|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Giallo63 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Giallo63  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Leica M10 Pros: It's got everything I need Cons: It has nothing I don't need Opinion: More than a year ago I reluctantly sold my two Leica Q2 (mono and color) to return to the M system, albeit with a thousand doubts. Faithful user since the days of film, with the transition to digital, after the M8 of which I have never appreciated the 1.3x sensor, I had (2009-2011) the M9. Exciting results, 18 mpxl that seemed like 30, colors from Velvia... except that every two or three you had to make a trip to Germany to treat your ailments. On my second return, I took everything to the shop and traded in for Canon, which I still use with satisfaction. But the Q2 was a convict, above all by virtue of the philosophy of use, simplicity, lightness, essentiality. Sometimes, however, the 28mm was too long or too short (even with the considerable cropping possibilities on the generous sensor) and so I took advantage of a nice used chrome M10 (a little) and made the big comeback. Mature product compared to the models that predestined it, removed functions that were useless to me (first of all the video) and aesthetic slimming of the body made it (and in my opinion still do) the most beautiful digital M to look at. Of course, the important thing is the photographs, but the eye also wants its part. There is everything I need when I am not in a hurry, when the moment is ... instinct prevails over planning and reasoning. The sensor does not have a record resolution, but it is more than enough (if I had to crop an M10 image too much I would probably trash it and that's it) it has an excellent dynamic range and holds up well to high ISO when needed. I have always preferred dials to buttons and wheels, although comfortable and fast. I photograph as I did in the 90s with my M6, and I can understand this is not of interest to everyone, but I do. I don't feel the need for grips, scales and fake charging levers, I like to look at it and use it as they made it come out of the factory. I like it so much that after six months I bought another one, black, also second-hand. With 21/3.4 a., 35/1.4 a., 50/1.4 a., and recently 90/2 a., it is all in an average bag that does not weigh too much on the shoulder. With this equipment every photo is a challenge (often lost) and when I like the result I feel more "mine" than with any other excellent, fast, automatic, efficient, perfect camera I use for the genres and occasions precluded by the M system. sent on April 01, 2025 |
 | Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Pros: High microcontrast even at t.a., almost perfect correction of all aberrations, compactness and lightness Cons: Cost Opinion: I recently traded in my faithful and highly appreciated Summicron 50 (V version) for the 2004 aspherical Summilux. I often work in low ambient light and I also wanted a more decisive detachment of the shots, especially in portraits. I was amazed to see that this lens offers everything that its little brother Summicron offered, but at an extra aperture aperture: I thought that at f:1.4 it would have been slightly smaller than the other at f:2, but it is not so. Moreover, despite being extremely sharp and surgical, the fine tonal transitions and the transitions from the plane of focus to the blurred are smooth and natural: looking at the images "it seems to be there". The dimensions are even more than human (if I think of my Canon RF 50/1.2 L ...) and I have rediscovered the pleasure of leaving the house with a single prime lens with which to do everything. Or try, still having a lot of fun, with the certainty of being able to shoot at f:1.4 without any uncertainty about the final quality that I will get from this masterpiece. I add that I use M10, and that 24 mpxl today is not much to fully evaluate the details, etc. But if it gives me so much, and with the other Leica M it worked very well, I think that the tests with adapter on Canon R5 will confirm that these lenses can "face" hyperdense sensors without suffering the slightest ailment. sent on September 30, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 10-20mm f/4 L IS Pros: Superwide focal range like no other - final quality - compactness - lightness Cons: Exposed front lens (no filters) - price Opinion: It is a simply magnificent lens, at least for those who appreciate this extreme focal range. It is not easy to dominate such a vast corner of the field, and you have to be careful of abuses and tacky effects; but this depends on the user of it, not on the objective itself. It is a "born digital" lens for which it is designed according to firmware / software post-shooting corrections: however, the thing works so well that the results are superior to those of its predecessor from Canon, or the EF 11-24/4 L that I had in the past. https://www.juzaphoto.com/topic2.php?l=it&t=4804261 sent on July 22, 2024 |
 | Leica Super-Elmar-M 21mm f/3.4 ASPH Pros: Sharpness-uniformity of performance-very low distortion-compactness (even with lens hood attached) Cons: Price (but what am I writing to do?) - external viewfinder Opinion: Compared to its illustrious predecessors, which have followed one another over time in my camera bag, this small lens is a leap in quality, prodigious given the still high qualities of the Elmarit 21/2.8 and 21/2.8 aspherical. The first has a beautiful plastic rendering, but the high quality in the center can only be achieved at the edges with generous diaphragmat, which is problematic when the light is low and you want to obtain, for example in architectural shots, a high yield over the entire field of view; the second, 21/2.8 aspherical, is an objective and perceptible improvement of the first, but - again - the edges, to give the best compared to the center, need closures at least f:5.6. Of course, both are excellent, we are talking about Leitz: but we are still talking about products created essentially for film: with such a high angle of view, a non-telecentric project, at the edges, struggles and you can see it. Of course, in reportage, for example, this may be irrelevant, but in landscape and architecture a brilliant rendering over the entire frame is quite important. The Super Elmar 21/3.4 a. is of a different nature, born in the digital age: perhaps it does not offer that feeling of plasticity of the two predecessors (especially the first) but it returns very high sharpness already at full aperture and, above all, it extends to the entire field of view. You can see that it's a new project, the results leave you speechless and I can finally shoot safely without worrying about having to close the aperture and raise the ISO to keep a sufficiently short shutter speed. The distortion, if there is one, is not seen. Backlighting does not give any flare phenomenon. It's my ultimate superwide on the M system. sent on July 03, 2024 |
 | Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Pros: Total optical and mechanical quality, compactness, versatility Cons: Costicchia Opinion: I have never - I think - the vote 10 to a lens that I have reviewed so far. Maybe the Canon rf 50/1.2, but maybe. In this case I can't help but do it, because this summilux responds best in all the characteristics relevant to optical quality, but not only: despite being impeccable, it retains that plasticity and three-dimensionality that other aspherical Leicas seem to lose a bit; it is small and light, mechanically a rock, backlit it is free of flare, distortion practically absent, sharpness is stellar, not only in the center and at medium apertures, but also at the edges and at full aperture. Microcontrast... awkward. I find myself using it very often, despite having been "educated" by the Q2 to 28mm vision. When I need more angle of view I go directly to the 21, but of the 35 I am appreciating more and more the naturalness of the rendering, close to that of the 50 but a little more "generous", which helps in a bunch of "quick" situations in which the famous "step back" is not possible, not for reasons of space, but of time. Many talk about the quality / price ratio, and it is understandable: I paid for it, used "BA", as much as a new Canon RF 28-70/2 L ... but the question is: How much weight does each one give to quality? How much do you need all the features close to perfection of this lens? Everyone has to give their own answer, but if quality "weighs", well this Summilux will never make you regret the money paid. sent on April 24, 2024 |
 | Leica Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 Pros: Overall optical quality, low distortion and flare, construction, limited footprint, plasticity in overall rendering Cons: Edge rendering at larger apertures, need for external viewfinder Opinion: It is an excellent lens for use in the street, in which it almost makes you forget its considerable angle of view and offers a unique three-dimensionality for these focal lengths, very pleasant and effective. For the other areas of choice, i.e. architecture and landscape, however, it is necessary to take into account the spherical aberration which, at larger apertures, causes a perceptible drop in sharpness in the most peripheral areas of the format; This factor is perhaps more evident in digital, while on film it should be less noticeable (I think the design of this lens dates back to the early 80s). Maybe the later asph version. should mitigate this. I have found - however - that in these cases it is necessary to close at least at f:5.6, better at f:8: in this way you get that center-edge uniformity that is usually preferable in these photographic genres. It goes without saying, however, that to close at f:8 in a dimly lit church you need to have a tripod with you (and be able to use it) or raise the ISO to ensure a sufficient safety time to avoid blur; In the landscape, on the other hand, as a rule, it is possible to use that opening without particular precautions, except in situations of low light/shadow/evening. In the conditions described, however, the optics are extremely sharp and correct, it is a perfect match to the 35mm focal length. sent on March 20, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM Pros: Portability in relation to focal range - optical quality - mechanical quality - relative compactness - stabilizer effectiveness Cons: I prefer the zoom ring lock with slider instead of clamping ring. Cost (but that's okay...) Opinion: Purchased used A- from trusted physical store. Only the significant discount compared to the new one made me take it, because I was really satisfied with the excellent performance of the two lenses that I left in exchange, namely RF 100-400/5,6-8 and RF 800/11. The reasoning was essentially that, since I placed the R7 (apsc) side by side with the R5 (ff) for the widlife I use practically only the smallest format; and for that reason the 100-400 was often a bit short, while the 800, for years and with satisfaction used on the FF, was far too long on the apsc. This 100-500 L turned out to be the best choice for me: the equivalent l.f. from 160 to 800mm reasonably cover all my needs; desperately, the high density of the R7 sensor allows generous crops, and I can wander around fields and hills without my back, after a while, making me regret it. Many consider this lens to be not very bright: of course, the plate data are those, but the calendar lets me know that we are in 2024, that the RAW development programs today allow me to shoot safely at ISO 12800 with excellent results, also, if not especially, for the very high optical quality of this zoom, which at full aperture is already at the top. It's useless for me to have lenses wider than half a stop, but ... it's better to aperture. