|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Claudio Ricci www.juzaphoto.com/p/ClaudioRicci  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | OM System M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO II Pros: In some ways it's "the perfect lens". It excels in every aspect. Impeccable. Cons: Nobody. I would say "that only stops at 80 equivalents", I'm used to larger zooms, but that's not a flaw. Opinion: Lens completely free of defects and equipped with every possible value. Professional build quality. Flawless results, every time you open it, in every situation, across the entire frame. The only possible bad result is due to the photographer's error. The stabilization of cameras like the OM-1 (where it is supplied as a kit) makes it absolutely versatile, since you can shoot without problems even at 1/2 (if not even a full second) handheld (and even at 80 mm equivalent). Value for money at the highest possible benefit levels. I don't think you can get a lens of this quality at a lower price than what you can find it at. Rating : 10 full, like 13 other users before me, I think it's a lens where it's practically impossible to disagree. sent on June 27, 2024 |
 | Samsung S22 Ultra Pros: Unrivalled photographic versatility (but with results very dependent on modes and conditions - see cons). Overall excellent in the rest as well. Cons: Extremely fluctuating photographic results, depending on the mode of use (it has quite a few, including Raw, Expert Raw, stock camera and full 108 mpx) and light conditions. It takes time to master them all and choose the best one. They can range from stunning medium-format results to mediocre photos full of artifacts and only suitable for social context. Unbelievable waste of the "Expert Raw" mode, which would be great if it didn't produce bad NR artifacts. Opinion: (Over a year of intensive use - I've taken more pictures with him, who is always with me, than with all the other cameras put together in the last good four years). First of all, it's literally like having in your pocket something ranging from 16 to 230 mm FF equivalent, but with a limit: you have to use the basic lenses of the individual cams, because the intermediate results are interpolated and with considerable deterioration of the image. So we have, 16 (0.6x), 23 (base), 69 (3x) and 230 (10x, and also decently bright, f4.9). The normal 12 mpx stock cam produces results that can range from very good to very bad (artifacts, excess sharpening, "oily" areas from excess NR), but it does a beautiful HDR that is very natural and has great colors, especially when using the "hot" filter. The 108 mpx mode often gives results that are out of this world, and it feels like having a medium format in your pocket! It is imperative to use the "detail improvement" and, equally, to stay at the 23 mm base: forcing it to 2x or higher, does nothing but crop and enlarge it, with results in strong deterioration (but given the size, I have a 50 cm print mistakenly made from 3x rows and it is practically perfect). Ordinary Raw, dng, allows you to change WB, ISO, shutter speed, etc. before shooting, and gives excellent results using a common editor such as Camera Raw, although it is quite noisy and difficult to use in low light (dynamic range is what it is, and it doesn't use multiple photos to make an HDR or a stacking that eliminates noise). The "Expert Raw" mode, sensational on paper, is an absurd waste! It's very bad! In many photos it produces horrendous "oily" artifacts due to overlapping errors and excess denoise that cannot be eliminated. And also excessive sharpening halos, even those that cannot be eliminated. I've saved a few photos using that, I avoid it now. Basically, you have to understand WELL what is best to do, or take several shots with various modes and then choose the best one. But when it's good, try to make 50 or even 70 cm prints, and then you'll be amazed, unable to distinguish them from those made of the same subject with a Reflex. Indeed... Sometimes they were even better than those of the cell phone :-D My rating is : 9. If the Expert Raw mode had been perfect, we would have been at 14 :-D sent on December 22, 2023 |
 | Apple iPhone XS Max Pros: Sharp and "textured" photos, excellent (in my opinion) color management and, very natural, HDR. Sometimes they give colors a little washed out, but they react well to filters such as "vibrance" in the Raw camera applied to the simple Jpg. Excellent panorama stitching. Cons: At 2x the fine grain of the image loses something, it is a more "coarse" thread, but nothing to worry about in a 50 cm print (test done). Night photos, unless the place is decently lit, are not its forte. Opinion: Taken two years ago for two bucks as a used refurbished after they had lent me a disused co-evo Iphone XR (which using the basic lens is similar but not exactly the same), I always carry it in my pocket using it exclusively as a "camera", without even the SIM. If I don't want to take the traditional camera with me on a trip, between him and the Samsung S22 ultra in the other pocket (even with his flaws, he has a real telephoto that the other one dreams of), I don't need anything else. sent on December 15, 2023 |
 | Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD Pros: All and more (for what I do). Cons: Nothing, unless you have special needs and a lot of money to spend (those who take certain types of photos go directly on the 500 f4 and therefore does not pose the problem). Opinion: I have it for about a year, and the more I use it the more it surprises me, especially on APS (Nikon D5600). The stability and sharpness are incredible, the autofocus is lightning fast and the mistakes happen like in 2 cases out of 100 of which one and a half is my fault. It weighs as little as a lens like that, and, at least for what I do, I don't need the ring for the tripod (which is not included). The images require a bit of post-production to improve contrast, especially over 200 mm, but with a few minutes of work they are then excellent. It gives me a huge number of DRITTE photos, with the "right" walls, to lead, when with the other lenses that I often tending to shoot crooked and having to do tedious straightening work. The graphs did not show much difference with the various 100-400 more ephaly (which cost almost three times) and in fact the images are ultra sharp, with little (if anything) fall to the sides and corners (if there, responds well to postproduction). The blur is beautiful, although not exceptional and with some "onion ring" circle (but who cares?). It certainly does not excel in brightness, and this becomes particularly noticeable in APS (where it turns into a 150-600 f6.7-9.5 equivalent), but the stabilizer makes large numbers to remedy the problem. I could check many sharp shots at 1/40 to 600 mm equivalent (almost 4 stop advantage!). A bomb for an anti-tripod like me. You can "track" the birds in flight well, with all that the performance of the machines in my possession (D800, D5600) are far from excellence in the matter (but I rarely take that kind of photo, my "birdlife" is limited to the Seagulls of Rome and little else). I do not see any significant color aberration in the photos, when there are are instantly eliminated by machines or software. It allows you to approach at a good distance from things (a meter and a half or so). I find it beautiful in the landscape. It's stupid, but it's very beautiful aesthetically. It has a voluminous lampshade, this less beautiful to see, which does its job well. Highly recommended, I get to vote even 10. sent on January 15, 2020 |
 | Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art Pros: Sharpness and resolve impressive detail, rapid and precise autofocus, blurred splendid at F4, great chromatic rendition and Microcontrast. Excellent value for money. No problem front-back focus in my copy (as I read a fortune considering how they suffer on average Sigma). Excellent stabilization. Building that looks of great quality. Cons: A heavy cons, and I'm not finding solution: it consumes a LOT of battery. Vignetting and distortion marked at certain focal lengths, but completely resolvable in one click Via software (and it seems to me to be quite correct also in JPGs from D800). Opinion: In some ways it's more or less one of the best lenses I remember shooting at Nikon, although I haven't tested several sacred monsters yet. But, to say, it seems to me even better than the 24-70/2.8 that I got to briefly lend me a while ago, not to mention the Nikon 24-120. And my beloved and abused 28-300 does not stand the comparison except towards F9/F10. The 50 1.4 is sharp in the same way but with much more difficult autofocus. Risolvenza detail (on the 36 mpx of D800) and sharpness are at levels to remain open-mouthed. In Some shots you don't even need to give sharpening in post beyond the little given by default from Raw Converters. In particular, it seems to me, at F 6.3/F 7.1, but up to all F9/F10. At F4 not only the sharpness seems to me more than valid, albeit slightly lower, but appear in the appropriate fuzzy conditions and bokeh that do not regret more emblazoned lenses on the subject (the bokeh has some imperfection like "Onion Ring" but it is beautiful). The stabilizer works fine, most of the shots at 105 mm are also saved at 1/15 (approx. 3 stops) and sometimes even slower. The Autofocus is fast and accurate, it goes where I want without errors, and in my copy there is no trace of front-back focus. Less than 50 mm and even more less than 35 appears a marked vignetting, small but aggressive, dark; But the software solves it in a click, and apparently I also see the firmware of the machine if you shoot jpg. Same thing for chromatic aberrations, however not particularly invasive. Let's go to the real flaw. Heavy. This Lens literally PHAGOCYTE the battery! As Several other sources have reported, it is as if it remains perpetually in operation (it is not necessary to lower the focus time from the menu C2). In the last exit, after a HUNDRED shots, the battery of the D800 had fallen to 35%! We Are talking about a battery that otherwise also holds the quadruple before falling to such a level. And I'm not particularly worn out. Given that I have not bought the USB Dock, there are currently firmware updates for