|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Roberto Nalini www.juzaphoto.com/p/RobertoNalini  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Pros: Sharp, light, tropicalized, excellent construction. Cons: Lack of stabilization. Opinion: I took it yesterday and took several test photos and I confirm the excellent performance. Much sharper than the canon 18:150 with the same focal length of course. Very beautiful colors, excellent rendering of the complexion. Too bad there is no stabilization, but on the R7 the lack is felt less given the stabilization of the sensor. Brava sigma, finally an Aps-c lens worthy of Canon. Now we are waiting for the others announced and above all a stabilized 50-100 zoom at least compact like these. Lately I prefer portability and lightness over everything else, so much so that the full kit is increasingly at home. At the time of reflex cameras, apsc was far below full, but now you have to draw your eyes already by zooming in to 100% with lenses of this level, especially on prints. And if you get manias, let you carry the weight of the backpack. sent on August 01, 2024 |
 | Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Pros: Size, lightness, image quality for the price. Cons: Bad as always Canon's habit of not wearing the lens hood! Opinion: Just picked up and took a few shots on the fly to see how it goes. It's certainly not an L-series, but for 400 euros it's more than fine. Then it depends on what you have to do with it of course, but since now most of the photographs end up only on social media, that's already enough. I'll post a photo to make you understand, then later I'll update the opinion as soon as I've taken some photos It's been a while and I've taken a lot of photos, what can I say? That pleasantly surprised me, sharp rows from the center to the edges, maybe even better than the EF 16-35mm I have for the full. Together with the R7 it has fantastic stabilization! 1 second exposure and even more. Fair colors, as opposed to the EF 16-35mm which are very cold. Now in a small, but really small bag there is the R7, the 18-150 and this 10-18 with 3 batteries. Incredible! Practically from 16 to 240 compared to the full house. So much so that my 3 full houses are more and more at home. I'm still waiting for the lens hood because of Canon's bad habit of not putting the lens hood included..... sent on December 23, 2023 |
 | Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Pros: Small, lightweight. Lens that despite the large focal range retains a good image quality for its category. Cons: Bad habit of Canon not to put the hood supplied, solved with 12 euros in Amazon. When will those of Canon understand that we do not buy his for 45 euros? Not very bright, but it is normal for such a lens. Opinion: Taken used later because I did not believe in such a small lens and with so much focal range. Then I tried it and what can I say.... I was pleasantly surprised. The quality is just enough for everyday cars, combined with the R7 is brilliant. Driving with the R7, all light and fast and doing everything is something that makes you feel free! So much so that my R6 with its emblazoned lenses remains more and more at home. sent on June 03, 2023 |
 | Canon EOS R7 Pros: Ergonomics, lightness, optical compatibility, stabilization, tropicalization, customization of all buttons and dials, file quality to be an apsc Cons: To tell the truth nobody, it is a well-made machine, except perhaps the shutter noise that is rather metallic and not pleasant. Opinion: sent on April 19, 2023 |
 | Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Pros: only lightness Cons: all inclusive price for what it does. Opinion: Taken in kit on the second body R6. Possessing that L series inevitable was to make the comparison. I understand the difference in price, but from Canon I did not expect it to make a bad lens like that. I'm not talking about the brightness that you know at the beginning that at that price it can not be otherwise, but the sharpness especially at 24 and then at the edges is really bad, indeed the edges are a disaster. I took it as mentioned in the kit that the difference in price is quite a lot and finds the only justification of the purchase thinking only of keeping it as a forklift in the bag of a professional who in the event of breakage of the L series can save him a service. But nothing more! I do not understand why in the previous comments they put on the pros the sharpness, or they have only that and having no comparisons to them it seems good or mine is defective ..... sent on March 17, 2022 |
 | Canon EOS R6 Pros: Double slot, ibis Cons: They got a panda and wanted him to do the 200 km per hour! Opinion: I would like to start by pointing out that after 45 years as a photographer I tried everything and more, my passion for photography led me to try this R6 given the favorable reviews made by others. When I try a new machine I do it comparing it with what I consider the best for its category and in this case mirrorless, setting the same parameters on both (iso, time, diaphragm, photo style etc. everything) and shooting with the same lens to the same subject one shot after another. In this case I compared the Eos R6 (price €.2850.00) with the Eos R (price €.1900.00). my opinion: R6, I also had the same impression in taking it in the hands of those who have already preceded me in a review and that is a "plasticona" described well saying that it seems to go from a 5D mk4 to a 6D mk2. Viewfinder: I had read somewhere that it has the same viewfinder as the R (the best I have seen so far, not even Sony has so beautiful), well in the fast lateral movements it is "snappy" and not as fluid as that of the R. (On the model I tried) Stabilizer: you work well something you earn compared to the R that is only on the objectives. But beyond all these purely manual considerations we come to the point that we are most interested and that is the FILE ! At first glance seeing them alone (without comparison) you immediately get a huao! look very nice, then you take the R's and compare them and....... Slightly below exposed, however, I must say that those of R are slightly overexposed, but in the end there is about half a stop, which turned into an iso that is that the with the R I can shoot with a lower sensitivity. Sharpness: Those of the R6 look sharper, but the reason is that they are very contrasted, an exaggerated contrast