|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
RobertoFoveon www.juzaphoto.com/p/RobertoFoveon  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Pros: excellent image quality even at full aperture, blurred with quality. Cons: weight, autofocus speed, cost but i don't think real flaws are physiological Opinion: There are 85 mm faster, more incisive, more something else.... but what is the use of too much sharpness when the canon has enough of 1.2, even the stabilizer is useful but I have never felt the need on this lens, moreover if you make portraits at least 1/60 it is better if you put it since people move :-) there are discussions about what 1.2 is needed compared to 1.4. I did repeated tests to test it lunge before using it for portraits, and not even those who lend it to me have ever noticed anything, but between 1.2 and 1.4 you do not see differences in real photos on the depth of field and blurred in the classic sense, but there is one thing that changes and is immediately seen in certain types of photos, so it is not the same to put 1,2 or 1.4 and it is not better one or the other, it depends on the type of photo ... for me it is a lens that deserves all my esteem. sent on March 23, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Pros: Affordable cost, 200 mm actual not as in the 70 -200 2.8, light, discreet, good sharpness, good boket. Cons: it is not easy to use a fixed 200 mm for those who are used to zooming, I often use fixeds, it is not tropicalized, it is not stabilized. Opinion: If you find a 70-200 2.8 and showy too heavy, then it is the optics for you, if instead you do not have these limits with a hawthorn, you do not take it, I prefer it to zoom but it is a matter of tastes, I read that reviews of serious online sites do not recommend it, because it is less sharp than white is not stabilized and is not a more comfortable zoom. Compared to the hawthorn I say this, it weighs and costs half is not obvious, the sharpness for portraits is enough and advances, vignette less, and other defects are minimized. In the end with the hawthorn you use at the focals 135 200mm (which are then not 200mm actual) so just see which of the two you prefer and take either this or the 135. sent on March 21, 2021 |
 | Fujifilm Instax Square SQ6 Pros: Start on the positive side, is fun and brings back to the time when the photo did not see it immediately on the monitor and you could not delete it (just rip it)... So you thought about it when you shoot because it had an "instant" cost:-) You will have to force a unique and non-replicable printed photo.... Cons: Cons: The image quality is not very good, the latitude of laying often forces you to choose whether to burn the lights or have closed shadows... You can not understand how it will come out the first photo, since it is all in automatic (can be used by anyone who is a positive side but also its limit), and you can not use at the same time some settings like D and L combined with other , plus each photo costs 1 euro. I add that the viewfinder does not allow you to frame with some precision... But the composition is very random. Opinion: The camera I was lent to and I could use it for a sufficient time. I liked to use it, but given the flaws I recommend to buy it with a group of friends, you use it a bit ' in turn and then resells when you are tired. You don't have to compare to DSLRs... It's another thing... You don't use it for the technical side... It's used for the emotional part... If you are the ones who look at 200% the photo to monitors that control how many aberrations has an optics etc etc..... Leave it alone is not for you.... It is for romantics and artists who think that the photo must give an emotion or a smile, otherwise it is not a good photo. If you have curiosity ask without problems. sent on May 14, 2019 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Pros: Optics with Sharpness for the quality / price ratio better than Canon. Cons: Not excels in many things ... in the relationship macro, nell'autofocus, the focus in the points of light, a bit 'plasticky ..... yet it has something that fascinates ... I can not describe it but I can understand those who possess . Opinion: Despite the cons ... I consider this view especially for its price .... very underrated ... if you want to know what can be sharper a photo taken with your SLR canon (with an optical below 400 euro), you only one way, use this strange lens ..... but beware, after, you can not mount a 17-85 or similar .... and see the photos at 100% ...:-) I avvertiti.rnrnAlla the end of this test you can see the difference in sharpness between 17-85 (which is not really an optical throw:-)) and 50 2.5, there is just no comparison on nitidezza..per other things. .Type autofocus ... is.etc..ma are born to optical requirements diverse.rnrnhttp: //fotorealis.jimdo.com/2012/09/01/pixel-binning-canon/ sent on April 03, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Pros: Solid construction although not tropical conditions, very high sharpness even at f 2.0, beautiful colors and focus, also add the ability to shoot subjects closer to the lens of the 85 1.8 and 100 f2.0 Cons: Those who choose this' optical does knowing what it takes for me so it has no defects. For example, the make is just heavier optics and complex the optical scheme, then to maintain the same quality there would be a price increase, and even now is not cheap. A want to be picky, the diaphragm unrounded you notice when in the background out of focus there are points of light ... but it is a matter of taste. Opinion: I borrowed the perspective from a friend and I tried it for a few weeks, I have to say that the first difference with my 100 f2.0 is that I spend less unnoticed, also after some time I feel the weight of the lens, with the 100 instead never any weariness, for other differences you can read in detail in the article I fattornrnhttp: //fotorealis.jimdo.com/2014/08/23/canon-135-f2-0-confronto/rnrnsecondo my habits, 100 f2.0 is not a second choice, if you take into account some aspects and not taking pictures often at risk of chromatic aberrations or close-ups, the difference in sharpness is at f2.0, but you only notice at magnifications of 100% and since it is used in portraits and 100 is already very clear, I do not see problems, rnrnpoi the advice is to try both to get an idea before a purchase, (because personal tastes affect more than any test ) if you have the luck of friends who own them and are not too jealous:-) sent on October 18, 2014 |
 | Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Pros: Value for money, focus, sharpness, light. Cons: Does not damage the lens hood of the series, and has a slight chromatic aberration 2.0 Opinion: It 's my favorite among those Canon lens I own, relatively inexpensive, lightweight, discreet, returns beautiful colors, a friend lent me the 135 f2.0 I was also curious to see if his performance was sufficient to justify a price much high, I did some tests and I compared the results with the canon 85 1.8 but only according to opinions that have given me friends who possess it, maybe one day I'll do a test with quello.rnhttp: // fotorealis .jimdo.com / 2014/08/23/135-canon-f2-0-comparison / rnqui can see the article completo.rnrnA Sometimes I captain friends or acquaintances who ask me an opinion between the 100 and the 100 f2 f2, 8 is for the portrait, the answer is that if you make mostly portraits there is no history, the 100f 2.0 wins, the reason is that it is true that the 100 f2.8 has more clarity and is, but the different correction of spherical aberration between the two lenses even if the same aperture will produce more and more beautiful and gradual one blurred in the 100 f2.0 at the expense of a minoKing sharpness (as well as in 50 of which 1.2 wrongly many complain not knowing why the less sharpness), the autofocus of an optical macro usm also will never be as fast as that of an optical picture and increased sharpness (when the 100 f2 is already very clear for a portrait) then I do not see a major plus. The modern macro lenses are more versatile than those of the past, but they are designed to excel in photos not in the picture where they're doing well, but not compared to optical specialist. sent on October 18, 2014 |
 | Canon 1Ds Mark II Pros: Among the pros point out an ergonomics that no battery grip "added" can emulate and build quality can not be described except to the touch, spot metering on the focus point (I do not understand how I could do without it before). Useful for landscape or photographs of the interior multispot function that helps a lot but I have hardly ever used. The viewfinder 100% seems trivial but 98% of 5d mark2 not to mention the 5d are not comparable for the exact mastery of the scene, the far superior autofocus at 5 d mark2 old and, in some areas, if you use always the focus with subjects almost static rather I did not notice significant differences. the ability to record the preferred focus point is comfortable. (Tropicalised but I do not interessa..io are not weather sealed :-)) Cons: ridiculous display with everything that goes with it, but at the time there was this heavy (already 7 days after using this reflex the 5d mark 2 or 30d seemed two compact), use of inconvenient buttons for different commands, including changing the iSO, that are visible in the viewfinder but not while changing them with the buttons, so you have to mentally calculate how many shots you stop dealing with the wheel, and then check the viewfinder if you selected the one desired, alternatively see the display top, but I find it a waste of time in certain professional fields where you do not have time. Opinion: I was given by a friend who uses it now just because of the weight, so I could try it for 2 weeks, one day dedicated to review the settings in the manual and understand the reflex, the customizations perhaps today are outdated compared to modern series 1 but if you come from a semi pro series also 5d, are more than enough and you open up a new world, the pictures are of excellent quality, up to 1600 iSO equal to 5d mark 2 and 3200 slightly noisier ... but a noise as they said others (and I at first did not understand what they meant) it does not bother ... in fact it is almost artistic ... maybe because it is very luminance and little color, cmq attached to a 100 f2 finally allows bring home many more photos with sharp eyes too wide open as it has to recompose the minimum advantage of all the points (on the difference of the new series 1 can be selected if you want all 45), 4 photos per second, are more for me than enough, the only downside is that after the buffer 11 photos we mected from 15 to about 20 seconds (depending on the cards used) to be completely emptied, it allows anyway already after a few seconds to photograph again, but in a sports field with intense use, may be limiting, but is to say which has not been designed for this scope. In conclusion, apart from the few defects found, when you put the eye in the viewfinder and use it ... you do not realize that 10 years .... still think can humiliate many modern SLR emblazoned in the end used to take it to a lower price than many semi pro with modern limiting autofocus, viewfinder less than 100% against a superior ergonomics and spot metering linked to the focus point, it can be a great satisfaction, more if you have no back problems :). After using it , feel like SLRs not toys series 1 ... and I sorry to give it back in a few days :) If you have doubts or curiosity to ask me, if you are up to try to help. http://fotorealis.jimdo.com/2015/06/02/impressioni-d-uso-della-1ds-mark-ii/ sent on August 27, 2014 |
 | Sigma SD14 Pros: Body you hold comfortably and with a sense of solidity despite not being used quality materials, viewfinder framing 98% compared with 95% of many renowned models that pose for semi-pro, image quality at 100 ISO that gives feelings forget three-dimensional and sharpness of old slides (see the end of the article http://www.foto-roma.it/site/pixel-binning-canon.html; unique sensor technology (with its strengths and weaknesses) Cons: Autofocus poor; noise already at 400 iso for high quality photos that I think, slow operating with 1-2 seconds to review the captured image on the display, the display is a scandal how to change the iso uncomfortable ... but so you should only use 100 and 200 iso attack only optical SA, each photo should be "developed" with his program as if it were a film to get a jpg, white balance difficult; Opinion: From the many flaws it may seem that I do not recommend ... but I can say that I prefer ... if the light (natural or recreated) permits use this reflex than other canon (of my property) or Nikon (which I lend colleagues / Friends) ... with emotions that only those who used the mechanical film SLR can understand. Who takes 1000 photos every time he goes on vacation in mind that once you used 3 rolls (100 photos) without being able to review the images and delete them .. do not buy! Strongly discourage the ... this camera is for those who have hurry to take .. reflects, composes, savoring the ephemeral moments before trying to make them less volatile on the sensor. It is not suitable for sports photos or as a single body for ceremonies (although he does some crazy) ... but that's fine as a complementary body to compensate for those defects that Bayer sensor. Take photos with the objectives sigma Macro that normally are not better than canon and nikon (indeed) .... and then you will be amazed .. You either like it or hate it ... there is no middle ground sent on August 03, 2011 |
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
