|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Salvatore M www.juzaphoto.com/p/SalvatoreM  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Pros: Compact and light, focal excursion, colors. Cons: A little soft at the edges especially at 24mm. If you use the camera flash, casts its shadow. Opinion: I bought it with a lot of hesitation, having read miles of conflicting opinions and opinions. I also returned the first copy because it was disavowed and slightly blurred the right side. Compared to the 16-50 in kit the photo looks sharper and more crystal clear, with slightly brighter, bright colors, as if you could see the image through a more transparent glass (and probably it is); you should not think, however, that the differences on the single photo are striking, with a bit of postproduction you can make the photo of 1650 very similar to that of 1670... However, I noticed that very often the photos made with the Zeiss are already beautiful so, you work on it shortly after the shot. The big difference with 16-50 is the largest focal excursion combined with the constant f4, which allows you to make much more fulfilling portraits, or photos of people (children) at greater distance, which often happens (for example at the sea). In summary, taking it as the only lens for a holiday or a day at the seaside, on the whole it has its validity: compact, light, sharp, beautiful colors and excellent three-dimensionality of photos, perfect focal excursion for non-specialist use. Compared to the 18-135, which I did not try, in the landscape I did not want to give up the 16mm. The drop in sharpness at the edges in common use is not limiting: already with the 16-50 in kit, which however is lower, landscape photos printed up to one meter wide are still very sharp, and in the photos to people the problem does not exist. P.S. I found that it is not easy at all to test a target, there are a thousand infinitesimal variables (focus, variations in ambient light, any movements etc.) that can change the result enormously; in the end I hung a sheet of graph paper on the wall and took photos with easel and autofocus, testing in this way however only the sharpness at a short distance. On the photos of landscape at great distance, while using the easel, it takes infinite patience to get reliable evidence and comparisons. sent on July 21, 2020 |
 | Sony A6000 Pros: Compact and light; ergonomics; image quality; autofocus; integrated flash, swivel screen, viewfinder, value for money. Cons: No silent shooting; absence of stabilization on the sensor; impossible to set the minimum shutter speed in aperture priority, she decides it on the basis of the objective. Opinion: It's still an excellent buying option. I came from the world of compact, compared to which I was willing to sacrifice small in terms of weight-dimensions, but I wanted more image quality and responsiveness: I was not disappointed. After more than three years that I own it, my limits are still much higher than those of the machine ... rnThe image quality is very high, both as details and colors and dynamic range. The ergonomics, compatibly with the dimensions, is among the best: the protrusion on the handle makes the grip in my opinion more comfortable and safe than that of direct competitors (Olympus type em-10 or Fuji xt-20). The integrated flash, moreover adjustable upwards, is a great convenience and, appropriately adjusted, allows you to get shots otherwise impossible; also the adjustable LCD screen is very convenient, both to use it as the old "cockpit" cameras (photos to children, stolen shots, etc.) that, on the contraryrio, to take pictures from above. Autofocus is fast, even if the a6300-6500 seems even better. The kit kit 16-50 is more than decent, very clear at the center and, closing at f8, decent even at the edges; in practice, you make landscape photos printable at 100x70 with excellent quality. It is stabilized, which helps, but for photos in the evening or indoors it is a buietto (like all the kit objectives, except the fuji 18-55), you need to help yourself with the flash. But it has small size (with the kit mounted you can put the a6000 in the pocket of the jacket, and, thanks to the fact that the a6000 is comfortably held in one hand, make photos otherwise impossible with other more cumbersome equipment) and weighs just over 100 grams : this means that it always finds its space, even in a very compact bag, so you can go out with a more specific lens mounted, and still have the kit as a spare wheel for any unscheduled shots. Other value, the field angle of 24mm is equivalenton FF, wider than the Olympus kit (28 eq.) and Fuji 18-55, it is very useful for landscapes; moreover, shooting in RAW and removing the objective correction, has an opening of about 14.5mm (21-22 eq.) and a moderate fish-eye effect, due to the distortion, which can be exploited for particular shots. As for the other objectives, the a6000 undeniably gives the best of itself with quality standards; my favorite is the Zeiss Touit 32mm, with which the beauty of the photos is really special; but, even if the optical park is not provided as the Fuji and micro 4/3, there are still many quality options (for those who want to get oriented, there is a very well done post by Roberto P in the forum dedicated to the mirrorless Sony lenses ). Finally, a gem for those who want to focus on Sony is the ability to buy for 50 euros the Capture One pro photo-development software, in my opinion much higher than Lightroom; in this regard, it must be said that, always if you want the maximum from the a6000 (such asmoreover applies to all the others), shoot in raw and develop with Capture One allows you to have, even without invasive interventions, a final photo definitely superior to the "ready" jpg. sent on January 01, 2018 |
