|
Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Dxmat www.juzaphoto.com/p/Dxmat ![]() |
![]() | Nikon AF 20mm f/2.8 D Pros: Optical yield with closed diaphragms. Microcontracting and chromatic rendering. Compactness and weight. Cons: Detail to open diaphragms edges. AC evident at the edges. Beware of the flare. Opinion: On D810 already sharp at f/2.8 centrally but to have acceptable edges you need to work at least f/5.6. However, to have the best you need to close at least f/8 - f/11. Until f/11 the dif-break is still under control, at f/16 (on D810) begins to soften the details. The color rendering compared to the new 20mm 1.8G I find it better as the colors are more muted and less contrasted (cursed G...). The general microcontract looks better as well as the tonal passages. It suffers a lot of AC compared to the nikon 14-24mm 2.8G not to mention the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 which is practically perfect (with the software however it resolves well). It's an optics that I used a lot on film and still today it can be used on digital as long as you know the limits especially to the edges to the most open diaphragms. Do I recommend it? Depends on usage. If your photograph focuses on the subject in the middle-central field the 20 AFD is fine. If you need sharpness at the edge level of the frame up to edges then better consider other optics. sent on April 02, 2020 |
![]() | Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED Pros: Versatility, quality to be a zoom, MAF speed. Cons: For my taste a bit too contrasty and saturated. Extrinsic frailties, barrel a bit long especially with hood. Opinion: A real workhorse. versatile and light optical good quality to be a zoom. The MAF speed is excellent. Guarantees to bring home the risultato.rnColori series G (alas), which contrasted and saturated with shadows often more closed than necessary .... Nikon where are you going? RnUtilizzabile without a 2.8.rnLa construction problems is good but extrinsically fragile, the barrel length requires further attention quandornci moves in tight areas and affollati.rnLa use and conceive it as a working perspective for events and weddings and for me, in this respect, it is ottima.rnPer everything else there are fixed. rnrnrnrn sent on January 02, 2017 |
![]() | Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR Pros: Incidentally. Compact and lightweight with MAF fast and precise. Silent. Aperture ring more friction, Fuji finally !! Cons: No one is used to that for which it was designed. Opinion: First impressions: light, compact and discreet with MAF fast, quiet and accurate. Excellent etching if diaphragmed a minimum. Blurred good at TA to be a 23 f / 2 of APS-c. Compared to version 1.4 are different colors, a bit more saturated on this f2, softer and "old style" the 1.4. Born as a lens reportage and as such should be used ... because unbeatable. I heard people complaining of blurred ... I have to laugh in front of those who expect a 23 f / 2 bokeh a 85 on full frame. Compared to 1.4 the aperture ring is a little more friction, Fuji finally! excellent tactile feedback ... has nothing to do with photography, but the construction of this 23, like other optical Fuji, transmits far more positive feelings than even plasticotti rank much higher in other brands (Nikon true ?? ). Now I'll put it on the ropes for good, then I will update this my first impressions. sent on November 16, 2016 |
![]() | Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4 G ED Pros: Colours, three-dimensionality and character. Construction. Cons: CA at 1.4. High price. Opinion: I have this lens since it came out. Used intensely as it is my favorite focal. colors, color transitions, blurry, and character at high levels. I also tried the much preferred by many 35 Sigma 1.4.... but I preferred the Nikon. AF not lightning fast but very accurate. It's, for me, one of those optics that I don't know that stimulates the creative process every time I look through it. Some aberration at TA but for me it was never a problem. I consider it to be equal class at the 35 F2 of Zeiss, another gorgeous lens.. But that's another story. sent on November 07, 2016 |
![]() | Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 Pros: optical and mechanical quality. Precision and fluidity of focus. Opening. color rendering. Cons: Vignetting at room temperature (for me it's not a big deal) .rnCoperchio inadequate lens cap to the lens class. Opinion: Mechanical quality as we are at very high levels. The rotate the focusing ring smooth and precise focus returns an aspect of photography that I had forgotten with modern AF. At first I was afraid of not being able to focus correctly (use a F6 and D700 with standard slides) but then I saw that there are no major problems. high rnNitidezza to 2.8 even at the edges, star in the center, enclosed by 5.6 becomes a knife. Excellent color rendering with a typical footprint of the house. The yield / openness in excellent low light and very natural contrast make only minimum necessary interventions post-production (as opposed to the 14-24 of which I have never liked the contrast heavily unnatural). The blur is very attractive for a wide angle. Excellent three-dimensionality, one of the features I most appreciate. The yield on film, then, is touching. 20 Nikon defends well on film, but here we are on other levels. For me important perspective that has suddenly supplanted the much loved and used 20mm AFD (though I held for the compattezza and discretion) and instead made me sell the 14-24 no particular regret. One of those few lenses that have a touch of personality and character that can stir the strings of creativity. You become one with the photographic medium and are born the best shots. At least in my personal experience. I repeat, for me it irrinunciabile.rnPiccola negative note: the lens cap should be redesigned as it tends to squirt out of his hand when unplugging. The sockets for the fingers are inadequate because shallow and therefore slippery with the danger that during removal can tilt dangerously threatening the front lens ... sent on July 23, 2014 |
May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me