Nikon, and considering that the D800 I have the latest version (1.11)... The problem is for now unsolvable! Or rather... It resolves in an uneconomical way by buying a couple of spare batteries, which I have never needed to do so far. Or by turning off the machine frequently while you are running around (risky, you risk losing shots). Patience. The game is worth the candle. Just then look at the results, and you will forgive. Rating: 9 (that would be 10 without the battery thing). sent on April 14, 2019 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G Pros: Practically everything: sharpness, detail, chromatic rendition, "Depth" of the images, lightness, remarkable quality/price ratio. Cons: Practically nothing: Some chromatic aberration but generally of little account. No Tropicalization and stabilization (in a lens like this? Maybe we got used to it too well). Cheap-Plasticosa Construction (Is it that bad? It still seems durable, and then for what it costs...). Opinion: It is a kind of ideal companion for the Nikon Dx, practically their "fifty" equivalent election. It is light as a feather, it produces excellent technical quality images (when not close to perfection), and it costs like three good-level fish dinners (it is worth replacing them with bread and mortadella and take home the lens). Other? Autofocus not at the highest levels of speed and accuracy? Boh, I can not find many errors, and at least for the type of photos I do, the differences in nanoseconds with other focus of other lenses, Count zero. The images that it returns are deep and contrastate, and having it taken by mistake (it is very confused with the 50 1.4 G FF), I was amazed by its yield also on the D800, while forcing it to crop Dx from "only" 15.4 mpx. The bokeh and the blur are not excelled, but they do absolutely their job. Ah, it can be made useless by the Tamron 35 1.8 FF, which is also stabilized (a real bomb), but the latter, curiously, loses slightly of resolve on Dx (little stuff eh?) While this other 35 is just "at home". Apparently just sewn as a suit for the classic 24 MPX sensor of the D5600 and several other Nikon Dx's recent. Rating: 9. sent on March 30, 2019 |
 | Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD Pros: A little everything: construction, overall yield, minimum distance of fire only 20 cm, resolve detail, bokeh, sharpness (excellent even at 1.8), stabilization, value for money. Cons: One relevant only: chromatic aberrations (even insistent) green and magenta in the blurred and bright areas to F 1.8 and F 2.0, typically difficult or frankly impossible to eliminate in post. But nothing serious. Opinion: Arrived at the third month of use and several hundred shots, he became a loyal companion, in low light situations but not only. It is relatively heavy and massive to be a Prime, but it is all obvious constructive quality, with a Q/P ratio not to let it run away. The AF may not be the best in speed and accuracy but honestly it seems to me that you do not miss a shot, unless I do nonsense (which happens frequently) and I have nothing significant to say about the speed. I found him, looking carefully with the ruler of the DSLR Kit, a little ' Back Focus, but it was little stuff and it was easy to fix (on D800). In "Real Life" I did not even notice and the shots were in focus where I expected they were. The stabilizer, certainly not the best on the market, still works well up to more than two stops: I have pretty much all sharp shots at 1/10, almost all at 1/6 and many even at 1/5. They save 4-5 on 10 to 1/4, while it is not the case to go over freehand (sporadic successes at 1/3, but not sufficiently reliable or significant beyond luck). I would say much more than enough. Sharpness and resolve details are superb, even at F 1.8. The focus with vague "Velleità macro" at only 20 cm is fantastic! The Bokeh is excellent while not lacking in flaws (some "Onion Rings"). The figure-Background detachment is well "three-dimensional" as you want in these cases. A F 1.8 and F 2.0 can appear insistent green and magenta aberrations in bokeh and high contrast areas, it is practically the only flaw that I find noteworthy. But it is nothing dramatic, and if there are no backlights or strong contrasts, it becomes irrelevant. The vote is 9. sent on March 09, 2019 |
 | Nikon D700 Pros: Everything, and even more, by the time he went out. The revolution at hand (albeit with bloody economies) since the D3 was unthinkable, for my wallet and many. Cons: Nothing, by the time he stepped out (faults?!?). Just some too much artifact in the JPGs (but it's caprine wool). Opinion: With me from the end 2008 to 2012, was then resolved to a friend who still uses it without problems now in January 2019, now towards the 150,000 shots. It was a milestone of digital photography, more than the D3, of which was the "stripped down" version, almost with the same image quality, and economically more realistic to afford (always around 2000 you had to hunt eh?). The machine that allowed the release, with almost total usability up to ISO 6400 and in some cases even further (with adequate attention, light and postproduction). Usable