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. I consider it a masterpiece on the R7. On the R5 I hope to test it better and more intensely in other areas, landscape in the first place; the tests I have done, however, confirm that it is a gem of Canon that those interested in certain photographic genres will hardly be able to give up. sent on January 19, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM Pros: I.Q. Very high, blurring pleasantness, construction, stabilizer, magnification ratio, versatility of use, relative compactness. Cons: Weight & Price Opinion: This lens is the perfect telephoto complement to the regular RF 50mm 1.2 L. The chromatic response, the pleasantness of the blur, the very high quality up to the edges even at full aperture are in fact completely comparable characteristics, even superimposable to the "brother" of standard focal length. Which, at least for those who know and appreciate 50/1.2, should be enough to tell the qualities of this medium-telegraph, excellent in close-up portraits, but not only; I think it would be reductive to consider it only a portrait lens, because the very high definition of which it is capable allows it to face head-on genres such as landscape, architecture and even close-up shots, because even if it is not a macro, the minimum m.a.f. at 70cm is usually sufficient for shooting subjects and even rather small details (RR about 1:4). The stabilizer and the high brightness allow you to take handheld shots without blur, especially if the camera has an internal stabilizer that works in conjunction with that of the lens. The greatest value for me remains the beautiful "detachment" of the subject from the background, especially because it is not dry and violent as with certain zooms, but very gradual and... Natural, I dare say. I bought a rather short screw hood, to replace the "right" one supplied: I did it to further reduce the intrusiveness of a lens that, although more compact and less showy than a white 70-200/2.8, is still an object that is easily perceived by people, which often prevents the realization of spontaneous and genuine shots. It is certainly true that the costs of RF lenses are high, especially for the L series; However, this and other lenses in my possession have proven to be worth the purchase price. The performance, the chromatic response, in particular of the 50/1.2, the 28-70/2 and this 135/1.8, do not seem far from me, if they are, from the excellent Leica apo-asph fixed cameras of the SL series, whose costs make these splendid Canons seem cheap... Far be it from me to start stadium discussions, but these Canon Ls are really top-notch. sent on November 03, 2023 |
 | Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 STM Pros: Compact and lightweight; Medium diaphragm resolving power - minimum M.A.F. distance - 3 control/fire ring modes Cons: A bit of flare - af not lightning fast - unobtainable hood - not stabilized (but what do we want, then?) Opinion: Among the Canon "not L" vulgarly defined "povery", I think that this 28 pancakes is the one that best competes - at least, in terms of sharpness - with the most famous brothers with the red line. Always waiting confidently for a wide series with fixed focal length, however, I believe that the most appropriate quality comparison term for Canon's wide-angle is the RF 15-35 / 2.8 L IS: the performance of the professional zoom compared to the various fixed wide non-L (35, 28, 24, 16) at focal length 28 are in my opinion equaled by the very small pancake, to intermediate diaphragms (f:5,6-8). Everyone else gives way, albeit with dignity. Beyond the first home tests, I took it with me on several South Tyrolean walks, obtaining respectable results that did not make me regret having left the aforementioned L zoom in the hotel. Of course, I operated in ideal conditions, beautiful days, clear atmosphere, and of course I tried to keep the front lens in the shade, exposed and without an untraceable hood that exists only in the Canon price list. But this little guy turns the R5 into a "compact" without the demanding 45mpxl sensor highlighting qualitative limits of the optics that, in those circumstances, are not there. Excellent results. Different is the case at the most open apertures (2.8-4) in which the lens continues to behave very well, but does not remain at the level of 15-35L, at least at the edges of the format of an R5 file. Probably a lower resolution (20-24mpxl, maybe even 30) would not allow to perceive the slight peripheral drop. In the backlight you have to be rather careful, both for the absence of the hood, and because, given the structure of the lens, the front lens is very exposed and inevitably some phenomenon of flare (halos) occurs, even if the general contrast remains good. That on such a lens lacks a stabilization system I do not see it as a problem, because it is part of the game: a one-ounce wide-angle with L-series performance cannot also have the stabilizer: either it becomes bigger and heavier (and expensive) or it remains what the designer wanted to offer. Distortion and fall of light at the edges: usual speech. These RFs are lenses born for digital, designed ab origine according to ex post corrections. Does the game work? Yes, and very well. It is more a mental annoyance to think that "but if there was no sw downstream it would suck". I, although an old film who loves old-fashioned optics, I made up for it. And then, here too: I think there is a gradualness in the compromise optical correction / electronic correction. With 16/2.8 this compromise leans "a lot" on the second, with 50/1.2L hangs almost everything on the first. Yet the 16/2.8 does more than well and allows you to have a light and cheap bright superwide. And how does our 28/2.8 fit into this "philosophy"? I think it is the most correct "of its own" of the group formed by 50/1,8-35/1,8-28/2,8-24/1,8-16/2,8. I have them all and it seems to me so, which does not mean that the fw / sw intervention is not there: it is simply not felt, and the results, even if in the optimal conditions described above, are extremely convincing. sent on September 29, 2023 |
 | Leica V-Lux 5 Pros: All-in-one camera; sufficiently compact; good overall quality for a 1" sensor; good AF response, always referring to the type of camera; Cons: feeling of "plasticity"; slowness in the ignition response; viewfinder resolution not excellent; limits of small sensors (but applies to all 1"); high iso "full scale" more façade than really usable Opinion: Purchased used not without a bit of skepticism, for when you just can't / want to bring cameras with larger sensors. The advantages are obvious, practically everything is done with very limited dimensions and costs. The overall image quality is very good in the iso 100-1600 range, then you have to deal with the limitations of the sensor. Convincing sharpness even at major focal lengths, I also tried some shots of birdlife with good satisfaction. The high ISO available are not very realistic, maximum 3200 but with many reservations: better to take advantage of the brightness of the optics or risk longer times than the rules, the stabilizer does its job well. The plasticity of the resulting images - important for certain genres, not for all - is evidently lower than that of larger formats. Perhaps the biggest limitation that emerged (I kept it and used it a few months, then I traded it in) also coincides with the biggest advantage: does it do practically everything? Yes. Does it do it right? Lil I realize that this is a limit for all bridge cameras; I knew it when I bought it and used it. Then, in the "experience" and without reproaching anything to this excellent camera (in its kind) I decided to bring with me tools that may not be able to deal with all genres, but what they do they do it at the top. sent on July 14, 2023 |
 | Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM Pros: Price - weight - overall size - overall quality Cons: No hood - single ring for af/diaphragms - yield at the edges up to f:4 Opinion: I also own the RF L-series f:1,2 parifocal. Needless to make comparisons, otherwise one of the two should not exist: if the 50/1.2 were not perfect, it should not cost what it costs; If 50/1.8 were perfect, it couldn't cost what it costs. But precisely: despite sharing the focal length and despite having only one stop of difference brightness, they are two profoundly different lenses in light of the use that can be made of them: I would never go on the Dolomite trails with the 50/1.2, to say, nor, being able to choose between the two, I would use the 50/1.8 for a ceremony or a portrait session. The little guy actually does well, as long as you take into account that the major openings are "emergency" and do not pretend to adequately enhance all the quality offered by the sensor of an R5. Probably on other less resolving cameras the speech improves more and more. It is light and fits in your pocket, it goes very well with the 24/1.8 and probably even more with the announced 28/2.8 pancakes. It must be borne in mind (at least I am forced to do so) that a small and light lens is always preferable to a massive and corpulent one in all cases in which long stretches are traveled on foot, even more if uphill, even more if under the scorching sun. It's obvious, but I still remember the insane idea of taking 28-70/2 with me on the paths of the Alpe di Siusi. Of course, returning home, in front of the mac, I appreciated its stellar quality: but they were all shots from f: 5.6 to f: 11, that is, in conditions in which even the small and cheap 50/1.8 would have given convincing results, weighing a tenth of the fabulous superbright zoom I had with me. In short, when I know a priori that I will shoot a lot of architecture or landscape, I take the 15-35 / 2.8 L. But if I go out light without knowing what I will focus the camera on, I always add to the basic kit (eg 24-105) the very small and reviled 16 / 2.8, which is not at the level of the other, but still offers a very dignified yield and an angle of field otherwise the prerogative of much more expensive and huge "monsters". The back and shoulders thank you. The same goes for 50/1.8, based on the principle that the best lens in the world is the one you have when you shoot. If you stayed at home because it was too heavy, don't shoot. And it is always better to take home a (good) photo taken with a non-perfect lens than not to shoot at all having left a perfect lens at home. sent on June 28, 2023 |
