|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Preben Elkjaer www.juzaphoto.com/p/PrebenElkjaer  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Fujifilm X-M5 Pros: Size and weight; X-Processor 5 (the same as the X-T5); proven sensor (26MP X-Trans); joystick; configurability; construction; value for money; aesthetics. Cons: Absence of stabilization; Q key; Unable to configure the Film Simulation Dial Opinion: A premise: I don't talk about the video because I don't make any. Moving only to the photographic field, it is a camera that should be taken into consideration precisely for its lightness and compactness: with a pancake like the 27 you are on minimum dimensions and weights (X-M5 + 27 2.8 = 439 grams). And with only 755 grams you can carry 18 f2, 27 f2.8 and 50 f2 in a camera bag: a complete and bright set of fixed lenses. The quality of the materials is good, and not cheap at all: the aesthetics are also beautiful. The sensor is the 26 mounted on the X-T4, but managed by the new X-Processor 5 processor, the same as the X-T5. Fuji image quality with the possibility of beautiful film simulations. The position of the fundamental keys and dials, configurable, is comfortable and functional: the joystick is extremely useful. The screen is adequate, although it is certainly not in line with the latest specifications. The AF is good and the eye-face recognition is good. Defects: the absence of the stabilizer for me is the main one. Of course, space is limited, but the Micro teaches that it is possible. Another mention should be made of the "Q" button on the Quick Menu, recessed flush between the main dial and the rear dial: it is not easy to reach with your finger. It is also not possible to configure the film simulation dial (which, for those who use only JPEGs, is convenient). The battery life, which is the classic W126S (the one of the X-T4, to be clear), is better than I expected: probably for the management of the new processor, at least 400 shots are taken without problems. Finally, on the question of the viewfinder: if presence is essential for you, don't take it... into consideration! It is a machine designed in this way! In conclusion: if you want a compact room, which you can put in the pocket of a jacket, or a second third-body with good value for money, it could be an excellent choice. And it could be a great choice for street lovers too. sent on December 15, 2024 |
 | Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR Pros: Image quality, construction, tropicalization, AF Cons: A little bigger than the old 23 Opinion: Lens with impeccable image quality: if you love 35mm on full format, this is a lens not to be missed. Compared to the old, it is better in every respect while retaining enough of the character of the original. The blur is soft and progressive, really nice (obviously on APS-C wide-angle side you pay a little more duty in the detachment of the planes than the FF). Fast and precise Af, construction according to Fuji tradition. Minimum distance of MAF really short. Only cons: a bit bigger than the old 23. But they remain perfect size and weights on an X-Tx, or X-Hx. sent on August 29, 2023 |
 | Fujifilm X-T5 Pros: Sensor, ergonomics and classic Fuji interface (key position, rings), viewfinder, construction and compactness of the body, tropicalization, double slot, tiltable display with side release, stabilization, autofocus, user experience, JPEG and film simulations. Cons: 40 MP need high-performance lenses if you want to use them in full; for those interested, impossible to put a BG; "heavy" RAW files Opinion: The sensor is undoubtedly the plus of this machine: 125 native ISO for a resolution of 40 MP offer a detailed, malleable, easily workable, really beautiful file. Just congratulations: the step forward compared to the sensor of the X-S10 is sensitive and clear. At low ISO it is difficult to notice that you are shooting with a cropped sensor: there are no differences with an FF (I come from a Z5). Obviously, a similar sensor must be accompanied by quality lenses (Fuji has published the list of lenses that "hold" the 40 MP). I never or almost never use high ISO, but from what I see up to 3200 there is no need to worry (and anyway with new development software this has really become a secondary problem). As for ergonomics and user experience, they are the classic Fuji: the machine is well made, you find everything in its place and in short you take possession of the vehicle and its vintage "flavor". Very well the viewfinder. Excellent JPEG and film simulations: for safety I shoot in RAW + JPEG, but often I use only JPEG. Definitely valid stabilization (we are not at the levels of the micro, but it is very good). The AF is definitely good, although not at the level of Sony: greatly improved with the latest firmware, it allowed me to shoot even in AF-C with Eye control a TA with very high photo rates in focus (lenses 56 and 33). I'm not talking about photo hunting or sports photography that I don't practice. The display is tiltable and detachable from the side. The construction is solid, the machine tropicalized. Defects: the sensor, if you want to take full advantage of it, requires quality lenses. I used an "old" 23 1.4, which on X-S10 was fine, and on X-T5 to TA under certain conditions the defects were really obvious (aberrations, etc.). Not that you can't use it (you can always resample in PP), but in my opinion better go on new lenses. If someone loves BG, they know that you can't apply it to the machine. RAW files are heavy: I personally use "Lossless" files compressed without loss of information. sent on August 05, 2023 |