 | Samyang 12mm f/2.0 NCS CS Pros: Compact, well built, reasonable price, very clear. Cons: It is not autofocus. The star on the lights is not very beautiful. Opinion: I use it on the a6000, I wanted a wider wide angle and a higher image quality than the 16-50 kit in landscape photos. I was not disappointed, the lens is very clear and the angle of view allows you to take very suggestive photos. The large depth of field with closed diaphragms allows better than the kit to have clear both the foreground and the background. In addition it is very bright, so even at night opens many possibilities (even if for a year that I have not yet managed to take pictures of the starry sky). It will be my inadequacy, but the absence of autofocus is not irrelevant to me as they say in many: on landscapes and static subjects ok, no problem, but on moving subjects is another thing, especially when it is necessary to exploit its brightness and then focus accurately. In that case I open at f2, I focus with the magnification at most (if not I do not understand anything), then close the diaphragm chosen (when notI forget it). On the other hand, the hyperfocal shortcut allows you to have the scene entirely QUASI in focus, but nothing perfectly in focus. So I wonder, what is the use of cameras and ultra-sharp lenses and then have soft photos because not perfectly focused? So I would not mind having a similar lens, maybe even 2.8, but autofocus ... rnEverything I noticed, looking at photos of landscape with grazing light I see, to my impression, too macrocontrasto, so I often open the shadows and / or increase the exposure in PP. Ultimately a nice goal, but a bit 'specialized. sent on December 09, 2017 |
 | Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Pros: Sharpness, lightweight and compact, good quality construction. Cons: Only f2.8, no stabilization. Opinion: Bought for the a6000, I needed a portrait with autofocus (to photograph the kids) and wanted a 85-90mm equivalent focal length, so I discarded the sony 50mm. I waited a few months before trying to write something about this goal, and even now I do it with some "shame," because I just think it's necessary to learn how to use these goals before getting an idea. RnI start from the end: when you hit the picture with Sigma 60, the latter is really beautiful, crystal clear in sharpness. However, it's not so easy to always get the picture, and I happen to miss much more than it does with shorter goals. Obviously, it will be said to me, well, now I understand it too. This is especially true in the closed; you need to use 1/100 or shorter times, otherwise it's easy to have micromasses (at least with my hands), and in combination with the maximum aperture of 2.8 you can easily reach 3200 ISO. THE'%3Bautofocus is fast but not fast, and in AF-C uses only the center of the frame, so the goal is not very suitable to follow the children's games. The blur is pleasing, in some cases with a slight swirl effect; if you pay attention to the subject / background distance, you can get very pleasant effects. The colors are beautiful, with a slight tendency (my impression) to the cool tones. The surgical sharpness of the lens means that in portraits, especially women, it is necessary to work in PP to slightly soften the face skin. Thus, with a relatively small expense, a compact and light canvas is bought, very suitable for philosophy of the a6000 and of the mirrorless in general, capable of obtaining high quality shots; in combination with the a6500, equipped with room stabilization, I guess its use is even more profitable. sent on October 22, 2017 |
 | Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Pros: Sharpness, contrast, colors, brightness, build quality Cons: Autofocus noise in video Opinion: I am a simple enthusiast, so mine is a non-professional review and as such should be read. The lens is very sharp, in the landscape photos at closed diaphragms (e.g. f8) allows you to have crystalline images from one corner to the other, a little ' postcard ' effect that I wanted without ever reaching when I used compact cameras of other times. The sharpness seems even almost "exaggerated" in the photos of people, especially if they are not children, as it is ruthless against any defect or imperfection of the skin; In portraits of adults-especially women-so I tend to use it more often at full aperture, so as to soften a little ' the grain of the skin... As for the brightness, which is one of the main reasons why I bought a fixed (the kit 16-50 in my opinion is a good goal), now at F2 I can take pictures inside the house at 600-1000 ISO, where before with the kit I needed 2500-3200; Which, together with the sharpness and contrast, allows me to get photos that leave me very satisfied. Bought from Amazon, the autofocus already has the 2.0 firmware and is quite fast; Maybe less than that of the kit, but with little light the parts are reversed thanks to the greater brightness. As for the absence of stabilization: under 1/30-1/40 of a second is easy to risk the blur, but I have to say that I do not take pictures to people under 1/60, so they are not stopping them... so if you stick to those times minimum (or better maximum), the problem is not Poses. For static subjects with little light, on the rare occasions when you can not use even a mini-tripod, I imagine that the advantage of the Sony 35 mm becomes clear. The focal length is very versatile: in the photos in the House the field is not too narrow so you can easily make portraits more or less enlarged; Outside it is easy to use the famous zoom with the feet, so easily pass from the photos of small groups full length to the portraits with half-bust. Weight and Dimensions: slightly heavier (50g.) and bulky (2 cm.) of the kit, but still acceptable (I hate bulky and heavy equipment), however well balanced with the machine body (a6000) and pleasant to look at and touch; It remains almost always attached to the machine, I carry with me also the kit in a relatively small enclosure of case logic (18x14x10), together with a mini tripod, spare battery etc., and I use the kit only when I need a wide field for landscapes, or if I want The minimum weight (by bike for example) and in that case maybe I leave the touit at home. The blur varies depending on the situation, and I'm still learning to use it: almost magical in some cases (especially with partial backlight), a little hard in others; In any case, much nicer than that of the kit (but it was obvious). Very nice also the contrast and the three-dimensional effect that derives, easy to find at many openings; Which, together with the very vivid colors, always give me the sensation (or perhaps the illusion) with this lens of being able to make magical pictures. Which is difficult to argue in a technical review... sent on May 14, 2016 |
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
