, color rendering. In this personal ranking at 35 mm win the 35 f / 2 and the very light 28/80 G, followed by the 28/80D and 35/80 D, also extremely compact and light, follows the massive sigma 24/70; The all-rounder 28/200 and 28/300 arrive last for the modest results at the edges (valid instead in the center). The result at 50 mm is more complex. Considering the D780, the tiny 35/80 achieves exceptional results, almost indistinguishable with the benchmark, namely the 50 f/1.4. Immediately behind are the two tiny 28/80 G and D and the large and heavy 28-300. The helios is a world apart: very sharp in the central area, it has no automatism and has a very particular blur, which you may like or not. With the D700 wins the 50 G f / 1.8, continues to do well in all parameters the 35-80, the sigma is slightly softer but holds the highlights well, the 28/70 D here in comment, the 28/80 D and G the 28/105 and even more pronounced the all-rounders tend to burn the highlights, but problem that I did not encounter with the D780. This 28-70 is in the middle. The 35-80 and 28-80 are featherweights of a few tens of euros of excellent optical yield (the 28-80 especially on the D780), not perceptibly dissimilar from the best fixed, which is shocking, given their multi-decade age, the non-existent cost and the negligible weight. There is a vague suspicion that the manufacturers are taking us by the bottoms, selling us unnecessary weight. The 28-70 here in comment still has a much more robust and consistent construction than the cheap one of the aforementioned microzooms, but the yield is lower than the focal lengths 35 and 50. I did not make comparisons to focal length 70. sent on May 25, 2023 |
 | Nikon AF 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G Pros: Non-existent weight and cost, excellent clarity and overall optical quality Cons: Cheap Opinion: I made an empirical comparison of this lens to focal lengths 35 and 50, aperture 5.6, iso 200, on nikon D700 (12.1 Mp) and D780 (24.1 Mp) with the following lenses: NIKKOR 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D, 28-300 f/ 3.5-5.6 G ED VR, 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 ED G, 35-80 f/4-5.6 AF D, 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 D, 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 D, 35 f/2 AF-D, 50 f/1.8 AF-S G, 50 f/1.4 AF D, ZEISS ZE/ZF.2 Distagon 35mm f/2, ZENITH HELIOS 58 F/1.2, SIGMA 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG MACRO. I filmed a strongly contrasted scene. I considered sharpness (also) at the edges, opening of the shadows and tightness to the highlights, color rendering. In this personal ranking, with all the limits of the case, with both 35 mm sensors win the 35 f / 2 and 28/80 G here in comment, followed by the 28/80D and the 35/80 D (also featherweights from the negligible cost), in third place is the excellent but heavy sigma 24/70; The all-rounder 28/200 and 28/300 come last for mediocre results at the edges, but still good in the middle part of the frame. Beat the zeiss, which weighs three times and costs 10 times as much. The result at 50 mm is more complex. Considering the D780, the 35/80 achieves results almost indistinguishable with the benchmark, i.e. 50 f/1.4. Immediately behind are the 28/80 G and D and the 28-300. The solid and heavier 28-105 and 28-70 are less performing. The helios is a world apart: it is very sharp in the central area, it is manual, it requires an adapter that interrupts any automatism, and has a very particular blur, which you may like or not. With the D700 wins the 50 G f / 1.8, continues to do well in all parameters the 35-80, the sigma is slightly softer but holds the highlights well, the 28/70 D, the 28/80 D and G the 28/105 and in a very accentuated way the all-rounders burn the highlights. The 35-80 is an incredibly light lens (180 gr) with excellent performance even on Nikon D850 (45.7 Mp). The exceptional performance of the 28/80 also leaps to the eye, both D and the even more compact G, referred to in this topic, also a featherweight (less than 200 grams!), at 35 mm of optical yield substantially equivalent to the fixed. In response to these results, these very light, cheap lenses of excellent image quality returned, bring out not only the doubts about the policies of the producers, to which some comments that preceded me have effectively mentioned, but also the absurdity of dragging behind in street or heavy and expensive beasts travels. A nikon D780, plus the 28-80 in question, plus the very light 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 D, plus a bright fifty, you are on the kilo and six hundred grams in all, better than mirrorless. Of course, these products are certainly cheap and fragile, but they cost a few tens of euros! It may make sense to combine a zoom of these with one or two light and bright fixed ones for low-light situations or for blurred portraits. Obviously, then, those who do safaris, birdlife, sports, astronomy, architecture and design, weddings, advertising, catalogs of paintings, journalism, studio portraits will use something else, but it is 1% of cases, and perhaps less, and in any case it is a profession, where professional fatigue and the need to monetize do not coincide with the amateur dimension of simple fun and creative exploration. Lightness is freedom. Elliott Erwitt and Henri Cartier-Bresson used a small rangefinder leica with only the summicron 50 f/2: for them photography, more than an exercise in technical perfection, was to capture the revealing moment, the synthesis of a situation, the expressive simplicity. I think you are more ready to take a good picture if light and identify with the situation, than by fiddling with pounds and pounds of glass intent on assembling and reassembling them continuously. Excessive equipment is counterproductive, while a not excellent resolution at the edges or some small vignetting or chromatic aberration have never diminished a photo that tells something. sent on May 24, 2023 |
 | Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8 G ED Pros: Extreme sharpness, excellent readability of shadows and tightness of highlights, compactness, lightness, distortion correction, price Cons: Nothing Opinion: A must have for Nikonists. First of all, weight and small dimensions invite you to always carry it with you, perhaps in combination with a zoom: for example, associated with the 28-300 and a fifty or a medium-bright canvas (such as the light and excellent 50 or 85 1.8) allows you to cover almost every photographic need with a manageable effort. And this is a great advantage because heavy optics always end up leaving them at home. The optical performance is excellent: as sharpness and aperture of the shadows it is superior even to less pushed and high quality optics (such as the zeiss 25 f/ 2). The color rendering is excellent. The aperture at 1.8 absolutely remarkable for a lens of this focal length, expanding its operating capabilities to all light conditions. I also own the excellent Irix 15, but in my opinion the Nikon in question is a killer, in the sense that its compactness, lightness, brightness and wide focal length discourages in most cases the use of bulky and heavy ultra-wide-angle monsters. sent on June 08, 2022 |
 | Nikon AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF Pros: colors, contrast, weight, size, sharpness Cons: hard to find, some artifacts against the light Opinion: Very compact and light lens for the excursion it offers, a handyman of excellent quality, excellent wide angle, good normal and good canvases. Very good sharpness, great colors. Bright in relation to the extremely compact size thanks to the absence of stabilization. I'm now preferring it to the excellent 28-300 3.5-5.6 stabilized, which however weighs more than double. The usability of this lens is amazing, a joy to carry it with you, and in my opinion combined with the 20 f / 1.8, the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 forms a kit with bows. It is so good that the owners do not get used to it easily and it has become very rare: its price increases with the passage of time, now it is difficult to find it under 200 euros. I recommend it to those who go to the point and look for quality compact optics without many frills. Of course, you can not expect from such an object the extreme brightness, stabilization or that splits the pixels under a microscope: those who want perfection and a stellar yield will have to resign themselves to spending quite a bit to bring with them beasts, such as the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70 mm f / 2.8E ED VR which weighs 1,067 grams and costs 1,700 euros + the 70-200mm VR II AF-S G ED which weighs 1,540 gr and costs 2,500 euros. We are talking about 200 euros vs 3,200 euros and 360 gr vs 2,600 gr .... it cannot be the same thing. But if the anxiety of technical perfection must go to the detriment of joy and manageability, I prefer to take home a good shot in fluency than NOT to take home a perfect shot, having left the boulders in the car or at home. sent on October 10, 2021 |
 | Tokina SZX 400mm f/8 Reflex MF Pros: Exceptional lightness and compactness, discretion (long focal length without being noticed), pleasant color rendering Cons: typical problems of retro-reflectors: impossibility of diaphragm, manual focus, ubiquitous micro-mover with consequent need for tripod or very high times and therefore high iso, low general optical yield (sharpness and donut bokeh) Opinion: sent on September 27, 2021 |
 | Canon EOS R Pros: Color rendition, compactness, sensor protection from dust Cons: Electronic viewfinder, possible lag, machine unsuitable for professional use Opinion: Of Canon R I appreciate the good balance of white and above all the excellent and natural rendition of the complexion: it has a sensor that lends itself optimally to portraiture. Pretty good yield to high ISO but better not to go over the 6400. Excellent (indeed indispensable) the curtain of protection of the sensor from dust, which made me prefer the R to the RP and to the Nikon ML: For those who often change the objectives of the curtain remains used mummy could be considered an indispensable factor in an ML with the Sensor without the mirror protector. Appreciable the system in its overall compactness, the ' Corpaccioni ' of the reflex in its presence appear obsolete; In this respect, however, the combination with the bulky 24-104 does not convince me fully, I find that the machine is better balanced with compact fixed optics: The body with three