 | Fujifilm XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR Pros: Image quality, AF, construction, tropicalization Cons: Plastic hood Opinion: I will be very brief: excellent image quality already at TA, zero aberrations even in situations of high contrast, very pleasant bokeh of Fuji imprint. The AF is fast and precise, excellent construction. I use it on X-T5 and X-S10 and with stabilization I have no problem even using long times. The only flaw is the plastic hood: such an optics would deserve metal. The price is in line with the increases of the last two years. If you love this classic focal length (the equivalent of a 50 on FF), to take. sent on August 04, 2023 |
 | Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R WR Pros: Excellent image quality (holds up to 40 MP very well), progressive and smooth bokeh, construction, minimum MAF distance, flare resistance, no aberrations, tropicalization, 11 blades, AF Cons: Only one: the price. Opinion: I love the mid-telephoto focal length, especially the 85: the 56 1.2 R WR is an 85 equivalent on FF. I come from an excellent lens like the Nikon 85 1.8 Z (the best 85 ever tried on full format), but this Fuji keeps up with it abundantly and does not make you regret the larger format at all. Fuji has designed an absolute lens: the image quality is very high at TA, the blur soft and progressive. In fact, if you like canvases that make everything flat before and after the MAF plan, with that sticky figurine effect, the new 56 is not for you: I repeat, from this point of view it is a progressive and gradual perspective. If we want to find a characteristic compared to the old, which it surpasses from every point of view, it is the micro-contrast, more accentuated: when you have it, you can remove it, when you don't have it it is difficult to put it. So if you like a less contrasty and more ethereal image, just act in PP. Excellent flare resistance, absence of aberrations even in backlight, more than decent AF reactivity even in low light conditions: you can perceive the noise of the lenses, heavy, that are moved. The AF motor is quiet. If you close a little, the light points are spherical thanks to the 11 slats. What can I say? A lens that borders on perfection. The only flaw may be the price: but such quality has to be paid for. In short, if you love portraiture and you are a lover of the Fuji system, an absolute "must have". You won't regret the purchase. sent on July 10, 2023 |
 | Fujifilm XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR Pros: Build quality; Autofocus, Image quality (creamy bokeh); Tropicalization. It holds the new 40 MP sensors. Value for money. Cons: Not suitable for small bodies (E Series): relatively large size and weight. Opinion: A portrait lens (equivalent to a 135 per framed field) of series A, with a creamy bokeh and perfect sharpness: the images it returns say that -for a portraitist- it is an optics that is worth a system, able to exploit even the demanding 40MP of the new sensor. Construction also from series A, in metal. Fast and precise autofocus, which also allows sports use (indoor sports, etc.). Tropicalized. Defects: the only defect is the size and weight of the lens, especially in reference to smaller bodies (E series, for example). It looks great on the H series, good on the Tx series (I don't think on Txx). Really this is the only "flaw" for an optics that, as construction and IQ, borders on perfection. One last observation: not to be taken as the only portrait lens, because long species indoors (it is a "135"!): good then if flanked by a 56. Value for money, especially in used cars, absolutely favorable. sent on March 27, 2023 |
 | Fujifilm XF 35mm f/2 R WR Pros: Metal construction; Tropicalized; light and space-saving; fluid diaphragm ring; Fast and accurate AF; good image quality (sharpness, microcontrast); good colour rendering. Cons: It is not 1.4; lightweight plastic hood Opinion: Really successful lens for those who do Street or Reportage: good image quality and color rendering, fast AF, fluid aperture ring and with the right resistance, very suitable for lighter bodies. The flaw, if you can say so, is not being a 1.4: in fact the detachment of the floors is smaller than the older brother, but the yield of the bokeh is not bad. The plastic hood is light and small but functional. Yield to 2 a little softer especially at the edges, but absolutely acceptable. Closed two stops becomes a real blade. Advised. sent on January 21, 2023 |
 | Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ Pros: Value for money (in kit), more than good yield on the wide angle; stabilization; compactness and lightness Cons: Yield from 30mm onwards; plastic bayonet; plastic construction Opinion: A good lens-kit: it is not worth buying it new (about 300 Euro), but used or in kit can be a good choice. In fact, on the wide-angle side, the yield is surprising and just at 15mm (22.5mm equivalent on FF). There is obviously a bit of distortion, but the yield is certainly good and the sharpness is very good. Yield that instead drops after 30mm: at the end of the stroke (45mm) the lens is a bit soft and must be diaphragmated. Plastic bayonet like the rest of the lens, it is lightweight and very small. He suffers from flare. In short, a lens not to be despised if you know its limits and especially if it interests the wide-angle side more. sent on January 21, 2023 |
 | Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S Pros: Optical quality, fast MAF Cons: Footprint compared to 35 1.8/2 standard, price Opinion: Of the new classic triad for ML Nikon (35-50-85), the 35 1.8 passes to be the lens a little less performing: it is probably true, but it is true because both the 50 and, even more, the 85 1.8 are really optics to which the "standard" definition is narrow: their yield is really very high, practically perfect. So, at the end of the day, if you have a little AC against the absolute nothingness of '85, you seem to have and be worth less. In reality the optics is really very good, with an IQ that is already excellent at TA, allowing a good detachment of the planes if you approach the subject correctly (always remember that it is a wide angle). If anything, the negative side will be sought in the size, not so much in the weight: but the new Z series has favored image quality even at the expense of more compact optical schemes. The price, if we compare it to the 35 standards of other brands (for example the Sony 1.8 or the Panasonic 1.8), is a bit higher. Rating: 9. sent on December 09, 2022 |
 | Olympus OM-D E-M10 Pros: Lightness, portability, construction, auto white balance, JPEG quality, static AF, ridiculous cost in used Cons: Dynamic AF, three-axis stabilization (lower than that of five of the later m4/3 machines), viewfinder compared to the most recent models, no tropicalization Opinion: It is the machine I am most fond of: despite its 7 years I still use it with satisfaction. Small and light, with the tiny lenses of the micro allows you to go out carrying a complete kit with a ridiculous weight. He accompanied me on all the trips abroad (especially those that require the plane) and never betrayed me. Obviously, compared to the latest models, something pays off (viewfinder, stabilization... in reference to the micro, however!), but if you consider that on the used you can easily find it for 150 euros, I would say that everything goes into the background. The AF-S is a sniper, while the dynamic one is like not having it. Impeccable white balance automatically, so much so that you can safely shoot in JPEG. It is not tropicalized, although on a couple of occasions I shot in the rain and it held up well. Do you need a forklift or do you want a second light, cheap and quality kit? The old E-M10, accompanied by the right lenses (12 2, 15 1.7, 20 1.7, 30 1.4, 56 1.4 to speak only of the fixed ...) is still for you. sent on June 19, 2022 |
 | Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S Pros: Image quality, bokeh, AF speed Cons: Size compared to 85 others 1.8 Opinion: I will be very brief. An optics that borders on perfection: honestly I have never had one of this level. No AC, creamy and progressive bokeh, sharp at TA. Really a great satisfaction to use it. Flaws: It is bulkier than other 85 1.8. As for the price, if you look at the quality of the optics I do not consider it high. Absolutely a must have for those who use the Nikon Z system. sent on September 27, 2021 |
 | Nikon Z5 Pros: Compact, lightweight, well built, great ergonomics, sensor stabilization, viewfinder quality, good AF, good ISO high seal, dual SD slot, battery life, value for money Cons: Limited video, limited burst Opinion: In my opinion the best Mirrorless FF in the value for money in circulation: with just over 1000 euros you take home a camera that allows you to do everything with great quality. The ergonomics are excellent, the customization total, the machine light and compact: it is photographed without ever detaching the eye from the viewfinder finding everything at your fingertips. The viewfinder is of great quality (identical to the Z6 and Z7), definitely good stabilization on the sensor. Double slot for SD memories, the machine has a very nice and workable file with a good dynamic range. The battery life is very good, but it can still be recharged even during use. In short, a camera for photographers at an attractive price. I would also add that the quality of the Z lenses is really high (at the moment I have the 85, the 35 and the 24-70/4). Who should not consider buying it? Those who practice dynamic genres such as photographic hunting are objectively limited by the flurry and, in part, by dynamic AF: surely there is better on the market (not in the Entry Level band, however!). Same on the video side, if for you the video is definitely important. For the rest a machine that will not disappoint you at an absolutely affordable price. Vote in its category (entry level Mirrorless Full Frame): 10. sent on June 11, 2021 |
 | Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 II ASPH Pros: Sharpness, compactness, featherweight, price value Cons: On bodies Olympus slowma MAF; dynamic AF (AFC-AFF) do not work Opinion: Do you want quality and lightness in a fixed (almost) all-rounder? This is the lens for you. Featherweight (less than one hectare), ridiculous footprint (less than three cm thick) in exchange for great sharpness and image quality. Let's add excellent value for money: an optic, therefore, in full spirit m4/3. Flaws: Dynamic Afis are not enabled; on Olympus bodies in certain situations the AF is a bit slow. No problem, as far as I could see, on the Panasonic bodies. Optical that I recommend to try: it will surprise you. sent on September 24, 2019 |
 | Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN C Pros: Optical quality (sharpness, progressive and soft bokeh), weight and size, construction and quality of materials, fast and accurate AF, value for money Cons: Nobody Opinion: In my opinion this is the best portrait tele of the M4/3 in value for money. With about 400 euros you bring home a lens that, in portraiture, will give you great satisfactions. Sharp already at TA, it has a very soft and progressive bokeh. It is, as a field framed, of the equivalent of a 112 on FF: Therefore a long lens, but not as demanding as the splendid 75 1.8, almost inoperable in interiors. Excellent construction, metal (plastic hood), the lens has dimensions and weight perfectly in line with the M4/3 philosophy: In My little Domke, two machine bodies (e-M10 and Pen-F) with grafted respectively on 15 1.7 and 56 1.4, and, as a third Lens, the yummy 30 1.4. Fast and precise the MAF. Sigma has done a great job: I repeat, if you love the portrait, at this price and with this quality do not find anything better around. Absolutely recommended. sent on March 09, 2019 |
 | Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH OIS Pros: Optical quality (bokeh, sharpness, brightness...), construction and materials. Cons: Price, Lens hood a little bulky Opinion: A lens that gives images of great quality, sharp already at TA and with a progressive and soft bokeh. The construction is excellent, metal. I believe that together with the 45 1.2, 75 1.8 and 56 1.4 is the top lens for portraiture with the M4/3. Used on Olympus bodies (e-M1 and Pen-F) did not give me any problem. Faults: the lens hood looks oversized. But this is the least. The most are, instead, the over 1000 euros to be pulled out for this gem: they are not a few. So, think of this lens only if you really love portraiture and it is essential for you to shoot with the highest possible quality: otherwise better hijack the money on other optics, less specialized and more all around (a nice 35-100 2.8 or a 40-150 2.8, for example) that may also cover this necessity. sent on March 08, 2019 |
 | Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH Pros: Chromatic yield, microcontroller, TA sharpness, constructive quality, minimum distance of MAF Cons: Some chromatic aberration to TA, fairly expensive Opinion: In my opinion one of the absolute u4 / 3 ubiquitous lenses. Bright, clear already at TA, it has a chromatic rendering and a microcontroller of great quality. The 30mm equivalent on FF makes it an all-round lens with a great "narrative" vocation: it is therefore a very good target for the street genre, very good also in the interior, and which can also be used for portraiture. In short, a handyman: accompanied by a 45, it can be enough for a minimalist and lightweight kit.rnPur weighing just over one hectare, is made of high quality materials and comes with a container bag, metal louvers and a double front cap: one to be attached to the hood itself and one when not using the hood. rnTips: On Olympus TA bodies in high contrast areas a chromatic aberration may appear in the green. If it hurts, it just needs to be diaphragmatic. Nothing untold in PP. The price of 550 euros is not low, but we are talking about obiequality of life. I also had his competitor, that is, the very good 17 1.8 Zuiko: this, however, is another pasta. One step above. For those who love u4 / 3, a lens to be taken seriously. sent on October 18, 2017 |
 | Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN C Pros: optical quality, light (1.4), bokeh, construction, AF, value for money Cons: Focal which it is not common in portraiture by lenses Opinion: A lens that is worth much more than it costs, and, in my opinion, a must-have for those who love portraiture and m4 / 3.rnLa construction is quite good and, as he always does Sigma, the glass is provided with its hood. Dimensions fully compatible with the system (265 grams for just over 7 cm in length), fast and accurate AF. Coming to the IQ, the target TA (1.4) allows you to take beautiful portraits at a blurry soft and gradual and the subject well detached from the background. Closed then at 2.8, the lens becomes a true blade (more than 80 lines per millimeter: 83.8 to f4!): Absolutely the most resolvent of the fixed system. Chromatic aberrations are virtually absent (a little bit in certain situations with strong contrast to TA: nothing special), the very neutral color rendition, good microcontrast. If we consider that the price is around 320 €, it is understood as the optical value is significantly higher than the cost. Here, wanting to find fault, the 60mm equivalent of full size is a focal & quot; strange ", usually it used more as you like Macro lens portraiture vocation. But I find it perfect for m4 / 3, as the 5mm facilitate more blurred than the classic 25 (50 on full frame). sent on March 03, 2017 |
