|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Lucio Parmigiani www.juzaphoto.com/p/LucioParmigiani  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Pros: Image quality even at TA, wonderful blur, color rendering Cons: Difficult to use at TA with Canon 6DII (often doesn't focus properly) Opinion: Bought a few weeks ago used on RCE. I had used and loved the FD new version. For economic reasons I had opted for the Sigma 85 1.4 in the past with satisfaction. However, I missed the color rendering and blur of the Canon 1.2. It is a wonderful lens both in terms of performance and aesthetics. You have to get used to the weight and use times of at least 1/125 (at least with my unstable hands) to avoid micro-blur. Once these difficulties have been overcome and if the camera focuses correctly it is pure poetry sent on February 27, 2025 |
 | Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Sharpness, good stabilization, not particularly heavy Cons: Nothing relevant Opinion: I used the 24-105 f4 first series for a long time which had given me mixed results: excellent performance in the center, loss in the peripheral areas quite evident. When I gave the lens to my daughter, I was looking for a replacement and bought the 24-70 f4 used. It seems to me a good lens with image quality superior to the old 25-105 especially in the peripheral area (the sharpness in the center is similar). The IS seems to me to be more performing than the old lens. I found the lens hood easier to use than the 24-105. In general, I can give a positive opinion for this goal. sent on September 10, 2024 |
 | Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM II Pros: Build quality, weight, sharpness even at TA Cons: None of relevance. It's an ultra-wide angle and you have to learn how to use it Opinion: Gift from my wife for her birthday. Found used at RCE in perfect condition. I did some tests both indoors and outdoors. I was looking for wide-angle lenses and prefer to use prime lenses. The quality seemed to me from the first photograph taken at 2.8 at home very good. I was surprised by the distortion control that in the 16-35 II used in the past was much worse. The weight and obviously the build quality are good. It is important to take into account the flare that often occurs when bright lights enter the field. In general, I am very satisfied with this perspective sent on July 21, 2024 |
 | Canon EF 1.4x II Pros: Lightweight, sharp Cons: None of them relevant Opinion: I bought this ext in 2010 when I switched to a full frame kit with the D5II. I bought the 70-200 2.8 II which replaced a Sigma 100-300 f4. I had used the Sigma a lot and it seemed to me a good lens, but the combination ext 1.4 with 70-200 seemed superior to me. The focus at 1.2 m allows 280 mm to do almost macro. Combined with an old 300 2.8 not IS allows you to get a respectable 420 mm 4. I also used it with the 100-400 MKI but with poor satisfaction and now I use it with old 400 5.6 getting a 560 f8 certainly dark but with good optical quality sent on May 20, 2023 |
 | Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Pros: Lightweight, transportable, very sharp, fast AF Cons: IS is missing (but not a major problem), minimum distance of MF Opinion: I recently bought this used lens, after having used for many years (since 2014) the old 100-400. I immediately appreciated the lightness and portability. Accustomed to the 100-400 that is still transportable looks like a feather. The optical quality is very good already at full aperture. It does not lose significantly even with 1.4x. The AF is better than the already good one of the 100-400 and remains more than usable on the 6DII even with 1.4. It is a sectorial lens and less versatile than the 100-400, but for the photographic hunt it seemed excellent to me. In my opinion it is highly recommended sent on August 21, 2022 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Pros: Excellent image quality at all focal lengths and at TA, excellent contrast (thanks to fluorite) Cons: I have not found any in 10 years of use. It's short for photographing birdlife, but it's great for sports Opinion: I bought it in 2010 with a trade-in with part of the previous film kit, given the cost and I immediately appreciated the image quality, the blurred, the colors at all focal lengths. Excellent in sports (football, rugby, synchronized swimming), surpassed only by 300 2.8 and for situations where you need larger focal lengths from 100-400. Very useful in weddings to capture portraits on the fly and isolate the subjects. It was the first fluorite lens of my kit then came the 100-400 and the 300, but it occupies a central place in my heart. sent on September 26, 2021 |
| Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Pros: Excellent image quality at all focal lengths and at TA, excellent contrast (thanks to fluorite) Cons: I have not found any in 10 years of use. It's short for photographing birdlife, but it's great for sports Opinion: I bought it in 2010 with a trade-in with part of the previous film kit, given the cost and I immediately appreciated the image quality, the blurred, the colors at all focal lengths. Excellent in sports (football, rugby, synchronized swimming), surpassed only by 300 2.8 and for situations where you need larger focal lengths from 100-400. Very useful in weddings to capture portraits on the fly and isolate the subjects. It was the first fluorite lens of my kit then the 100-400 and the 300 arrived, but it occupies a central place in my kit sent on September 26, 2021 |
 | Canon PowerShot S30 Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, image quality at the lowest sensitivities Cons: Noticeable noise as soon as you increase THE ISO, small rear screen, low lens brightness Opinion: It was my first digital camera. I bought it in London where I lived for work in 2002 and initially it struck me a lot for the quality of the colors and for the details. I was very skeptical and I did not know the digital world having photographed only with Reflex film is mainly in BW. I used it for 2-3 years appreciating its compactness and image quality (for the time). It was limiting in my opinion the dark zoom lens and with focal range useful only for photos in domestic environments sent on September 12, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Convenience of use with coverage of common focal points, good stabilization Cons: Sharpness not at the top at TA, better closed at 5.6, not bright Opinion: Purchased together with the D5II as part of the kit. At first I was puzzled by the low brightness. Over time I have believed myself and I consider this an essential lens both as a unique lens when I do street photography, but very comfortable even in the rare weddings I have done. It is not perfect, but it certainly represents a good compromise. sent on April 25, 2021 |
 | Novoflex T* Noflexar 600 f/8 Pros: Price quality ratio Cons: Weight, size, quality not at the height of the twin (400/5.6) Opinion: Like the 400/5.6 with which it shares the focus system, it represented the first super canvases of my kit. They are now super-waves at affordable prices and of much higher quality, but in the 1980s it was a unicum. I continued to use it even with digital until 2014, but without the satisfaction that gave me the 400/5.6. sent on April 30, 2020 |
 | Novoflex T* Noflexar 400 f/5.6 Pros: TA quality, speed of focus Cons: Weight, size Opinion: The first super canvas I could use. I used it from 1984-85 with the Canon F1 New. I was able to focus quite well because the viewfinder was very bright and the focus glass completely frosted of excellent optical quality. Until 2014 it was the only super canvas I owned and I also used it with the digital Canon D5 II. The quality on digital seemed to me lower: the detail of the images remained the same as the analogue, but the contrast was very poor and to have decent images it was necessary to act with a very invasive PP. In addition to the 400 I also used the 600/8 that uses the same frame. The quality of this last objective, however, did not seem to me to be up to the 400. It remains a lens in my opinion to recommend as the first super canvas if you do not want to spend a madness but continue to get even digital acceptable images sent on April 30, 2020 |
 | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Pros: Light, sharp enough, AF and decent stabilizer Cons: Nothing really important, but compared with the 70-200 2.8 II a little less sharp Opinion: Bought used by a friend who thought it too heavy (we made an exchange with the 70-300 L). Originally I would have preferred the 400 5.6 but I thought again. On FF the quality is good and the best itinerant photos of birds I made with this lens. It is light, very versatile, with an interesting minimum focus. It can also be used with 1.4x with some quality limit and only on cameras that allow the AF to 8 (like D7II). Very useful in sports photo for extreme versatility. sent on November 06, 2019 |
 | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM Pros: Optical quality, sharpness, blurry Cons: Only the weight Opinion: I bought it used three years ago and it's really great. I used it for sports photography (football, rugby, minirugby) both smooth and with extender (1.4 II and 2 III). The quality and the AF are really good and precise. The sharpness is almost upsetting and remains good with the 1.4, while losing a bit with the 2x. It's a real tank. I accidentally fell into the water about 3 years ago while photographing the fooches. Brought to repair, disassembled and cleaned the lens is back again and works perfectly. sent on November 06, 2019 |
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