mask, which can be noticed by the edges too accentuated. (I tried with DPP to change the parameters by decreasing the contrast, but in my opinion the edges are always too contrasted while making the image soft. Color: Good in line with all Canons. Good dynamic range, but more or less like the R (Sony succeeds better) Noise: Even here there is a nice speech, the file as it comes out has less noise than those of the R with the same iso, on the other hand it is normal given the 20 megapixels of the R6 against the 30 megapixels of the R, but there is a however..... R6 files measure 5472x3648 pixels while R files measure 6720x4480 pixels about a third larger. Suppose we print a photo 50x70cm We open Photoshop and resize the two files, here we have to enlarge them more with the logical consequence that even the noise gets bigger and in the end you have more noise on the R6 ! Conclusion I keep my R at the moment and I will see if I have the opportunity to try the R5, why would one spend almost 1000 euros more for the R6 of the R to have the double go down and the ibis having a worse file? to you the choice for the work you have to do. sent on October 17, 2020 |
 | Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM Pros: Versatility, good image quality to be a 10x. makes it better in canvases than in wide-angle. acceptable size and weight. Cons: lack of the standard lampshade. On a cost of 1000 euros we could put that piece of plastic of the lampshade , it is not made of gold! Opinion: Taken from a couple of days and tried on the fly with mundane photos just to compare it with RF 24-105. I must say that I expected worse for a 10x , in direct comparison with RF 24-105 loses quality at the edges in the focal courts, but not dramatic. Very good yield to the long focal points, compared with the EF 70-200 f4 is last series holds him almost head. the problem is that you have to use the new digital photo professional of canon because at the moment the raw files on raw camera are not correct , you can use but for example at 24mm you see at the corners angry the edges of the lens. in Practice shows a photo more than 24mm than the same in jpeg. More information will follow in the field. But it's crazy to go out with the only car around your neck with a lens that does pretty much everything, leaving the heavy duffel bag at home. It's only been a few days and the raw camera update has arrived, I say right away that it's a strange thing, applying the lens data corrects well and the black corners disappear, but giving the correction 100% on the distortion that makes the photo change a lot, but straightens the lines to perfection. With other 24 mm lenses you do not see the black corners even without applying the correction. Boh...... However, I confirm the decent overall quality. He loses a bit of sharpness at the edges in the focal courts, but I'm a good judge. Going around without the heavy duffel bag pleases me and I think in the end that if you don't have to do professional photos for advertising can go well. Ps tried at a wedding for the outside....... Never had so much fun! Great result! sent on September 06, 2019 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS II USM Pros: Quality construction, image quality further improved of the already excellent first series, effective stabilizer. Cons: Nobody Opinion: Having owned and used for years the 70-200 F4 L (non-stabilized), the 70-200 F4 L stabilized first series, 70 200 f 2.8 Stabilized first series, I think this new lens is the best I've ever had. It has an exciting sharpness and then is light to carry around, when I had the 2.8 if very good I often leave it at home for the footprint and above all the weight. I also had the 70-300 F4/5.6 L which although smaller overall was still heavy and then I think that freehand already 300 mm are challenging. In any case stabilized or not if you want crystalline photos you have to use a shutter speed three times the focal length you are using (at least from 150 mm up). For the sake of the stabilizers do more or less their job, you can take home if you are in light critical photo still printable, but the crystal engraving you get only with the times before described. sent on February 15, 2019 |
 | Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Pros: Excellent sharpness at all focal lengths, solid construction from tank, tropicalization. Cons: Frankly no one. Opinion: I took this lens used at a reasonable price by replacing the 70-200 F4 is. I have not regretted, indeed, the sharpness is equal and 100 mm more are useful. The stabilizer is even better in my opinion. It weighs a little more, but from a feeling of remarkable reliability and then it is much shorter and there is also on a small backpack. Used with the 5d Mark 3 and 6d Mark 2 has produced very nice files, crisp, excellent micro-contrast and blurry very pleasant and then stop! A BIG stabilizer! I read some bad review on this lens and frankly I don't understand! I am a professional and I have used several optics, for goodness sake the fixed have a gear in addition, but I assure you that this zoom as zoom is very nice! I did a test (tripod, focus on the screen to be sure) I compared it with the 100 macro is that in my opinion is one of the sharpest optics of canon, the sharpness in the center is (heard) identical! Only at the side edges more distant cala of a breath! What more do you want from a zoom of these focal lengths? sent on November 02, 2018 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM II Pros: Construction from true L, tropicalization, beautiful and large focus and zoom ring Cons: Weight, a real brick! Compared to the first 24-105 series gains a bit more sharpness on the edges but is not exciting, unfortunately it loses sharpness in the center especially at 105. Let's say now the gap between edges and center is less obvious, but it's normal to lower the sharpness to Center instead of improving more that at the edges? Opinion: Several years after the release of the previous one I expected something better than Canon. I was not satisfied with the gearbox, I also have the 24 70 f4 which fortunately has a significantly superior quality. Pity on the 24th 105 would have the most interesting focuses for a matrimonialist ....... Then the weight, a real brick and even the size have greatly increased. Mah! I expected more in everything. sent on June 25, 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