 | Panasonic Lumix G X 35-100mm f/2.8 Pros: image quality, portability, speed AF, bokeh, construction, tropicalization Cons: Compared with the Zuiko 50mm in less; Macro has no qualities. Opinion: I use this lens on Olympus bodies (E and E-M1-M10 first version), after using it for almost two years, 40-150 2.8 Pro Zuiko.rnVenendo the Pros: Very high image quality already at room temperature, with a yield less harsh Olympus that has a bit from its' sharpness more. The blur is smooth and progressive; fast and accurate AF. When you consider that weighs less than a 12-40, and is only 10 cm long I would say that the philosophy of portability characterizing the m4 / 3 system is respected in full. And it is why I chose it. The lens is tropicalized, the building is very good. rnRispetto the Zuiko, it has less travel and has no macro skills. sent on December 27, 2016 |
 | Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 ASPH Pros: Overall yield (sharpness and color rendering) already at room temperature. Size and weight very much in line with the philosophy M4 / 3. build quality. Quality price. Cons: You can not install filters. Opinion: I got it used and, after six months of use, I can say that struck me very positively. In the words of Fausto Pesce, excellent optical system for lovers of the m4 / 3: crisp edge-to-edge already in TA, it has a nice color rendering and a great micro-contrast. No need diaphragm. Being F4, limited overall dimensions and weight: and, unless you have special needs, F4 on a wide angle is already more than enough. rnInoltre, considering how much has lowered the price from the initial list (we are now about 700 euro for the new abundant), I would say that the quality / price is very good. rnDifetti: they are not easily available in the market filter holder (the front lens is protruding and, as I know, only American company produces one) and, just as with all ultrawide, you have to do some 'attention to the flare. sent on December 04, 2016 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro Pros: Optical quality at the level of the best fixed over the whole range; build quality; zoom range; minimum distance of MAF which makes it almost a Macro; tropicalization; collapsible ring passing to MF; presence of a Function button (Fn) on the body; multiplied by 1.4 to maintain a good image quality. Collar supplied. Cons: Volume and weight compared to the system (equivalent to a Canon 70-200 f4 IS); the coupled body-lens does not yet allow hunting avifauna in flight. Bokeh "nervous" if the subject is close to the background. Opinion: I've had a couple of months and, optically and constructively, I do not know to find fault. It may seem an excessively flattering, but if you read the reviews on the net you will see that these words are not exaggerated. The image quality is equal to the fixed: sharpness, contrast and color rendition are excellent. The minimum distance of MAF allows some beautiful close up, almost macros. The building, made entirely of metal, is impeccable: as in other lenses is possible with the ring collapsible pass by AF to MF in an instant. A function button (Fn) is dedicated to the left side (I put enlargement point MAF: convenient and fast). In terms of uses, it is a killer-lens system: you can do just about anything, from portraits to landscapes, from close-up shots dynamic with the exception of photo hunting for birds in flight: the system m4 / 3 yet does not allow it (a good reflex here still has a major advantage). The lens hood can & ograve; remain on the optics and is also collapsible. Finally, multiplied, it maintains an almost similar optical quality (something less TA, but very little). The collar, metal, is provided. rnrnDifetti: bokeh, if the subject is close to the background, is nervous: from this point of view it must be a bit 'of attention. Coming to weights and dimensions, even if we speak of a perspective that is fixed with a 2.8 hike that the full format should be from 80 to 300mm (420mm multiplied) weighs 8 ounces and is 16 cm long: to give an idea, the equivalent of a Canon 70-200 f4 IS (the famous "Whitey"). Although it is perfectly balanced with the EM-1 (on the EM-10's best to have the additional handle), compared to the "portability" of the system, it can be considered a sacrifice by someone. In this case, there is the excellent 35-100 2.8 Panasonic. It should be said that in a Lowepro EventMessenger 150'll put all the equipment: 40-150 with EM-1, EM-10 with 9-18, 17 8/1, 25 1/8, 45 8/1 and accessories (6 batteries, filters, iPad and more). sent on August 09, 2015 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 Pros: Sharpness, color rendering, no vignetting, AF speed, weight, compactness, portability. Cons: No