|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Marcom www.juzaphoto.com/p/Marcom  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 2.0x III Pros: speed autofocus with new super telephoto camera bodies and Cons: for use with older model or super telephoto camera bodies, the price. Opinion: During a quick test done during a journey through the Canon 2x tc (2nd and 3rd version) and the Sigma, I noticed that with a friend at the center of the frame sharpness was better than the Sigma then in my possession. Tests done on a tripod, the same conditions, but with autofocus enabled, and for lack of time I checked the accuracy thereof, it shall yield the edges. From that test, I changed my camera, leaving the asp-c and arriving at a aps-h (1D Mark IV) and a FF (5D mark III). I preferred, however, migrate from Sigma Canon this, especially for the speed autofocus with the 5D mark III. And trying the 1DX a friend of mine I had the confirmation of the visible and appreciable improvement of this combination (1DX tc + 2X 400 f2.8 IS II + III). PS: If you do not have the combination of new and new super telephoto camera, rate it for quality / price ratio plus a compatible (Kenko / Sigma), rather than this model. sent on May 27, 2014 |
 | Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Pros: sharpness (even with 2x); speed; well balanced for use freehand; maximum focus (pdc reduced) Cons: size openings for front lens sheds; depth of field (obstacle for photos of the "group") Opinion: I put the depth of field is among the qualities that between the defects, as it is beautiful to isolate subjects, while the opposite can be an obstacle for those who want to have such a focus on two subjects that are interacting but are not exactly the same distance. Close the diaphragm helps in this case only in part, given the reduced pdc 400, which otherwise is a big advantage in the normal picture at full aperture to isolate a single soggetto.rnVenendo from 300 f.28 L IS (first version) the first thing that struck me was the size of the front lens. Footprint inevitable and expected for a 400 f2.8, but it certainly can be an obstacle for some huts, especially thinking of the photos on the fly, which requires a lot of maneuverability in pointing the lens. Of course you could not do better with a 400 f2.8. Moreover than the previous model there is an incredible improvement in weight, which is really well distributed and balanced, and even with a 1D body + tc + 2x 400 f2.8 is not difficult to use free handra, with an eye obviously shutter speed. The use freehand find it practical and accessible to everyone, even if for a full day of shooting at the end weighs. rnNon I detected defects aberration, vignetting, while the sharpness is wonderful even at full aperture. With the 1.4x tx can be considered insignificant degradation of sharpness and optics used at f4. With the 2x tc you notice a degradation of sharpness that makes it usable even at f5.6 although personally I prefer to shoot at F7.1 or F8. Always talking about the 2x tc, there is also a degradation of speed of autofocus. In my current setup or 1D Mark IV + 2x tc III + 400 f2.8 II I notice a visible improvement compared to the 300, but not significantly. Trying the 1DX a friend of mine instead of the 1D Mark IV I liked the best speed auto focus and the improvement over the 300 gets really considerable. Most speed autofocusing with a first impression, involves some shots out of focus, but nothing abnormal: of course I'm talking about moving subjects such as birds in volor). To optimize the speed of autofocus camera with 2x tc, set the focus limiter (7m on) and off the IS. Speaking of autofocus with the 2x tc, I pointed out on several occasions with the 1D Mark IV autofocus fails to engage the subject and I have to help with manual focus. rnNell'uso on the field at times I complained about the length of 400mm in nearby subjects may be excessive (for example, when you are in a car with others and the trigger point is required). But of course those who use fixed lenses knows that it is necessary to make a choice and that the blanket never covers 100% of the needs. In my needs (mainly pictures of animals in traveling distances are not excessive) I find the 300 (with the two tc) the best choice among the big lens in quality / price ratio for the aps-c. While switching to FF, I felt the 300 too short and that I opted for the 400 with 2 tc, the ideal super-telephoto fixed travel for my esigenze.rnNon I have not had a chance to try it in panning, which I do not comment quindi.rn sent on May 27, 2014 |
 | Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 Pros: Optical quality and construction. Focus Ring. Cons: Weight, price, and some flare. Opinion: Impressive both as a building and as optical performance. The sharpness is spread right to the edges, while some just try to test with backlight yes pushed to notice the presence of some flares that are not always avoided, but be amazed by the legibility even in areas of higher backlight. A pleasure to focus with a dial treated as approximate and not that of modern optics with autofocus. Personally I find then that the focal length is an ideal compromise between a wide-angle "natural" (24 or 28) and extreme (15 or 18). sent on December 03, 2013 |
 | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Pros: Sharpness, blur, lower price between the big lens, well used freehand Cons: Usually short (without tc) for wildlife photography. Opinion: Considered the best super telephoto Canon as sharpness, until the advent of the next generation. I do not know whether it is the best but certainly not the fame is not misused. We can talk about problems flare (hood generous) or vignetting. The blur is pleasant and exceeded (probably) only by the 400 f2.8 due to the greater focus. But it is also a versatile lens: 1.4x tc with becomes a 420f4 and the 2x tc becomes a 600 f5.6 If the 1.4x tc you will not notice significant differences will nell'autofocus it in image quality with the 2x tc however the difference note: can also be used at full aperture even though I generally prefer close to f8, and the autofocus is affected by a lot of the doubler 2x (experience 40d and 7d). Usually I prefer to limit then the 1.4x tc, but if the situation requires it, I am not ashamed to use it 2x tc, nor to use the tc 1.4x combined with the 2x tc (but I recommend not to photograph the heron that see it every day ...). In only one case (young eagle in a shed while waiting) I used two tc 2x combinatthe assembly, and if the result is certainly a miracle is still in worthily Printable 20x30. Objectively speaking, the 300 is short for wildlife photography (500 f4 usually better), especially in Italy. But its versatility makes it still more than adequate, and if you can shorten the distance, it becomes super. I have no experience on sports photography that guess work very well. The new super telephoto out of which the first examples while writing promises to improve some aspects of this model image quality even higher is better autofocus speed with the new multipliers. The quality of the already consider surprising therefore is a welcome improvement but not strictly necessary, while the speed of autofocus (if the premises are observed) would increase the versatility and usability even with tc. sent on September 25, 2011 |
 | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Pros: Quick Zoom (pump), versatility, usability freehand Cons: Quality bokeh; Planning dated (improved both optically as stabilization) Opinion: I, like many love the 100-400 mainly because of its versatility. An African safari can do it for instance with a standard zoom and telephoto zoom lens with no regrets this effectiveness in the frame. Certainly the blur that guarantees a 300 f2.8 for example, is a result far from its potential. But do not look at this canvas that can not give (excellent quality). This tele is mainly used as insurmountable (to date) tele-zoom travel. Able to capture details of landscape, portraits stolen, animals, etc ... For each of the tasks that will entrust there are at least 5-6 lenses that are better, but none of them does everything that allows the 100-400 in this price range with a weight of only 1.4 kg. NB: I did not put in the counter aperture is not really bright, because it is a limit can not be overcome if we are to contain dimensions, weight and cost. sent on September 25, 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