 | Canon EOS R7 Pros: AF speed and accuracy, burst rate, image quality, dual SD slots, light weight, ergonomics Cons: Shutter noise Opinion: I bought this camera, alongside the R5, to use it practically only in nature shots. Essentially I realized that with the R5 in shots of wildlife and birdlife, in many cases I ended up cropping the file from the original 45 to about 24-30 mpxl, because most of the time the subject (feathered on duty) occupied a portion a little too small in the frame. With the smaller sensor, but of adequate density, of the R7, I therefore find shots to never crop, or almost, with the same lens used. The resolution of the sensor is remarkable, and the final images are completely satisfactory. with DxO Photo Lab noise at high ISO ceases to be a problem even at 12800 ISO and more, but the R7, on its own, holds up well up to 6400 ISO, which is remarkable for an apsc with 32 mpxl. The most convincing aspect of the R7 is however the incredible operating speed: the AF of the R5 is already excellent, but that of the R7 is incredible: it "finds" alone and chases the subject, even in irregular flight, and hooks the eye perfectly. The speed and precision of the AF is combined with the remarkable burst speed (15 ftg/sec with mechanical shutter, and even double with electronic shutter). You can therefore afford the luxury of being able to choose the best composition / pose in an arc of numerous images, all perfectly in focus. Always referring to the sw DxO PhotoLab, the dynamic range seems excellent to me, the recovery of shadows in particular does not give problems, so you can slightly underexpose in recovery with the peace of mind to easily optimize later. The evf viewfinder does not have a record resolution, but for the photographic genre for which I use it enough and advances, and the refresh rate allows "chases" even very fast without response delay. Ergonomics: many have criticized the upward movement of the circular ring on the back, which on the R7 surrounds the AF joystick: well for me instead it is an advantage: usually I set the "wheel" with the exposure compensation function: with the R5 I have to lower my right thumb considerably to adjust the ring, with an unnatural movement, while with the R7 it is exactly where it should be, and the adjustment is more instinctive and immediate. The battery consumption seems to me to be lower than the R5, but I have not done special tests: I simply see that I change battery less frequently. As indicated above, the only aspect that initially left me a bit perplexed is the noise of the shutter: with fast bursts it looks more like an AK-47 than a camera, and in certain shooting situations it could alarm-alert the subject, making him fly away. But I think these are really rare situations, because so far the R7 has allowed me to bring home excellent results, and I am used to noise; In addition, in extreme circumstances, you can always resort to the electronic shutter, which is absolutely silent. Overall, while realizing that my opinion is limited to the use of the R7 only to the genre of nature photography, I am extremely satisfied with this small fast machine gun, worthy heir of the 7DmkII that I used years ago. https://flic.kr/p/2obQ1hv https://flic.kr/p/2o55Qth sent on January 20, 2023 |
 | Canon EOS R5 Pros: AF system - Image quality - responsiveness - versatility - viewfinder Cons: Cost - sporadic freezing - autonomy - cf express (speaking of photographs only) Opinion: sent on December 20, 2022 |
 | Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Pros: Sharp - compact - lightweight - closeup capacity - bright - bokeh Cons: No hood - chromatic aberrations - optical correction "mandatory" Opinion: It's worth what it costs (and it's not cheap). It is part of that series of Canon lenses (and not only) designed not to be optically perfect and usable "as is" but taking into account all the corrections that the camera firmware and / or post production software will operate when opening the file. The RAW file excluding the above fixes shows an image strongly plagued by barrel distortion, strong light drop at the edges and insufficient sharpness in the peripheral areas of the format. Said so it seems a ciofeca, but in reality modern optics are not designed as if they had to be corrected for the film (ie without any possible intervention between shooting and viewing the image) but precisely taking into account at the start, in the design phase, the subsequent fw and sw interventions on the file. Other RF L series lenses that I own are already very correct "of them" but cost a bang, weigh and bulk a lot. Downstream of the fw / sw optimization process this 24/1.8 shows off a surprising image quality in terms of sharpness, uniformity of yield, absence of clb and - why not - distortion. I believe that the focal length is less than 24mm, which return as such after processing the file, when the barrel returns to being a nice rectangle, the darkness at the edges lights up with new light and the peripheral resolution recovers readability more than enough to compare it with the image center. These aspects, this idea of a design that from the beginning takes into account and takes for obvious the post-shot processing, can make you turn up your nose, and I understand it. Even the canon Rf 16mm/2.8, without post-shot processing almost looks like a fisheye. And for those who do not know, the fabulous output file of a Leica Q2, is also the result of a process that starts from the image produced by the summilux 28/1.7 which - in itself - suffers from the same flaws mentioned above. It may not be nice to know, but it is; But, I add, it works perfectly: very sharp prints of 50x75cm have shown me several times. Then it is obvious that Q2 is a closed system optimized for that lens on that sensor, which will never be separated (except by hammering, if you want to). Instead with a system with interchangeable lenses like Canon RF, it goes without saying that the fw and sw corrections for a shot of my 15-35 / 2.8 set to 24mm will be minimal, while the interventions necessary to straighten, illuminate and optimize the same shot obtained with the RF 24 / 1.8 are much more substantial: therefore, perhaps, a fanatic of the magnification of the detail at the edges seen at 400% will find more or less striking differences. But if this 24, which we remember is very bright, stabilized and also reaches the RR 1: 2, was excellent without the need for fw and sw, well it would cost more than € 2000 and would be much longer and heavier. Everyone always says it, but I join the chorus that criticizes Canon for the absence of a hood supplied: when will they understand that sensible people go to buy them from Chinese manufacturers on Amazon? sent on November 17, 2022 |
 | Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Pros: Lightweight - compact - sharp even at t.a. - remarkable RR even without additional - relatively cheap Cons: Obviously it's not bright, but it's part of the game Opinion: Those who love walking in the mountains will certainly appreciate this telephoto zoom by Canon: it makes it possible to carry along focal lengths otherwise unthinkable for the weights and dimensions normally implied by telephoto lenses pushed. It is obvious and it is useless to emphasize the low brightness: for the use to which it is intended it is fine, the optical performance (I use it on r5) are incredibly high, the af is fast, it allows you to close up rather small subjects (flowers, butterflies, dragonflies) in complete freedom, thanks to the excellent stabilizer that works together with that of the camera. If you want to take portraits in ambient light it is better to go to something else, it goes without saying, but the 100-400 is and will remain faithful for a long time appears at 15-35 L or 24-105 L in my mountain excursions. It would be nice a version "L" with tropicalized construction and hood as standard (remember the old EF 100-300 / 5.6 L?) but even with the current 100-400 the construction is very well done, transmits a feeling of solidity and is totally free of games. You have to see over time, with intense use, but for now it's fine. Good light sent on September 14, 2022 |
 | Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM Pros: Optical quality, mechanical construction, stabilizer efficiency, spherical aberration management, 1.4x magnification Cons: Price, bulk Opinion: It is a masterpiece with a double or triple persomality, which makes it possible to combine macro and medium-length portrait media, in the past very critical: macros were too rich in microcontrast to be convincing in the classic portrait, and the portrait medioteles in turn did not have the characteristics of detail and magnification for effective close up shots, also used with tubes, bellows or worse additional lenses. With this lens you can go in a moment from the "dreamy" and flou portrait (true, not with soft filters) to the extreme close-up shot, to the landscape detail, with a sharpness of an excellent level. Beautiful rendering against the light, without flare; very fast m.a.f., the stabilizer allows you to dare the unfathomable, even at significant RRs. The blurry is pleasant and pasty. In short, compared to the license plate data (a 100mm f:2.8) costs a bang, but considering that it performs very well the functions of generic mediotele, macro thrust optics and portrait lens you could also paradoxically support, grano salis, which does not cost much. The only relative limit is the rather generous size (but it is an internal focusing, it does not extend) and the fact that the "real" F value is not displayed as the RR increases, which in use with external flashes could mislead. But for me it is unique in the current panorama of level optics, not only at Canon. I can't wait to try it on the mountain trails, combined with the 15-35/2.8, for a kit that is still quite light and of very high versatility. sent on March 30, 2022 |
 | Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM Pros: Overall dimensions - weight - final optical quality - price Cons: Bundled hood absence - ring with alternative focus/custom function - "raw" optical quality - no tropicalization Opinion: I bought this little one despite already having the excellent RF 15-35/2.8 L IS: I wanted to have a very short focal length without necessarily weighing myself down with the professional zoom, reserving the use of the latter to the outputs dedicated specifically to the genres in which the superwide is a must. The small fixed instead weighs very little, fits in the pocket and allows you to have an ultra-short focal length if it is useful or necessary. The thing works well, I often went out with the 35/1.8, the 85/2 and that's it. But sometimes you need something really short, for a shot of architecture or an extreme perspective rendering, and it is very convenient to take this 16mm out of your pocket that weighs about one and a half hectograms. I say right away that the final yield is absolutely satisfactory and I do not regret the purchase. Just know that a raw shot of 15-35/2.8 is already fine as it is, while the 16/2.8 has both a strong and very evident barrel distortion as well as an equally remarkable fall of light at the edges. It is evident that this lens was designed taking into account the inevitable strong post-shot corrections, and not to provide an impeccable image "on its own". But it is there, it works and if it were not so it would have weight, size and cost much greater than those it presents (and which are the reason for my purchase). I develop the raw with Canon DPP, and the final result is more than convincing: sharp to the edges, distortion almost absent, ditto for the CLB, does not suffer the backlight even pushed; even the chromatic aberrations are perfectly corrected by the proprietary sw. So I got what I wanted, and I'm just happy with this pocket superwide. The cons are written above; for the hood, Canon will be happy to know that I bought a Chinese one on Amazon for € 15, so you can save the construction and sale at an absurd price of the original hood; it would not have weighed on me to pay 20 € more the lens provided complete with hood, but if the enlightened men of marketing see it. The unique bezel that manages, through a selector, the alternation between manual focus and customized function (I use it as a diaphragm ring) is another point that does not excite me, but that does not affect my extremely positive judgment on this optics. sent on February 15, 2022 |