without major problems even glass "a little ' so" as the old Tamron 70-300 unstabilized (still do it...) and the Nikkor 28-200, not stabilized (which I had bought used, and such resolvated then). A bomb with 50 1.4 G and Col 28-300 VR, as well as a Sigma 24-70 2.8 that gave me great satisfaction. There is nothing more to say except: the JPG... generally excellent (are those who take Raw + jpg, and that you do not have trouble taking the second when it comes out well), had some artifacts probably due to a depth of color or a firmware not at the top : In particular, banding and posterization artifacts, sometimes seen in the Sky and shadows (alongside typical reddish and shelled "pixelloni" nuances). And it could also happen in the Raw, although it usually fixable in post. Nothing else. If you search for a second body to use as a "mule", if you find it as good used to two lire, and if you have enough its 12 mpx (at its time oh if they were!), you can proceed quietly. There were some A3 prints out of fear, never made of larger but I think he held them, with the necessary precautions. Rating: 9, that could be almost 10. sent on January 12, 2019 |
 | Sony RX100 Pros: In a sentence: excellent quality, yield, construction and discretion, enclosed in something a little bigger than a packet of cigarettes and weighing zero in the pocket of a jacket. This makes the various faults forgiconable (see below). Cons: Chromatic rendition often bizarre and disappointing, unless you fiddle enough on the Raw. Grip and sometimes uncomfortable operations, maybe it's too small. Several Raw, even at low ISO, do not respond in an excellent way to post processed (and generate a flood of noise in the B/N tonings in post). In Tele is slow, contrary to the excellent wide. High ISO is not particularly recommendable: better stop at 3200 (in some cases acceptable photos to 4000, from Raw). Disagreeable menu, typically Sony. Little Flash performance (but heck, it's so small, you can stay there). Battery not Excellsa, at least in my specimen. Nowadays its use is largely made avoidable by high-ranking mobiles (this does not apply to subsequent marks). Opinion: Bought on a whim at the end of 2012, I used and abused and, even today, occasionally (which I lent/donated) the use, although the phones give me just a little lower performance. The image quality is typically Reflex-like, sharpness and resolve to detail are optimal. Traveling so light with her in your pocket is a priceless joy! But, in at least half of the shots, the colors are ugly, or at the very least, do not convince me. The WB is strange, cold-bluish and with a yield hardly optimal even in the hottest settings. Even from Raw (I don't use JPG from this machine) it's not easy to get them out as you want. These Raw also do not always respond well to post processed (however without overprocessing). Even at low Iso can pop out noise and artifacts, as well as bankruptcy of the highs (a little ' better shadows). The tonings in BN, more than noise, generate a real clatter. But not a big deal, then many BN I make them noisy and "movies like" specially. It is not a sensor at the same levels as an average APS/DX of an hour, beyond certain uses. You have to stay. High Iso should be used very carefully. 800/1600 are fine, going beyond is serious the risk of having to trashing the shot. Some 3200 is fine, rarely some 4000 (unless there are too many fine textures). The Tele is slow and "Buietto", contrary to Wide, fast and bright. The metal construction is excellent, but sometimes the grip is slimy and is a bit awkward. The menu is annoying, Sony style. The little flash does what it can but it is mediocre and from even more ugly colors. The various successive marks of this model should have improved many things, even if the price has splashed to levels frankly exorbitant (this here I paid 395 euros). sent on January 02, 2019 |
 | Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Pros: Price: Low from new, very low to be used. Also made excellent with closed diaphragm. "Macro" factor: allows to approach the subject decently at about 1 metre. Frankly great value for money despite the limits. Bokeh not excelled, but valid. Cons: Softess up to about F 7.1 and many low contrast photos-"velate" (often fixable in Post), not stabilized, AF not always reliable, solid results only in relatively stringent conditions, or with the tripod. Some aberrations (usually correctable). Opinion: Bought used at ridiculous price in 2010 and then resolute a few months later, when I could afford the Nikkor 28-300 VR, which makes it completely unnecessary coexistence. It is a rather humble lens but not even a total "Vetraccio" as they would like different sources. Used in optimal conditions (alas stringent) by also some excellent results. From 1 to 10 in short I'm 6 and a half/7 stretched you can give it realistically. Vote turned up a lot by the value for money. You have to know what you get, "clear covenants, long friendship." It's dark. It's slow. Has aberrations. It is soft and a little "veed" (the image however responds well to the post) up to about F 7.1. Towards F10 the sharpness is optimal, and, perhaps