fixed lenses and the excellent and compact EF 70-300 USM II, all contained in a small Bag, they can represent a light system but at the same time complete and versatile. I Know that the fans of the ML will not agree, but I find that the digital viewfinder is still largely inadequate compared to the optical (for example compared with the wonderful one of the Nikon D850): The vision on digital is annoyingly contrased, Unnatural, with artimade and dominant colors evident above all in the sunlight; There is-in practice-to shoot with a sense of unpleasant approximation compared to what will be the actual result, with good peace of who argues that the mirrorless allow to see in the viewfinder exactly the end result (perhaps in ten years, today Definitely not). However I realise that it is a matter of personal preference, and that there may be those who prefer to see the effects of the settings (such as over and under exposure, white balance, etc.) directly in the viewfinder at the expense of a sharp vision and Precise: I personally believe that if the photographer has enough "handle" and knows his camera adequately, while shooting knows well what result he gets even if he sees it ' rebuilt ' in the optical viewfinder, benefiting from a perfect and unparalleled vision ( Time) from the digital viewfinder. Some greater usefulness of the electronic viewfinder can be with little light and indoors, where you can appreciate the vision at high ISO. I also happened in certain circumstances to find a lag in the viewfinder moving quickly the camera body. The machine is made with quality materials and appears robust. He is very well-wield; As a disposition of the controls and immediacy of use I prefer the Nikon, but it is only a matter of habit being this my first Canon. The AF is normal. The Life of the battery does not seem wicked, being an ML: if you want there is the battery Grip BG-E22, but also with a simple battery (original) stock tucked in the bag a normal amateur photographer-like me-can be absolutely quiet. Ultimately, you feel you have a well-made product in your hand, but it is still an object for consumer use: Reflex Admirals still belong to another planet in terms of ergonomics, reliability, usability and performance. The R, although Cavandosela discreetly even with sports photos and action, is not born for this: its Land of choice is the street or hiking landscape where they are important lightness, compactness and transportability. It also Gives good satisfaction in portraits. sent on April 01, 2019 |
 | Nikon D700 Pros: Ergonomics, robustness, reliability, controls, image quality Cons: Nothing Opinion: I recently purchased the D850 for its decated dynamic range and because, after ten years from the purchase of the D700, I thought it was time to update me. To my surprise my dear old D700 holds wide head to the recent and blazoned D850, compared to which is undoubtedly inferior in high sensitivities (the D850 has a spectacular yield to 3200 and 6400 ISO), but is superior as ergonomics, robustness and Especially as a holding of the high daytime running lights. The D700 is an indestructible tank while the D850-despite being substantially identical as shape, weight and size-restores a feeling of less robustness; The D700 grabs it quickly from the bag and you are immediately operational, the D850 grab it from the bag and accidentally opens the door of the card or disasses the display tilting with the risk of breaking. The D700 has the most important command-P/A/S/M-in the most logical and immediate position, close to the shutter release, the D850 has it in the left ring, forcing to use the left hand slowing down the shooting operations (and this is a tangible disadvantage than the D700). Also the D700 has the built-in flash-useful for the fill-in backlight-which the D850 (incomprehensibly) does not have; On the other hand it seems to me that the D700 is more exposed to the dust deposit on the sensor than the D850, which perhaps has a more effective cleaning system. I do portraits and landscape, I am interested in chromatic rendition, dynamic range, opening of shadows and holding highlights, rather than video, Wi-Fi, touch display, focus staking and various bells, and from a first comparison I think that as a pure quality of the image to Low ISO The D700 is higher than the D850. You read it right: top. With regard to the resolution, at the current state of my display and print equipment I am enough and advance the 12 mpx of the D700; I still reserve to make some comparative prints in A2 with my Canon pro-1000, where (with the same optics, subjects and shooting parameters) I obviously expect to find the difference between the sensor of the D850 mpx and the D700 12 mpx. Remains the Fatt Or that normally you do not print the photos in A2, but at most in A3, size in which the current printing technology does not allow to enhance the greater resolution of the D850. I wanted to sell the D700, but after trying the D850 I look good. In conclusion, for those who look at the substance, that is the quality of the image, and is not interested in the cruft (ie the electronic gadgets of contour and the amount of megapixels), the D700 remains firmly one of the best options on the market, resisting undeterring At the time, with an unbeatable price-quality ratio, costing a fraction of the D850, compared to which is not at all inferior (indeed, resulting in some important higher aspects). sent on July 07, 2018 |