 | Leica Q2 Monochrom Pros: File quality, compactness, general ergonomics, retro feeling, high ISO tightness, high resolution, possibility of customization, quality of the viewfinder Cons: right-hand adjustment ring not very ergonomic, relatively low autonomy, non-recoverable highlights Opinion: sent on August 09, 2021 |
 | Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.8 G ED Pros: Sharpness, lightness, exploitable brightness, rubber ring on the bayonet, flare seal, distortion present but contained Cons: Uncertainties in the maf at high openings, feeling of "ballerina" construction, polycarbonate filter step Opinion: I would like to start by saying that I use this lens on the Nikon Df, a camera valid in many respects, but not that of high resolution: with 16 mpxl the lens resolution is not put to the test so much: in fact this 24 is doing very well from the center to the edges, even at the high openings, but I would like to see results on a D850 or D810. However, for me it does its job perfectly, and with the Df it forms a pairing that does not fear any poor light conditions. The Af is quick enough, although using the maximum openings, at medium short distance and with low light it is better to rely on the central point of the Df. If you center the m.a.f., this 24 is nice sharp even at full opening, and allows interesting blurry effects quite unusual with a decidedly wide-angle shot such as that allowed by this focal. On polycarbonate construction: it is more the sensation it gives, which, moreover, translates into the advantage of a surprisingly low weight. It would be a real tropicalization, but at least the rubber ring on the bayonet is there, and with a protection filter screwed in front I managed to use this lens under a reasonable drizzle without having any problem. There is no stabilization, but with a short, bright focal point, and with the extraordinary quality at the high ISO of the Df, for me it is not a serious problem: with longer focals it probably would be, but with this 24 I shot in really critical situations without throwing away that very few shots in which I had ventured shutter speed unlikely with a non-VR lens (and maybe even with vr...) ? Resists very well to the backlight , distorts relatively little for the focal length it has, the cdl at the edges is as intuitable strong at t.a., but most of the time I do not correct it, I often find it pleasant. From f:4 onwards it is no longer a problem. To the average diaphragms (of course, but I want to point this out) it gives its best and shows a sharpness that "exasses" compared to the sensor characteristics of my Df. 16mpxl is enough for me, it goes by itself that other genres and preferences require higher resolutions. I still think this 24 to the mid-diaphragms (4 or 5.6) wouldn't affect the reflexes that are most equipped with mpxl, but that's just my feeling. Good light sent on May 31, 2021 |
 | Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Pros: Compactness - lightness - optical quality Cons: not tropicalized - lampshon to buy apart (and not found) Opinion: I was very skeptical when Canon introduced the pair of 600 and 800mm lenses with fixed 11 iris. They seemed to me to be an end in themselves; then I reflected on the current possibilities of the ML R series to seal easily even with much more closed optics than the fatidic f:5,6 or F:8 which with SLRs were insurplicable limits. And due to its very low brightness, especially for a lens whose use often and willingly obliges short shutter times (bird life, especially if in flight), the current sensors of the R series are excellent, allow you to easily go to 6400 ISO and beyond, although with due passage in DPP of CR3 files. In the end I bought it, and after several weekends with little and bad light, in which I had to use ISO values really... embarrassing, at last I could try it in normal light conditions. I appreciated the ease with which an 800mm can be used freehand, which previously, with professional and multiplied L series canvases, was possible only at the price of remarkably demanding weights, which after a while were felt, both in operational brandishing and in transport from one place to another. Sure, it can also be used on the tripod, but I don't think it was born for it: it's really perfect for wandering photo hunting. Sharpness, as long as you use proper laying times, is really good; stabilization is effective, I got sharp shots (of static subjects) even at 1/60" (say one in three) and using this 1/250" optics is far from prohibitive. Of course, if the subject moves it will be necessary to set 1/1000" or less, and in this case even on a sunny day it will be necessary to operate at higher ISO values than with other objectives. But being able to spend a day with an 800mm around your neck without having to undergo physiotherapy is a huge advantage, because no opportunity is lost. The focus is fast, the connection with the subject (in flight, suppose) is effective, even if limited to the central area of the frame, because the peripheral areas are automatically eslcuse. In short, it has a lot of limitations, but functional to the type of shooting that it is logical to suppose for an optics of this focal point, so in essence you will never need a diaphragm more closed than f:11, and in the photograph of stray wildlife is all you need, no more, not less. If they had made the effort to equip it with a minimum of tropicalization and a lampshed included in the price (perhaps incorporated, why not?) the vote would have been 10, obviously referring to the type of use for which this cute stove pipe is primarily intended. I don't think I'm ever going to use it for portraits or architecture, I mean... sent on February 21, 2021 |
 | Nikon Df Pros: Excellent viewfinder, analog controls, file quality, relative lightness, perfect combination with AI/Ais optics Cons: Poor efficiency sensor cleaning system, ease with which the battery door is detached Opinion: I bought this second-hand camera a couple of months ago. For over 10 years I have been at Canon, and even today I am very well with the RF system that I have been joining for two years. But at the bottom of the closet, for many years, were stored an F2as and an FM2n with their good kit of 9 hand-fire optics, including two decentrable. True, I can use these lenses (and sometimes I do) on my Canon Eos R with adapter ring, but the recall of a camera like the Df was very strong, with its mode of use very close to that of the two mechanical SLRs with which I grew up in the 80s, and so I bought it. The perplexity about the relatively few MPXLs has faded immediately thanks to the high overall quality of raw baked by the Df, even and especially when ISOs have to go up. It is necessary to frame carefully, fill the format, and the 16mpxls are enough and advance. The battery life, compared to the R mirrorless, is... embarrassing, you can almost forget about the spare battery. The shot is sweet, but noisy. The viewfinder, although not at the level of that of an F3, is still much better than much of the reflex competition, which, when sealing manually, really makes a difference. My review is very limited by the fact that I didn't try the AF system, which I read to be the Achilles heel of this camera. But I bought it to use it with my old great manual nikkors, so the af this camera may not even have it. Very practical the system of storing and recalling the data of manual objectives (why only 9 storages, however?) as long as you remember to update the lens with each optical change, easy action through a function button and a selection ring. The Df's strengths and file quality are for me, along with a unique "charm", which may not please perhaps those less than half a century old behind them. I use it to wander around, to work slowly, to rediscover the taste of the calm approach, "as if" in the machine there were only 36 frames to shoot. for faster and more challenging things my dear EOS R and their fantastic RF goals are not in question, but within the limits described the Nikon Df is a real pleasure to use. As highlighted above, unfortunately the sensor cleaning system is not much, it is often necessary to resort to blowers or an external technician. Or a little clone stamp; moreover, the battery/board compartment door (why together, then?) tends to detach easily, it seems devoid of a latch. Absurd, especially in the absence of battery grip as accessories. But you put it back in place without too much pain. sent on December 14, 2020 |
 | Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM Pros: Limited optical quality, stabilizer, weight and footprint, brightness not record-breaking but exploitable pienaments, fast and quiet af Cons: Paraluce not included (bad canon habit for non-L) and tropicalization absent Opinion: I put it to the test with different close ups and portraits, because the focal, brightness and minimum maf allow you to juggle both of these genres. The lens responds very well: in the portrait it offers a very pleasant and quite destructured blurry, the complexion is well rendered, according to Canon tradition and the sharpness is all there, even without the very high microcontrast typical of old-school macros. In the shots at close range emerge, indeed you confirm excellent qualities of sharpness to all the diaphragms, the stabilizer allows you to dare even times that in macro you could only dream of a decade ago, and the bokeh of the out-of-focus floors is gradual and pleasant. It's not a real macro, but it does very well in close-up shooting, and it's not a superluminous, but it does very well in poor ambient light and portraits. It weighs little, relatively small footprint, it is perhaps the optics with the best value for money (for what this simplification is worth) in the current RF landscape. I would have paid something more for the lampshon and especially the tropicalization, but it is still well built and absolutely devoid of games. With the 35/1.8 that I already had form a minimal kit with which to have fun doing a little bit of everything without giving in the eye or dislocating a shoulder. sent on December 03, 2020 |
 | Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Pros: Compact - relatively light - very sharp - excellent stabilizer Cons: price (but it's inevitable) Opinion: I have owned it for a very short time, so far I have made about 300 shots, basically test. I have been photographing for over thirty years, and I have changed hands, over time, fairly complete kits of different brands, including Contax-Zeiss, Leica M and R, Nikon AI and AF, Pentax 67, Mamiya 645, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad and of course Canon EOS, from the first 620 in 1987 to the digital 5Ds. I'm not saying this for flobs, but only to confirm that Canon's new RF bayonet allows for designs as bold as they are valid. A 70-200/2.8 so compact and agile was a dream until a few years ago, now it's reality; Moreover, the and performance are not at all sacrificed by the type of construction, that is, with telescopic zoom instead of internal. The undoubted advantages of stowage in the bag/backpack are added to a much smaller weight than the corresponding EFs. Optically it does not disappoint: like the other RF realizations I have, it shows that it can do everything that the corresponding ef do, with better quality not only in axis, but especially in the peripheral areas of the frame, where most of the excellent EF series shows a bit of the rope, except generous diaphragm or less pushed projects (e.g. f/4 rather than f/2,8). The AF is lightning fast, although I noticed that at the first shot (as soon as you bring your eye to the crosshairs) it has a singular "come and go", a little unsettling. A matter of half a second, then once "activated" the AF is immediate and very precise, even in pursuit (I tried some seagulls in flight) All the focal points can satisfy even the most polished eye. The stabilizer seems to me to be the most efficient I have ever tried; I took several 70mm images with a laying time of 1/8" and even 1/6" achieving consistency of impeccable results. That is, not one every three or four, but all perfect. It's no small feat. I still have to try it well, but after thirty years of photography I think my first impression is not only dictated by the enthusiasm for the new purchase. An excellent professional lens, probably much better than the requirements of the excellent 30mpxl sensor of my eos r. Good light P.S. - I read here and there that some users complain of a focheggiating error in the conditions 200mm F:2.8 Minimum focus distance It even seems that Canon is going to provide a fw update to remedy the "problem". I personally performed some tests in those conditions, without detecting any errors; at least, this applies to my specimen, while remaining that, in the conditions described above, it is unthinkable to have no errors, except to use an easel, because of course if not the error would be attributable to the photographer and certainly not to the lens, since a swing forward or backward even a few mm leads to obvious blurringwith a canvas at full opening and at a reduced distance. P.S.2 Updated the optics fw, although in practical use, which in the meantime I have intensified, I never detected the problem. In any case, of course it is worth updating. Even in the portrait this lens does not make you regret the excellent fixed L series that I had before. Really an excellent achievement, excellent companion at 28-70/2 L with which constitutes an exceptionally versatile pair oer any condition of reasonably predictable light. sent on December 14, 2019 |
 | Canon RF 24-105 mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Compact, sharp, steady, stabilized, very fast, solid Cons: I can't find any Opinion: Purchased as a "light" alternative to the magnificent but heavy 28-70/2 L. I took advantage of an opportunity, otherwise I would not have bought it: but in short this handyman convinced me of his excellent skills. If you don't need those two extra diaphragms, it's much better than the good old EF 24-105/4 L IS I had years ago. It is especially convincing for its consistency of yield over the whole format and on the excellent response even to the whole opening, even to the longest focal, where the edges, although they drop a little compared to the central area, nevertheless remain on levels of perfect usability, without forcing the diaphragm to close. He defends well even in the back-to-back seal. With the standard polarizer, at the minimum focal, it has vignettes at the corners: slim PL tip to avoid the inconvenience. The focus is extraordinarily fast. The construction, as with all L-series canons, is a reference: absent games, tolerances not perceptible even by setting the maximum focal length. The stabilizer allows small miracles, taking advantage of the use of contained ISO values. If we really want to find something, a little 24mm distortion, but nothing of that. Vivid colors, bright contrast. It is the best companion for mountain walks and landscaping. In a recent three days South Tyrol was the lens with which I took 90% of the images, alternating it to 15-35/2.8 (8%) 100-400/4,5-5.6 L II (2%). in those days I did not regret the 28-70/2 L, which awaits me for less abundant light situations and for dream yaw: the only situations in which the 24-105 can only show a little rope. But of course, with that license plate data. And anyway the bokeh, for some impromptu portrait, is far from despised. I don't think you can want more from such a versatile goal. sent on October 31, 2019 |
 | Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L IS USM Pros: Sharpness, yield uniformity across the format, reduced sprains, excellent flare resistance, prodigious stabilizer Cons: For now none, price aside. Opinion: Very recent purchase, so far I have taken a hundred images, just to prove it in the most critical conditions and the different focal points; it is an excellent product, it does not make regret the best fixed in the house (less bad because I have permuted them to buy it). Probably the least criticality offered by the very small draft of the bayonet R allows to achieve very high performance even in the peripheral areas of the image, Achilles heel of all wide-angle zooms with strongly retrofocus scheme. At least, even at full opening equals the latter if diaphragmated to f:8 or f:11, which is not little, especially in the shooting in poor ambient light, where the max aperture allows to reduce ISOs. If you also consider the efficiency of the stabilizer, this zoom is ideal for freehand interior shooting. Compared to the 11-24/4 L, from which I reluctantly had to separate, this clearly prevails on the level of resistance to flare in the direct or slightly tangential backlight, which was the major defect (perhaps the only one, moreover) of 11-24/4 L, whose extreme optical scheme, however, I do not think allowed to do better. Of course, it lacks the range of focal lengths from 11 to 14, in the face of a double brightness, the presence of IS and of course the excursion 24-35, more functional to a generalist and less specialized use. However, this is also an excellent realization of the newborn R system. sent on September 29, 2019 |
 | Canon G1X Mark III Pros: APSC sensor in a very small body, silence, high end quality, convincing AF Cons: Poor autonomy, objective dial without snap stops, high price Opinion: I thought and read a lot before I bought this camera. It is true that the optics are dim and have a reduced excursion; but it can not be otherwise, if you want such a large sensor together with such small footprints: but qualitatively the optics are appreciated almost at extreme angles, and the stabilizer is very effective. The pdc is still manageable with close-ups blur and pleasant background bokeh, but you can't expect record-breaking performance in portraits at the maximum focal, where it doesn't open more than a modest f:5.6. However, every time I look at it, it seems incredible that in that tiny black and robust photocamerine there is such a large sensor, the same as the 80D eos. The panning feature is useful and quite reliable, although 95% of my shots take place in Av and raw format. It is a camera that is appreciated after hours and hours of walking, when its weight does NOT feel and the desire to shoot again overcomes the laziness of planting there. But it is mandatory to carry another battery, if not two others, which are also very light and of size consistent with the G1x mk III. There are compacts with excellent performance and goals with greater excursion and brightness, but when I observe the results on a good monitor the quality of the files churned out by the G1 does not make me regret the reflex. Those of other compact zooms, yes: who more who less, but none equals the cleanliness and absence of artifacts of the G1 file. At high ISO it performs very well up to 3200; the 6400 are still well manageable by dosing the NR (I use DPP) and beyond you can still go, but with good reason and avoiding excessive expectations. On-camera baked jpeges tend to be too correct as noise reduction. Better to choose the minimum setting or better yet shoot in RAW. Close-up: with a small additional lens of 2 diopries I have obtained more than decent results: of course I speak of close shots, certainly not macros, but that demonstrate the excellent quality of the lens of this compact camera even in a range of use decidedly different from the one for which it was (painstakingly) designed. Good light sent on September 16, 2019 |
 | Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM Pros: Compact, light, multipurpose, crisp and relatively economical Cons: I can't find Opinion: He is an excellent companion of adventures when you want to go around "light" tackles every kind of photographic with ease and simplicity, restoring qualitative results high and uncompromising. Even in backlight it is good, and while not a real macro allows very close shots that cover the most common needs. When the bag already contains a complete kit, it is still convenient to stow this little chap, which in more than one case, especially in low ambient light, has been preferred to blazoned Zoom series L... sent on June 08, 2019 |
 | Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM Pros: Zoom standard full format f:2 of the highest and constant optical quality, built as a Soviet T34: what else? Cons: OF Course: weight, size, price Opinion: It's not a zoom. They are 4 excellent fixed focal lengths of high brightness and high quality even at full aperture, alternating on the machine body without the need to disassemble the lens. I don't know how to describe it better than that. One caveat: Buy a wide shoulder strap to replace the slim lanyard that they give you along with the EOS R. Joking aside, this lens is a boon for those who often work in light reduced environment; But it also has the three-dimensionality of the best fixed focal lengths that have passed by hand in thirty years of clicks, the micro-contrast of a macro, the high AF speed, an impeccable construction. I don't own it since much, unfortunately so far I've only done a hundred test shots, but for my kind of photography it's fabulous. Good light sent on May 29, 2019 |
 | Canon RF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Pros: Very clear, very clean, very bright, very solid, very fast Cons: Expensive, light drop at sensitive edges up to F:4 Opinion: Compared to the many 50mm of various brands that I had in thirty years of click, this monstrous Canon borders on perfection, because it combines a very high brightness to an excellent yield on the whole field framed, unlike the vast majority of other Normal ultraluminosis. It, you can use it quietly at T.A. Even if the subject was heavily decentrated in the frame. Phenomenal as it manages to maintain a very pleasant bokeh despite the high correction: it is at the level of the EF 50/1.2 L, but three spans above as sharpness and microcontrast. Even the high number of elements does not prevent a very good backlighting performance. The distortion, if there is, is unnoticeable and does not need a correction via SW The fall of light at the edges is sensitive to f:2,8 and beyond; I usually do not disturb, but in case you can activate the correction SW The focus is lightning fast, the construction is inspired by a panzer weighs almost a kg, but on the EOS R is excellently balanced, and is a pleasure to use obviously cumbersome to be a standard D, but recent projects, e.g. Sigma Art, Zeiss Otus and Milvus have become accustomed to this, if you require a high correction, timely with the current high resolution sensors. The cost is disproportionate, but if you want the best 50mm to be grafted on a Canon (and not only, in my opinion...) This is the lens to aim at. Good light sent on February 12, 2019 |
 | Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 Distagon T* 25mm f/2 Pros: Sharp, contrasted, blurred pleasant, perfect mechanical construction, compact and lightweight compatibly with the materials used Cons: Lack of tropicalization Opinion: When I saw the features of the Milvus 1.4/25 I thought that in Zeiss they were crazy: beautiful lens, I mean, but it's ridiculously huge, and that aperture more than the old Distagon 2/25 costs an enormity, not only in economic terms, but in Concrete usability in the field of optics. So I decided to grab one of the last still available specimens of the old Distagon 2/25 and to flank it to the two Milvus 2/50 and 2/100 on my EOS 5ds. I'm more than satisfied, made color like the other two, neutral, blurred pleasant despite being a true wide angle, in the reportage in ambient light I often prefer it to the Canon 24/1.4 L II, precisely because of the lesser "intrusiveness" of this Small Zeiss gem. I still do not understand why they did not make the Milvus version of this (weather sealed) instead of creating that (though charming) superbright fat. But precisely, when I need that brightness I have the Canon EF L, which is also autofocus, which does not hurt, and it cost me just over half. sent on September 23, 2018 |
 | Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 L USM Pros: 11mm, 12mm, 13mm, 14mm, 15mm sharpness, distortion correction at the mid focal, is unique in its kind Cons: Weight, footprint, price, flare with point light sources. Opinion: Before buying it I thought it was too extreme for my needs, I considered it more a demonstration of Canon's ability to achieve unique goals, but not useful for those who do not need it for ultraspecialist purposes. Since, after long thinking, I bought it (used, but still at a high price...) Practically no longer use the Pur excellent 16-35/4 l IS, because the expressive possibilities allowed by the range 11-16mm on full format are exceptionally... vast, and The combination with the 24-70/2.8 L II does not make me regret a bit longer focal length than the 24mm. Certainly compared to 16-35 this 11-24 can not be thought "alone" in a lightweight reportage logic. It is wrong, however, to believe that this objective is a specialist for architecture, Interior in particular: it is certainly useful in those situations, but in June I was taken to the Dolomites in the backpack together with 24-70 and 100-400: Well, despite the weight Of the whole was indisputably remarkable, it was absolutely worth it, because certain perspectives were greatly valued with Ultracorte focal lengths, provided you had the foresight to compose carefully, use the easel and place--every time you It was possible-a strong foreground to anchor the prospective momentum of the whole. The optical and constructive quality of this large wide angle is at the highest level. Personally I am not a fan of filters, not even ND, so I do not feel the lack of a frame dedicated to them. Only note is-sometimes-the onset of a certain flare (ghost more than decrease in contrast) in the backlight, but I think it is inevitable for a lens with these characteristics. A little bit of foresight in the shooting allows most of the time to remedy the problem. Even in the report has proved effective, obviously it is not a point of view for that, but when there are compact groups of focal people so short they allow you to literally "enter" The observer in the scene. Good light sent on September 23, 2018 |
 | Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/2M Pros: Optical and mechanical quality at the top, bright to be an almost macro (RR 0.5), still quite compact and lightweight to replace a standard throughout Cons: Nobody if the manual MAF is not a problem Opinion: I use it on Canon Eos 5Ds (50MPXL) and 6d for when I have to use high ISO values. On the latter I have mounted the slide Eg-S that allows an easy manual focheggiatura, as in the old days (frosted glass). The paired Milvus 250 and Canon EOS 6d is winning and... fun. On the 5Ds returns files with exceptional sharpness and brilliance. sent on May 12, 2018 |
 | Zeiss Milvus 15mm f/2.8 Pros: Optical quality and stellar mechanics, extended to all size Cons: Price, of course. Weight and footprint Opinion: I use it on the Canon EOS 5Ds, and with that much demanding sensor from 50 mpxl the lens is flawless even in peripheral areas, very critical for a wide so pushed. I do not think that qualitatively you can want more. The holding in backlight outclasses that of my other superwide, the Canon 11-24/4 L, although excellent under the other points of view (and AF...) The rendering of the colors is typical Zeiss, more neutral than the Canon L. sent on May 12, 2018 |
 | Canon EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM Fisheye Pros: Optical quality - Constructive quality - Versatility (of its kind) Cons: it's gutsy and unstable - it's not a real zoom, it's basically a bi-focal Opinion: It is a professional achievement that allows you to get the best possible results in fisheye footage. Even at full openness, it maintains more than enough quality for professional use. Closing a two stop - as always - gives the best. The only "defect" that I have encountered is the precariousness of the front cap, which must be grafted on the hood, uncomfortable to remove and put depending on the set focus. , in the end, to gluing the two parts by getting a "stopper" stable for when I set the lens, with its front face and bent very exposed to the risk of scratches and abrasions. The lens hood is totally useless with this lens. The focal lengths used with fruit using the full size are the extreme ones, that is 8 mm (circular fisheye, angle 180 ° on all the size) and 15 mm (rectangular fisheye, with angle of 180 ° on the diagonal only of the size). Intermediate focal lengths are essentially used when using apsc or apsh sensors; with full format, they return images with a growing "mechanical" vignetting until they reach the circular photo that can be obtained with the 8mm. sent on September 29, 2017 |
 | Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 Pros: optical quality, color rendering, mechanical construction Cons: price, size, weight, absence of AF Opinion: Those who decide to purchase this lens must come to terms with the fact that the manual focusing, in itself not problematic, it is difficult with the slides of modern autofocus SLR. If there is the possibility of buying a frosted glass and change the original one, it pays to do so. Otherwise you have to focuse very slowly and carefully, relying on af sensors and ignition of the famous "green dot". Personally, the Canon EOS 5Ds, that does not forgive the slightest mistake and unfortunately does not allow interchangeability of the slide, I caught up with a (nice) po 'training, testing, verification, different settings, a good average of shots with fire perfetto.rnIn particularly point out to Canon users to privilege the central point, usually very reliable, and give up the outlying points: better focus when focus on the central and reassemble; at least in this sense, my experience finora.rnEscludere moving subjects and dynamic images in general (except rely IPerfocale). But a shot in focus with this lens reveals the extremely high quality and does justice to the efforts (including economic) that the Milvus requires: although they have a good optical kit Canon L series, this Zeiss is a genuine star who, when conditions and the recovery time will allow me, is preferable to any other despite great achievement of Canon: excellent sharpness, yield uniformity of the entire screen, resistance to flare, flawless construction, weather sealing, high contrast even at the widest apertures bokeh unstructured and gradual, three-dimensionality, plasticity, colors faithful and yield pastel colors; is a phenomenal lens that does justice to 50mpxl sensor. It 's rare to have a lens that can be used equally and successfully in landscape shots and architecture rather than portrait in available light. rnUn masterpiece, however, requires the necessary attention and experience to be used to meglio.rnrn sent on November 22, 2016 |
 | Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Pros: sharpness, contrast and brightness over the entire zoom range / range cloths / full size and weight still reasonable for a mirrorless system / stabilizer very effective / robust construction Cons: the absence of a focal block of the excursion / light play on the graft camera / Minimum focus distance sometimes insufficient to shorter focal Opinion: Fujifilm confirms excellent producer of optics, this telephoto, while being as heavy and cumbersome system, it is "decisive" for all telephoto lens and remains an object stipabile easily in a bag of small / medium size. Together with the other zoom currently on the list, covers all the needs for a reasonably foreseeable use generalist. The risolvenza is high, in full satisfaction, and does not spoil the high potential of the sensor Fuji, even at full aperture and at longer focal lengths, which are notoriously critical in this class of zoom. At times the minimum distance of maf is a bit 'high when you use it with very short focal, especially in portrait wide open, where it offers one blurred, however, very pleasant, though obviously not to the levels of optical dedicated to this genre. In this sense, it is also preferable to 18-55 adjusted to the maximum focal length, both for the stop means more brightness, it is precisely for the blurred more pasty. The AF is not aslogical level SLR, but within the system Fuji XF is probably the fastest, at least in situations of light and contrast standards. Sometimes flaw of uncertainty when the light begins to dwindle, but in many ways it is more than anything else to take the necessary familiarity with the possible "response" of the system and take steps accordingly. The backlight is not a problema.rnInnestandolo on the camera, it is a very light game that exceeds the "click" of the locking point: trifles, it is perceived as placing or removing the lens hood. I consider it an essential supplement for those who conceives its own system Fuji as a real alternative to a reflex system, while the three fixed lenses basic enough to those who use the Fujifilm X once used as a rangefinder system, complement "light" to SLR kit complete. sent on September 05, 2013 |
 | Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM Pros: resolving power - rnsfocato mellow and pleasant - rndistanza working in macro - Cons: footprint - rnpeso - rnprezzo - rnassenza IS Opinion: It 'a piece of optical great value, even at full aperture shows an excellent micro-contrast in terms of fire; strange thing for a macro, has almost one blurred portrait lens, soft, mushy, three-dimensional, pictorial, pleasant, and under this profile also prefer it to 100/2.8 IS L, which also has one blurred more than acceptable, but not to the level of fratellone.rnL 'absence of a stabilization system makes the use freehand at close range a pure utopia ( as opposed to the 100 stabilized) but the working distance, which offers subjects with elusive allows great satisfaction to those who employs him how it's done, on a tripod, mirror raised and cable flessibile.rnIl weight and bulk non-negligible non him a candidate for long hikes if not with the idea to make precise macro: in short, is not the mediotele to take with itself, for this purpose much better than a telephoto or a 200/2.8, much more compact and leggero.rnCredo that Canon is home to everybody 'Today the best for macro photography in the field and for shooting outdoors "committedta ", ie stand eccetera.rnNon tried it yet in the portrait (!) but I plan to do so, the above fuzzy mercy really nice and natural. sent on June 11, 2013 |
 | Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Pros: Optical quality from riferimentornVersatilità of use in the field, independent movements on two axes to tilt and decentramentornInsospettata possibility of using freehand with good results Cons: price - overall dimensions Opinion: From the point of view of the optical yield is the best 24 I've ever had (and I've had really many) probably even surpasses all 28mm currently on the market. It is simply one of those objectives for which the current density of the sensors are not a problem, but a limite.rnNegli architectural shots outclasses every expedient, in the first half of the superwide-shot cut in post-production, but it can also be used successfully as "normal" 24mm. The creative possibilities of the movement of tilt are another plus that does not confine this point to still life and photos in studio.rnPeso, size and price is one price that you are willing to pay before this kind of performance. sent on June 06, 2013 |
 | Leica M9 / M9-P Pros: Quality to date reference with the original optics (series aspherical) immediacy of use (nuts exposure time, aperture and focus, and that's it) Cons: maf telemetry difficult for those not used to it - poor yield above 800 ISO - poor battery life - phenomena of sudden freeze - you can not make close-up shots and shooting with telephoto lenses pushed (like any unit to unit) - no system sensor cleaning (and mirror ...) - sporadic appearance of moiré subjects textured fine - slow overall operation and writing in particular - resolution display very modest in relation to the cost of the camera and the quality of the files to check - cost disproportionate (camera and lenses) Opinion: I used 2 M9 for a couple of years, with the original goals 21/2, 8 ASPH, 28/2 ASPH., 35/1.4 ASPH., 50/2, apo 90/2 ASPH. and apo 135/3, 4. It goes without saying that the parameters of evaluation possonoe not be those of a DSRL current: is a camera intended to anyone involved in reportage, and in particular to ambient light. A user already experienced the telemetry systems on film, will be at home in the use of this camera. A neophyte who comes from a digital SLR may be baffled. That said, the structure of the sensor, with peripheral inclined to optimize the projection of the original optical system dedicated to M, gives excellent results to the corners of the format, as long as you use just the expensive and excellent Leica - M, preferably in their declination aspherical, especially for wide angle lenses. With this system is obtained, to date, a sharpness and a cleaning dl'immagine unsurpassed, also thanks to the absence of the anti-aliasing filter. 18Mpxl that seem to be 30 ... The lack of skill at high ISO are partly offset by the performance objectives of the system, some bright and quality always at the top. sent on September 13, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Pros: Lightweight - compact - sharpness - contrast - held in backlight - Quick AF - Price - built-in hood Cons: none (obviously in relation to the type of lens) Opinion: This lens is not just for those who always and photo hunt to deal with this kind of once in a while with essential equipment, the brightness low, but of very high optical quality. The appearance of greater importance is that this lens does not require iris to deliver high performance, then, despite the brightness is not exciting, it can and should be used f: 5.6 or half a stop closure. The tripod is a must, but thanks to the handling of this objective by shooting on the fly freehand often allows very respectable results. It can even be carried in a backpack fitted as "standard" in nature photography (not only cf) because still reasonably light and "stowed" along with a pair of wide-angle zoom and mediotele and / or a macro. After the mid-70s Nikon marketed its Nikkor 400/5, 6 If Ed, that was the envy of every canon user ... Today, the roles are reversed. It would not hurt a IS version, but would suffer for sure size and weight, and of course the price. It 's true, there is an excellent 300/4 IS, which with a multiplier of 1.4 X "do" the same thing as this subtle character. But in my opinion is not the same thing, and species with small form factor high pixel density that is even more true. sent on September 13, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM Pros: clarity - no aberrations - efficiency stabilizer - construction - IF Cons: no Opinion: It 's the best mediotele macro on the market, including the legendary R 100/2.8 Macro Elmarit Leica at home: a substantial equality in the optical plane, this adds autofocus, RR: 1 without additional stabilization and efficacious. It 's true that the macro should not be done freehand nor in AF, but this lens is the temptation, and often the results are above expectations. Besides, with this mediotele, always with due respect of the rules that do not want the contrast of a macro in the picture, you get a pleasant blur, which then opens the way to use less than the institutional project. sent on September 13, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Pros: Sophisticated optical design, high quality performance and constant at all distances - low price Cons: construction is not up to the quality optics - AF quick and quite noisy - fuzzy structured Opinion: And 'perhaps the lens with the best optical quality for the money. I would have no hesitation in preferring the 50/1.8 in all areas of employment, provided that the 50/1, 8 begins to have a decent yield precisely f: 2.8, while the small macro already at full aperture provides a performance benchmark, not only the center but also in the peripheral field of view. Simply absent light falloff at the edges and especially distortion. The focus is very structured, so it has a very pleasant bokeh, mercy diaphragm hex that does not allow much in this issue, which is not unique to the design of a macro lens. The excellent resolving power and micro-skills you keep this up to f: 8 then sloping down to smaller apertures; singular behavior for a macro "pure" but all in all better for normal perspective of general use. Best price for Canon at home, along with the 17-40/4 L. sent on September 13, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Pros: resolution - construction - speed AF - containment fall light at the edges - uniformity of yield of the field of view - keeping the backlight Cons: blurred a bit 'structured compared to the corresponding Leica Opinion: To find him a "counter" although very relative, I've had to think a lot. It 'a perfect lens, simply a must for those who love the bright optical and reportage in ambient light. You can shoot without the bother of opening, f: 1.4 is a real working aperture. It goes without saying that f: 2.8 I earn in micro-contrast edges, but unlike many bright, this lens can be used wide open without any hesitation. sent on September 13, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Pros: Sharpness at room temperature high in relation to the focal length and the opening - pleasantness of fuzzy - containment of distortion - color rendering Cons: weight - size - price (but it's part of the game) Opinion: Canon does not shine in my opinion, in view of the wide-angle lenses, menchemeno zoom, but with this 24/1.4 L II preceded and surpassed all the competition. To those who appreciate certain qualities, such as selective focus within the lens, the ability to report very low light environment, almost no distortion without the need for adjustments in post-production, a lens that fully satisfies all expectations. The limits are all too obvious, but when you can admire the files that you can get there you forget that you are happy weight is carried around the neck or in your bag. And when you can shoot at a ceremony without using neither the flash nor ISO 3200, the images with a naturalness and cleaning unreachable for any zoom, even prestigious and bright. Let us remember that for a while bright f: 2.8 with this lens has a brightness quadruple ... sent on September 13, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Excellent optical quality in relation to the range of focal lengths covered - vr very efficient - to FF that is valid on APSC - excellent construction - compact - low weight Cons: distortion at 24mm - edge quality at room temperature Opinion: It 'the only lens in today's market to have the trip of a handyman without obvious sacrifices or compromises in terms of optical quality. This would be enough to promote it with flying colors. Ideal for reports, is surprisingly effective even in the picture: although a zoom, has a focus in ta very pleasant. In available light stabilizer allows you to work without too many problems with static subjects. Diaphragmed a bit 'does not regret the fixed focal landscapes, it also enables shooting without soffire ragionevolmante close in quality, the AF is fast enough. Of course, the distortion at 24mm is evident, there is a little 'light fall and deterioration in quality at the edges wide open, but as reasonably tolerable and overall we tend to forget that he had to do with a 5X from a very wide-angle focal length. Indispensable in almost all areas and genres when you have to reduce the equipment to a minimum. If my 5D II should have just one goal, it would be this or zoom the 35/1.4 L. Together with the 70-200/4 is the lens that Nikon does not have. sent on September 13, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Pros: Excellent construction - chromatic - sharpness (from f: 5.6 onwards) - compact size and small footprint Cons: made at the edges (up to f: 8) - distortion at 17mm - light falloff at the edges at 17mm - Opinion: And 'perspective ideal for shooting nature, landscapes, close-up details. The zoom range is unique but you can limit the changes of optic focal intermediate, covering all reasonably useful wide angle to a "normal short" as the 40mm. In architecture pays the price of a visible distortion: the correction in post-production is operable with good results but at the cost of losing substantial areas of the image. On the other hand around 22-23mm distortion is canceled completely, and from this point of view, it is preferable widely used in the 17-40 24-105 24 with respect to the same focal length. A f: 4 remains very usable, but this openness should be paid preferably shooting handheld, because the peripheral areas, rather soft wide open, and immediately benefit greatly from the closure of even one stop, the best between f: 5, 6 and f: 8. If necessary, zoom can be used as well as "average" on a APSC, as long as you know how to live with an opening not very high and the absence of the stabilizer. sent on September 12, 2012 |
 | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Pros: Sharpness - High constant aperture - efficient stabilizer - quick AF Cons: blur the edges at short focal lengths and apertures to high - noticeable distortion at short focal - construction is not adapted to the optical qualities - no lens hood - Price Opinion: E 'by far the best EF-S from the point of view of optical quality. A noticeable drop in sharpness peripheral areas, however, present at the shorter focal, ovviabile with an iris of at least a couple of stops. Although the distortion is quite noticeable, but overall this lens allows to enhance the APS-C Canon high density (15-18 MPXl) who send in crisis several other objectives, particularly EF-S. The construction is good but not excellent, and in particular lacks tropicalization, which is not unusual for a certain transit of dust between the lenses, conveyed by the tolerances of the telescopic sections of the zoom. The price is undoubtedly high, but the optics has not competitors to their quality level. Even compared to 17-40/4 L used on APSC, the 17-55/2.8 IS, in addition to the obvious advantages of a stop of opening more, greater excursion canvases and stabilizer, has a sharpness in axis slightly greater, even if it yields step in peripheral areas (the rest of the 17-40 covers a much larger size). sent on September 12, 2012 |
 | Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 II DG HSM Pros: angle of extreme - sharpness - resistance to flare - construction - ability to shoot at shorter focal slow-shutter blur without warning - weight and size limited relative to the focal blankets Cons: impossibility of easy management of filters - low light Opinion: Use on Canon 5D2 and 7D - Although they had spent a lot of (contending the bag with the 17-40L) are extremely satisfied with the purchase of this zoom, with an affordable price that offers an angle of view breathtaking excursion angle complementary to other optical equipment, a remarkable sharpness in the center (and diaframmandolo only one stop to the edge) Fall of limited light, low distortion (and absent around 16-18mm). The construction is very respectable, no backlash and tolerances. I usually I match the 24-105 L for urban and reportage shots to buildings or interiors, in which this sigma in my opinion gives the best of himself. In these situations I leave home my beloved 17-40 L, which reserve's images of nature, mercy its beautiful color rendition. I do not get to say that this lens "does the job" of a 24/3, 5 L II shift lens, because obviously quality and precision of the latter are unsurpassed, though - especially if not used just to lower bounds of its range of focal lengths - the 12-24 says damn its also in the shots of architecture, combining the convenience of a zoom with the quality requirements of a sensor 20mpxl on full frame. Not cheap. sent on September 11, 2012 |
 | Fujifilm XF 60mm f/2.4 R Macro Pros: Outstanding optical quality at all apertures and distances of focus, macro, including compact and lightweight Cons: Slow AF (fixed with the current firmware 2.0 the X-Pro 1) Opinion: As optical quality is perhaps the best of the first set of objectives presented by Fuji together with the X-Pro 1. It lends itself to all kinds of mediotele practicable with a good brightness, from landscape to close-up portraits. Although it is a macro lens, in fact, at the widest apertures (2.4 or 2.8) provides a fuzzy mellow and unstructured, albeit not at the level of the classic super bright. Sharpness of reference, distortion and light falloff at the edges imperceptible even ta Unfortunately the AF of X-Pro 1 with this lens requires, in less than optimal lighting conditions, a lot of patience and dedication. It will eventually learn to improve a little 'things. UPGRADE: the new firmware 2.0 solves the problem dramatically and allows you to make the most of this excellent mediotele even in ambient light. sent on September 07, 2012 |
 | Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4 R Pros: high quality even at full aperture uniformity of yield of the field covered pleasantness of the more blurred the openings Cons: no one, except the hood rubber stopper too soft, you may just lose it. Better to resort to plastic cap with spring closing, that with some acrobatics can be placed or removed with the lens hood attached. Opinion: It 's the light of the new standard X Fujinon. Objective bearer, of a quality comparable if not superior to that of the best competitors. E 'virtually free from defects, can be used in ambient light as in the landscape, maintains a resolution surprising even to minimum distances of focus, seems also exempted from the curvature of field, typical of this kind of optics. The AF is fast enough, the distortion is virtually absent, as the light falloff at the edges. The fuzzy af: 1.4 eaf: 2 is very pleasant and high sharpness of intermediate diaphragms goes out to the more remote areas of the field of view. It 's really hard to find fault with this goal. sent on September 07, 2012 |
 | Fujifilm XF 18mm f/2 R Pros: Sharpness in the center Rapidity AF weight and especially footprint reasonable, Cons: made at the edges at the widest apertures distortion (perfectly correct via firmware / software plug hood rubber too soft, you may only lose Opinion: It 'a great lens for reportage, with a high yield even at full aperture. Ideal for shooting in ambient light. Combined with the excellent qualities of the X-Pro 1 at high ISO allows you to leave the flash at home with no regrets. However, degrades the sharpness at the edges in a blur not dramatic but rather obvious, that is recovered only with generous diaframmature. The distortion is very strong, but (as with other lenses from other manufacturers) the lens has been designed already in operation fixes the camera firmware (the software or conversion) operate automatically. In this light, the distortion is substantially imperceptible, as the rest of the fall of light at the edges. sent on September 07, 2012 |
 | Fujifilm X-PRO1 Pros: Quality of output files to high ISO quality of the optics so far presented compactness, lightness, construction quality hybrid viewfinder AF precise Cons: Need to install FW 2.0 for fast AF (accurate it is not already) Poor feeling with the system manual focheggiatura Low battery autonomy Lack - for now - a software for converting RAW wholly convincing in the excellent Jpeg (or direct conversion on camera) Opinion: I bought it shortly after the presentation on the market. It is obviously a device for shooting photo hunt, but in use "like" rangefinder revealed herself an excellent replacement for the M9 that I had in the past. The classic rangefinder system adds the possibility of a precise AF (which also becomes fast enough ccon installing firmware 2.0) and focus when focus at short distances, thanks to the switchable viewfinder evf. In particular, the unique sensor random matrix is ??a substantial improvement over the traditional bayer matrix and the benefits are immediately obvious by looking at the incredible Jpeg room on Current developments of the system (super-wide, zoom) leave much hope. sent on September 06, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Pros: sharpness wide open - minimum distance maf - Quick AF - construction - bokeh - equivalent focal APSC - compactness Cons: anyone (whether IS would make it more heavy and bulky) Opinion: 135 The best of the many I've had (including Zeiss Planar 135/2 and Nikkor 135/2 ais) and perhaps the best value for money of the entire production Canon. Excellent in marriages, on FF, where its rapid focheggiatura, without hesitation and angle smaller I do prefer the other "boss" of Canon 85 / 1.2 L II that I use when it is allowed slower approach and meditated. Blurred perfect, impressive sharpness wide open, rich color and tonal nuances: with the 35/1.4 or the pair 24/1, 4 and 50/1, 2 is always in my bag, alongside the zoom of my outfit for applications and situations that require optimal management of the pdc and three-dimensional rendering. It 'sa real pleasure to use and the results promptly confirm to me the choice of this excellent system, whose fixed focal L series do not regret any brand as those used in the past, including Leica. Last but not least, it behaves as an excellent 200mm f: 2 when the graft on the EOS 7D, making the most of the difficult sensor of the latter. I recommend it without reservation. sent on July 26, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Pros: razor sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures; effectiveness of the stabilizer, compactness and low weight; held in backlight Cons: absence of the tripod socket as standard; sharpness "crisp" in portraits Opinion: E 'in the migior purchase home Canon to cover the range of telephoto lenses. Yield is high on the Leica format that (I would almost say especially) on APS-C, which is one of the few lenses that can take full advantage of the talents of high density sensors (Canon 7D in the first place). With kit consists of a 5DII with 17-40 (or 24-105) L, a 7D and this 70-300L is faced with virtually any undertaking qualitative satisfaction fotonaturalistico reasonably be expected. Adding to the whole an achromatic doublet (Canon 500D close-up lens) you manage to get close-ups [see my gallery samples] high quality without the need for a specialized purpose. AF fast, istantanteo with the 7D. Very effective stabilizer allows shutter speeds simply unthinkable freehand with good statistics of success. I would not change anything about this goal. sent on July 20, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Pros: Exceptional clarity in relation to the center opening high; blurred fabulous, second perhaps only to 50/1.2L. The migior mediotele portraits of the many that I've tried Cons: Weight, size, focus-by-wire; slow Af, cost Opinion: In all the years I had several objectives portrait, I try to list: Canon 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2L Nikon 85/2 ais, afd 85/1.4, 105/2.5 AIS, 105/1.8 AIS, 135 / 2 ais Leica M Summicron 90/2, Apo Summicron 90/2, Summilux 75/1.4, Apo TELYT 135/3, 4 Contax 85/1.4, 100/3, 5, 135/2 Until I got the Canon 85 / 1.2 L II considered the best overall Nikkor 85/1.4 afd, but this Canon beat while valuable every rival for portraits semplcemente is the best, the best in all respects. The "flaws" that I listed are "acts due" to achieve these levels of performance combined with an opening record (and the consequent blurred that it can get). sent on July 20, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Pros: Bokeh, three-dimensional, plasticity, tonal richness, construction Cons: Sharpness outlying areas to greater openness, weight and size, curvature of field Opinion: A lens with a strong personality. Anyone looking for a razor and a view to playing those planes and geometric savings over a thousand euro and buy the macro f 50/2, 5. Those who want to create images in natural light with a strong three-dimensional and rich tonal transitions and for the richness of colors, at home, Canon can not find anything better. At full aperture the sharpness is acceptable only in a small central area, drops dramatically in peripheral areas: in some areas it is completely acceptable and normal, in others not, but we would be out of the design requirements of a lens as well. Already a stop closure (f: 1.8) yield is impeccable and far superior to that of the two 50mm less bright. By f: 3.5 on the micro-rears even in very remote areas, and are not the most obvious effects of spherical aberration and field curvature. An additional benefit of this is that the pleasantness of the blurred remains still high even at diaframmature more generous merit at all unusual and it definitely separates - for the better - the other two 50mm to list (I do not consider the 50 macro because it has - logically and coherently - a project, say, diametrically opposed to 50/1, 2 L). sent on July 20, 2012 |
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