helping with suitable sharpening in post, little distinguishable (unless microscopy or useless obtainment with pixel-peeping) from higher-ranking lenses. But behold, we are talking about F 7.1/10 on unstabilized 70-300 lens. The Autofocus generally goes, but there are uncertainties, series with little light. It's nice to shoot a little less than a meter from the subject, simulating a "macro". But good luck to make it sharp unless you are full light, with minimum 1/640 to 300 mm if no tripod... Bottom Line: If you find used to type 50-80 euro, if you do not already have a top tele, if you have a well-usable SLR up to 6400 ISO (including) or if you always use tripod, it is to be taken on the fly. Tamron itself now makes things vastly better, at relatively low price. sent on January 02, 2019 |
 | Nikon D5600 Pros: All, among the best of his band (APS/DX just beyond the entry level). Cons: Nothing, unless you claim things that are beyond that band of belonging. Points irrelevant to me but important to many: does not have the depth of field button, it seems to have a poor Snapbridge support, is sub-par for Video, has a live view not excelled, not by Autofocus possibilities for lenses that do not have internal . Opinion: After a year and a half of intensive use as a second body, it is a machine on which I find no flaws. To tell the truth, for its practicality, lightness, and surrender... it has become the first body of use. Weighs little more than a feather, including the lenses with which the most frequently used: 18-55 AFP-DX VR (had in kit and excellent), 35 1.8 dx, 50 1.4 G. The weight is reasonable even with the massive 28-300 VR, which incidentally makes it fine, more on her than on the D800 while losing the wide by 28 (on the other hand you earn 450 mm equivalent with some sharp shots even at 1/10!). The quality of the shots is excellent in the Raw as well as in the JPG: tone, contrast, micro-contrast, color. The JPG engine is so good that if you shoot Raw + jpg It is easy to not have virtually the first (unless there are high series burns or unless you are more than ISO 2000 about). It is of limited size and much greater discretion than a D800. Enter a small handbag. Even in a large pouch if with short things like the 35 1.8 or as the 50 1.4 G. Neck ache and wrist cramps become a memory. It's accurate, fast, flawless. Very rare autofocus errors and lost shots (when there are, is my mistake). Together with AF-P lenses it allows to shoot at 1/5 freehand at 82 mm equivalent (7-8 shots out of 10 are sharp). The high ISO seal is very good in jpg and absolutely excellent from Raw post-product (with valid software, be it clear). Using techniques of "expose to the right", bringing the exposure down in post, and using the best denoise, I have some shots perfectly usable even at Iso 12800 if the light is good (also tested in print up to A3). In low light and at night with little illumination, everything runs smoothly up to 3200 (which I use fluently) but sometimes the results are valid at 5000 or even at 6400 (in the latter case however you play fine textures if present, and the photos can be soft as a result of Denoi If heavy). The Sharpness, in particular col 18-55 AFP dx VR and Col 35 DX 1.8, is at the highest level, the resolve of the idem detail. The photos, also from JPG, are very good in black and white toning, even with heavy and dramatic postproductions. The flash is not the best, but it does its job. The battery has an excellent durability, and is quickly recharged (contrary to the D800). The pixel count is slightly larger than more advanced DX machines (such as D500 and D7500), and while the latter are (much) faster in the burst and have more advanced functions, the image quality seems to me equal in the "real world". In JPG performances are even higher than those of the D800 (weigh the years of firmware advancement), contrary to the Raw where obviously the headroom of 800 is greater (but the dynamic range of the 5600 is optimal and wide for every use, however). The display is excellent and the touch function does more than its duty. Honestly, I don't find "real" flaws. Has "only" 24 mpx? Unless you have to print street posters every day, they are more than one needs in life (you forget when only 10-12 years ago were "so many" 12 mpx). It's not tropicalized and it's plasticose? It's a 6-700 euro SLR, not 1500. Does not make burst from 14 fps? It's fast enough for its headband, it's 5. sacrificed controls? From touch menu activated by key "I" You can quickly access almost everything. The live view is slow but it does its job. I've never used it in videos where it's modest. If you want video figs, you have to switch to Sony or Panasonic. It doesn't have the depth of field Preview button, but I personally live without it. There is little snapbridge support, which I don't use. Like several Nikon, it doesn't allow Autofocus on lenses that don't have it internal. But I don't have any. sent on December 31, 2018 |