 | Nikon D850 Pros: Shutter speed, made in low light conditions Cons: Price, card flap, overhead display, P/A/S/M cumbersome, disappointing high light output Opinion: I own it for a month, and I made about 5000 shots on a trip to Central Europe where I brought it along with my d700. This so it's just a first summary judgement. D700 and D850 are substantially similar in size and weight, but the d700 is much better in practical use: quickly extracting the D850 from the bag, opens the card door, or grabs the tilting display by lifting it from below with a risk of Rupture of the same. I do mostly portraits and landscape, and I frequently use the aperture priority: in the D700 it is easier and faster to change the settings P/A/S/M, which in the D850 was unexpectedly moved to the left, forcing to slow down the shooting With a more cumbersome operation. On the level of image quality, the higher resolution of the D850 I am relatively indifferent (not mold giant but I reach the maximum at the A2 with my Canon Pro-1000). I purchased the D850 for its dynamically decanted range, but-frankly-at the time I have not found substantial differences with the old D700, which even holds better the highlights, which on equal targets (typically use Zeiss or Nikkor Pro) I found Often burned in the shots of the D850. Instead the D850 responds better than the D700 in low light conditions: it is a pleasure to use it in the evening hours. The white balance adjustments are very complete in the D850 (however they are also sufficient in the D700). I do not enter into the merits of all the various Ammenicoli and gadgets (including video) that I do not use. In Conclusion: It is a good machine, but basically overrated: compared to the D700 it doesn't seem really past ten years. sent on July 07, 2018 |
 | Irix 15mm f/2.4 Pros: Excellent sharpness almost at the edges, balanced chromatic rendering, perfectly correct distortion, controlled contrast, absence of chromatic aberration and ghosting, robustness, sexy design Cons: Closes shadows, packaging at risk of damage to the Product. Some users complain about focus Issues. Opinion: The object is very elegant, to the touch conveys a feeling of quality, although I preferred to buy the light version, the Firefly (weighing 568 grams without front and rear cap with the lens hood, 537 grams removed the lens hood too). I have not put between the pros and cons of the weight and the cost, because they can be judged reasonable or excessive at the same time, depending on the characteristics that you prefer in this Perspective. The weight of the Firefly corresponds roughly to that of its most direct competitor, the much cheaper Samyang 14 f/2.8, is considerably lower than the much more expensive Zeiss Distagon f/2.8, and is the middle of the Sigma Boulder Art 14 f/1.8. IRIX has some refinements such as the block of the hood and the door on the lens hood to be able to turn the polarizer without removing the hood itself. The product came to me in a tin box, beautiful to look at, but with worrying holes outwards at the widest part of the lens, which is to show that the lens has undergone compressions or beatings. In any case I have not found any damage, nor the problems reported by other users of out of focus Areas. The object is solid and Robust. As for the warranty in the package I found only one card with four empty fields to fill out, without any address where to send it nor any indication on how to use this card to activate the Warranty. I wrote in the contact area of their site for information and after a few days they responded from Krakow saying that: «The warranty card is only required by some distributors and if it has not been filled in by The seller, you do not have to do anything. The document which is the most important for warranty repair is a copy of the proof of Purchase. " of course, It is an esoteric brand and a small company, with the unknowns of the case for any assistance. The diaphragm is operated by the machine, the focus is manual, which-in a 15mm-represents an advantage, because you always leave the fire at the desired point (you can fix the fire). In hyperfocal and/or closed diaphragm you basically forget the Focus. From the optical point of view, a certain vignetting is visible to TA, which I do not consider annoying. The sharpness is really remarkable: it inevitably reduces in the extreme corners of the frame, where the image is "stretched" by the correction of the distortion (do not forget that it is a 15 mm), but this reduction is circumscribed to a Minimal and negligible portion of the frame, and this is an excellent result. The distortion correction is perhaps the strong point of this lens, obviously when held parallel to the ground: we are close to Perfection. The chromatic rendition is neutral and Faithful. The shadows are rather closed, but at the same time the contrast is not excessive, and this is appreciable in a focal of the Genre. I have not noticed chromatic aberrations, nor annoying flare (at least by day). The bokeh is Nice. In conclusion: the lens is more than valid and allows you to bring home also remarkable results in various light conditions. The problem, if anything, is upstream, in the assessment of the real need to use a focal so Thrust. Stopping at 20 millimeters (which offers a perspective although always remarkable but in my opinion more usable and manageable for landscape purposes) the Nikonista has available the extraordinary 20 GED f/1.8, which at a price not dissimilar weighs half, is much smaller and maneuverable, brighter, has autofocus and suffers from minor optical compromises. however, If you need or prefer the 15 mm, the IRIX is definitely a good choice. sent on June 07, 2018 |
 | Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Pros: Weight, ruggedness, sharpness, bokeh, colour rendition, excellent value for money Cons: Little Fluid Zoom Ring Opinion: Quote as written by Prodeettorre: «As a whole it defends itself very well, faithfully returning colors and sharpness. Let's not forget the quality/price ratio and nevertheless the quality/weight ratio. ' The chromatic rendering in my opinion is placed on a level of authentic excellence: neutral, without dominance. The contrast is balanced and the shadows are readable. The bokeh is pleasant, although in certain situations (diaphragming and with points of light) can be a little "nervous": Overall the image returned by this sigma is realistic, ie arouses the memory of the scene as well as it is exactly lived, and this is in Ultimately the prerogative of the best objectives. At 70 2.8 The lens is particularly suitable for portraits: at the same aperture it does not disfigure at all with my 85 Nikkor lenses. For those who love portraits is undoubtedly a perspective that gives satisfaction, but is defended with decorum in every circumstance, even indoor. In the landscapes, by diaphragm, remarkable results can be obtained, as in the rest testify the images present at the bottom of the page, sometimes indistinguishable from those obtained from far more noble optics. The AF is not a thunderbolt but the practical act has never bothered me. Sturdy object without being heavy: 700 grams for a full frame zoom with fixed aperture at 2.8 There are not many, also considering the weight of the individual fixed optics that it replaces (24, 28, 35, 50, 70). It is the classic honest and no frills lens that makes bringing home the result (a good result) in every situation. Over time I switched to using mostly fixed optics, but when I need flexibility combined with brightness I still use this Sigma with pleasure, and I never felt the need to change it to chase fads. I look good from selling it, because it is worth far more than the handful of euros that ricaverei. In Conclusion: The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, while being dated and lacking features that today seem indispensable (stabilization, tropicalization, etc.), achieves in my opinion a good balance between practicality of use, cost and optical quality, and It is a good choice for those who look after the substance. sent on June 06, 2018 |
 | Nikon D5600 Pros: Resolution, manageability, completeness of functions, rotating display Cons: Motor Lack autofocus Opinion: A brief premise. After inaugurate my digital photographic life with the mythical D70, I converted to full frame with the d700, passing in a whole other world (dynamic range, chromatic rendition, ISO manageability in low light, etc.). In recent years I have worked more and more with the 28-300, which, however, recently broke me. I therefore found myself in the need to replace it by addressing the relevant expenditure (800-900 euro). Having already a good kit of optics DX (12-24, 18-200, 35, etc.), comforted by reading reviews about the performance of current DX sensors, I decided to-instead of replacing the 28-200-retry the DX format, buying-not without hesitation-the D5600 with the two excellent and lightweight kit lenses (18-55 + 70-300). Well, at the moment, according to a series of tests comparing with the same optics and the same subjects, I must say that as image quality wins across the line the D5600 on the D700. That is to say: The current DX gets better results than the FX of ten years ago. Frankly, I didn't expect that. At this point, at least for me, does not really make sense to break my back with the heavy equipment FX, often left at home: I bought a nice backpack, where I put my wonderful 5600 with all my small, very light and Fantastic optics DX, and away to have fun! Only note, does not work the autofocus of the various 85, 50, 300 etc. who used the autofocus of the D700, but little bad, taken by the enthusiasm I remade them. P.S. Update after a year. In the long run, and after many tests in all light conditions and several hundred prints, I have to partially correct the above judgement on the basis of early initial tests. If you look at the pure and simple resolution, and the results under controlled lighting conditions, the current DX may be higher than the old full frame of the D700; But "when the game gets tough", ie in situations of strong contrast or critical lighting, the old full-format sensor brings home more satisfying results, opening better shadows and keeping the detail in the highlights, all with greater Chromatic fidelity. sent on March 31, 2017 |
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