 | Nikon D800 Pros: Virtually everything: resolution, color, detail, dynamic range, construction, robustness, efficiency, enormous malleability and "workability" of both the Raw and the JPG (and you could continue). Cons: Practically nothing but the heaviness: an elephant in the neck if with heavy lenses and external flash (God save us with battery grip, which I don't anyway). At the moment it is "dated" species on functions like Live View (which also not even use). Opinion: Eagerly desired and bought after heavy economies, he has been with me for almost six years. I struggle to find them real faults, and, personally, I do not match those that are commonly affixed. For example the susceptibility to vibration due to the mighty (and noisy-but I like it) shutter. When I get the blur, it's my fault. Even without special precautions on tripod (the rare times I use it), I do not get micromossi. Obviously, its powerful Raw from 36 mpx reveal to 100% every minimum defect and softness of each lens, but much is corrected by the firmware, and a lot is correctable via software (especially those who use modules optimization of individual lenses). And then, let's be clear, starting from files like that, you have to make really big prints to notice something, or it's all "razor sharp" anyway! Even if the press was huge, and revealed a clue of softness and micromosso, you should look with the nose on the paper, but who is watching a poster with the nose on the paper?!? The dynamic range is something fantastic, the headroom from Raw allows astounding recovers of highlights, as well as shadows. To the point that one could quietly shoot with strong exposure "to the Left" (the opposite of what many advise) and then raise shadows and blacks without obtaining particular damage (it is known that to do so with certain canon were obtained patterns from "kilt Scottish "Terrifying! But they should have solved the thing in the last models). The depth and the power of the color are extraordinary. You do not feel particularly the slight lack of sharpness compared to the model and especially the next 810: The details are so many, and respond so well to sharpening that you really have to resort to microscopy to find differences Significant! Some signal a certain noise at high ISO. And, especially from Raw, there's really some noise over the 3200, and it gets a lot from 5000-6400. But reducing it with good software, it still remains such a quantity of details (even in the shadows) that the shot, on large print, is virtually identical to the 100-1000 ISO band. Here too, to find differences it takes the magnifying glass. I have no problems even in different shots at ISO 12800 and even someone besides, here using techniques of "expose to the right", pulling down the exposure from Raw and maybe then using a good denoise. I would now be tempted to move on to 850, but finances do not allow, and also allow, sincerely there is no real stringent reason! Other point: The results are also dear with DX lenses! The Raw output can be "pulled up" up to 24 mpx (higher side led to 6000 px) without any significant deterioration! So it's like "containing" a 24 mpx DX of equal efficiency inside! By updating the firmware, it works excellently with the excellent 18-55 AF-P DX VR, and with the equally excellent 35 1.8. We try to find flaws: it is heavy. At the neck with two bison like the 28-300 VR or the Sigma 12-24, it's osteopath stuff... and after a while it can give the wrist cramps. It's flashy, noisy and indiscrey. It's "slow" (I personally though practically never need an ultra-fast "burst"). For types of photos requiring great speed (I think the edges of a circuit from Moto GP) certainly is not the best. But I don't do this kind of photo. It is now "outdated" compared to the latest Sony monsters (for one). But here are flaws that, at least as far as I am concerned, are virtually non-existent. sent on December 28, 2018 |
 | Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Pros: Rugged, well built, versatile, sharp, even very much between F4 and F10, bright, good bokeh, decent performance "macro" shooting from 40-50 cm away Cons: Marked softness to f2.8, no stabilization, AF a bit slow (not a big deal, anyway) Opinion: Had for a couple of years (bought used and at last resold), I often paired it to my quasi-ubiquitous 28-300 VR, which is much more versatile but I starts from 28 when, in certain situations, I crave that greater wide that you can not always simulate "taking a few steps Back "(Interestingly, however, I am satisfied with the 28-300 on DX, which starts from well 42 mm equivalent). Sharp (and also very much between F4 and F10), bright, effective, there were only merits until some photos, taken towards 70 mm with little light, was not implacably plagued by the blur if you do not remember to shoot at least 1/100 and then with the need for high ISO , and fortunately that the D700 that I had at the time held them very well (the absence of stabilizer, to which the 28-300 you get used to it too much, it was felt!). The real troubles were beginning in the evening, or indoors without flash, when f2.8 revealed a marked softness, a noticeable collapse compared to the rest of the openings. Woe to take pictures freehand at 70 mm to f2.8 at 1/60 or around them, 50 shots and over on 100, between shake and softness, were to be trashing rabidly. The (very) soft focus at 2.8 was much less a problem in portraiture, but I do a portrait on average every 1000 photos... The autofocus is relatively slow, but it was not a problem for my type of shots, and anyway it seemed to me always quite accurate, most importantly. Rating: Altogether 8. sent on December 27, 2018 |
 | LG G4 Pros: Sharpness and resolve details to say the least exceptional. Fantastic Landscape and street with the 16:9. Excellent colors, both from JPG and especially post-producing from Raw. Excellent signal-to-noise ratio-artifacts at low ISO and, in some cases, medium-high. Excellent yield in the conversions in BN in post. Great display. Nothing to Fault in the "phone" functions. Cons: At least in my exemplary, scandalous battery: After a few months it started to last just over half a day. Deceased suddenly after just over two years. Better to forget the zoom (as in most mobiles). Opinion: I almost cried when (July 2017), out of the blue, I died and there was no way to restart even with a new battery (the battery is removable). I made some of the photos that I care more, with everything that in the meantime I had two cameras and a compact (do not know how many times I left at home carrying only him and on). The warranty had just expired. The battery... or mine had failed, or is to be considered disastrous. After a few months he struggled to arrive at 6 pm if reloaded the night (and during the recharge I kept it off). After another month I found it at 20% in mid-afternoon! And without any particular use of the Internet and continuous searches of Wi-Fi (which I deactivated when I was out of the house). I have thought several times of trying to remedy another, maybe used, with all the Huawei P20 Pro I have now, and the P10 Plus had and resold after a year: clearly they are much higher for so many things... but without the aggressive and sharp feel of the G4 and without those wonderful 16: 9 in immediate exit. Even the Huawei have them, but at resolution Tarpata, or you have to do strict crop from 4:3, format that I do not particularly love. Additional notes: 1) practically never used for video, which interest me little: I made a few and it seemed to me that they were not bad. 2) never gave weight to the front camera, which still did its job for those rare selfie that I shoot. sent on December 26, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G DX VR Pros: All. Negligible cost (often now kit lens on DX machines), killer sharpness (at all openings and all mm), instantaneous and precise autofocus, so light to forget to have it in your pocket, fantastic stabilization with many sharp shots even at 1/4 and 1/5, and In addition to 55 mm (almost 85 equivalents). Amazing Bokeh for the type of lens. Cons: Nothing. It's a little "cheap" and plasticose construction like many Nikkor's, but it costs less than a dinner in a starry restaurant, so... Opinion: I found it in kit on D5600, and I was doubtful, coming from another hideous old 18-55 VR in kits on the D3200 I had until 2013 (I had the impression had failed) but I was stunned since the first release. A little killer. Light as a feather. You shoot, shoot and shoot, with 95 and over shots on 100 without errors or softness (and when there were, the fault was mine). Sharpness little distinguishable from a prime. VR at the limits of the miraculous, with the vast majority of sharp shots even at 1/5 and with success tips, obviously rarer, even to 1/3 (!). A boon to anyone who is quite allergic to tripod like me. It costs so little that even it should fall apart after three years... it rebuys without problems (I would buy it tomorrow if it broke today). Chromatic Rendering and microcontrast at par with many higher Nikkor. I updated the firmware of the D800 (did not support it) and I tried it on her too, and goes as smooth as the oil even them (from Raw, pulling up the shots at 24 mpx, go a Marvel). The vote is 10. For the value for money, it would take an 11. sent on December 23, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G Pros: Light, practical and with all the great advantages characteristic of the category (light to throttle, sharpness-except F 1.4-bokeh, contrast, color and all). Cons: Although I never used the 50 1.8, I understood from a thousand opinions read (and a thousand photos observed) that this 1.4 does not offer such advantages to justify the much greater price. F 1.4 Soft, quite "veded" by spherical aberration. More acceptable from 1.6 or better yet, just from 1.8. Chromatic aberrations of bokeh (fringing green or magenta) to 1.4 and 1.6 generally impossible to delete in post (but appear only in case of hostile backlighting). Construction a little ' cheap ' and plasticosa. The fire can be difficult to manage, and with a certain frequency of errors. Opinion: When I took it, several years ago, it didn't cost that much and I had a promotional offer. Learning to know the limits and difficulty of use under F 2.0, gave me (and give me) great satisfactions, I read around criticisms that seem too excessive. Around in the daytime and with F between 2 and 8 is almost foolproof and the photos are killer-sharp. The bokeh, although not really the best, I think great. The few portraits that we shoot never disappoint me, apart from some occasional focus error, maybe more my fault than the lens. I detach subject-bokeh, even the of the portraits, give me generally little to say. In short, I keep it very happy, although I have advised several people to buy the 1.8 for the reason that is more convenient as a value for money. sent on December 23, 2018 |
 | Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 II DG HSM Pros: Excellent angle of view, characteristic. Good construction. Autofocus relatively fast and accurate. Excellent image quality (but see flaws below). Very fun to use. Also excellent on DX machine even if the angle to 12 mm is sacrificed. Cons: The light enters in a "strange" way giving frequent big problems of flare and, easily, large areas of whites "burnt" (also impossible to recover from Raw). In several cases the angles are very soft, especially the one in the lower left (I checked that it had no calibration problems, I think it does not have). It is heavy and cumbersome and at least when I took it years ago it was definitely expensive. Opinion: When I took it (I think 2012 or 13) had the greatest angle of view of all, and I was fascinated just reading it here on Juza, and looking at his shots. I came from a similar experience with a Sigma 10-20 on DX machine (I had it on the D300) but this is another level. It's a damn fun lens to use, but not easy to tame. Just a little and you find yourself invaded by the flares (with everything that to me, in moderation, not even displeased). Worse still, you find yourself with areas of the photo (especially the clouds) in which, even with correct exposure, the highlights go to be blessed, with horrible white patches and sometimes impossible to recover even with raw miraculous converter on the subject. It's like it's got some sort of built-in contrast amplifier. Another serious problem, the cursed bottom left corner, which often becomes so soft as to push me to cut a piece of photos or to give inside of a clone stamp, as long as the element can "replace" easily (I know, a lawn or pebbles). I thought it could be done but doing other checks didn't seem to me, and then I just learned to live with it. I do not use it with filters, I know it is difficult and expensive, Suprassiedo. Some times I have carried it around even with DX machine, and while losing the peculiarity of the super-angle to 12 mm, the results were good and I enjoyed it. sent on December 22, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR Pros: Unparalleled versatility. High performance, sharpness and excellent image quality for the type of lens. VR system at times of incredible efficiency. Also excellent on DX machine. Fast Autofocus and generally efficient. A must for every photographic output and especially for a trip, paired maybe to a small bright prime when it gets dark. Even the bokeh is not bad for the type of lens. Cons: Limits, defects and aberrations characteristics of the category (but much can be corrected via software in Post, when not directly from the firmware of the machine). In particular a certain softness species at the angles and the edges with open diaphragms and particularly over the 135 mm. Even the 28 are sometimes a bit soft (but respond well to sharpening in Post). On some occasions, heavy vignetting with circular banding of the sky, impossible to eliminate altogether in Post. High weight, high cost (but you pay quality and versatility and in the end agrees). Better to change definitely lens if you shoot at night freehand. Opinion: This lens, with me from the 2012, is literally my "workhorse". I always take it in almost every photographic output, independently of the machine (at the moment I have a D800 and a D5600) and, knowing its limits, always has great satisfactions. Even better then since the post-production Software has evolved to the point that really reduce the flaws. It's particularly fun, and has even better performance (it will look weird) on DX machine! Lets get to well 450 mm equivalent, it's even more sharp than not on FX machine, and all in all the 42 mm starting equivalents are acceptable as "wide" if you get used to making 10 steps back... The VR system is sometimes amazing, and I get several perfectly sharp shots at 1/15 and even at 1/10 to 450 mm equivalent!! Everything worked beautifully even with the D3200 I had for a year in 2012/3. Basically I had thrown on one side the 18-55 VR kit (which was half-crap, maybe I had a failed!) and I always wanted to attack the 28-300. I have serious problems right with some heavy vignetting to Tele, which ruin the sky giving circular banding impossible to remove even with the best Raw converter, but only happens on some shots. The lens is contraindicated in the dark freehand. The VR, which works wonders, does not do enough if it is just dark, and it is easy to find with soft photos or with the necessity of Sideral Iso, which then obviously hesitate in too much noise or too many details "planed" When you go to remove. sent on December 22, 2018 |
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