hood, slight chromatic aberration. Opinion: The first thing that strikes those who buy this lens is its compactness and light weight: 155 grams and 5 cm in length for an ultrawide corresponding to a 18-36 on FF. It 'so compact and lightweight that Photozone him as "a masterpiece of engineering." Compared to the Panasonic 7-14, another good lens, it is much smaller and less expensive, but pays 2mm side wide.rnLa second thing that strikes you is its optical quality: a 9mm maximum sharpness is practically already at room temperature and, as there is a slight drop in the extreme edges of the frame, the lens is very sharp (certainly more than the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 17-40 I had). Excellent color rendering, typically Olympus. A 9mm, the distortion is corrected by software from your machine which is smaller than the focal used: already by 14 mm and is virtually non-existent. rnBuona resistance to flare, although it is better to have hood: with light sources extremely side canin fact present, while the lens holds up better light sources more central. Almost absent vignetting, although under certain conditions it may be noted in areas of high contrast a slight chromatic aberration that you can easily correct in PP. The lens, while stretching in its focal, does not rotate, and thus makes easy the use of filters. The AF is quick and accurate. RNLA construction, polycarbonate, is dignified. In short, a zoom that covers you with good quality the wide side of your system m4 / 3.rnNota sore: the absence of the hood which is purchased separately (there are still similar quality also not original). rnComplessivamente, therefore, a good glass: if you want something more like IQ you must contact Panasonic 7-14 (f4 fixed) or the next 7-14 2.8 Pro Olympus. But you have to push the purse strings. sent on September 01, 2014 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm f/1.8 Pros: Image quality (sharpness, micro-contrast, color rendition even at TA), bokeh, light weight, AF speed, portability, lens hood (!) Cons: Slight chromatic aberration in high-contrast areas and sides of the frame at RT. Opinion: Another horse battle system m4 / 3. It is a lens that is difficult to find fault: the only one, I say it now, it's a slight chromatic aberration that is often present in areas of maximum contrast at the edges of the frame. Just to be clear: the aberration is less than the amount PanaLeica 25 1.4, another lens system reference, which I will try to make a short raffronto.rnRispetto PanaLeica 25 to 1.4, the Olympus is lighter (136 grams versus 200) and a little 'more compact (56x41 vs 63x54): obviously the PanaLeica has the advantage of opening a minimum (1.4 vs 1.8). The minimum distance of 24 cm MAF is OLYMPUS vs 30 cm of PanaLeica. The lens hood (supplied at last!) Is less prominent than the equivalent Panaleica.rnDal point of view of image quality, sharpness is practically a maximum already at room temperature and almost over the whole frame. Little vignetting. The color rendition and microcontrast are other strengths of the lens: saturated colors andnatural. The bokeh is very similar to that of PanaLeica, perhaps a little 'more decisive. rnL'AF is fast and preciso.rnSe then look for a handyman fixed quality, for outdoor and indoor, from portrait to landscape to portrait painting set, this is-along the 25-PanaLeica a great choice. rn sent on August 26, 2014 |
 | Olympus OM-D E-M1 Pros: Dimensions and weight; Build quality (tropicalization); ergonomics; customization commands; electronic viewfinder; stabilizer super efficient 5-axis; excellent exposure; white balance outstanding; color rendering faithful with saturated colors; high dynamic range; AF fast and accurate; JPEG excellent; park optic excellent research; tethering remote very easy and efficient; Cons: Battery life; non-intuitive menu Opinion: I agree with those who, reviewing this machine, speaks of a final leap system m4 / 3 and Olympus in particular: a bit 'as the first for Canon 5D and Nikon D700 for in his time in the compact size and FF.rnLe weight, making it a convenient and discreet travel companion: a shoulder bag with less than two pounds you carry bag, EM-1 and 4 goals, plus spare batteries and accessories. It means being able to bring the car always with him. But it is not only the portability, which is undoubtedly a strong point: it is the overall quality of construction that is on the side of the image. Solid (Tropicalised), ergonomics has fabulous and you can take controlling all parameters without ever taking your eye from the electronic viewfinder: the viewfinder immediately gives the perception of the shot, giving real-time image as shooting settings . The customization possibilities are huge (in fact you can "give" their approach to the machine), the stabilizingabsorber on the sensor lets you take up to 2 seconds freehand without the blur. White balance, exposure are perfect, saturated colors and natural: you can use the JPEG without worries, because they are almost definitive. The dynamic range is very good and the EM-1 tends to read well the shadows: in RAW interventions are easy and the file is very malleable. The optics, super bright (12 2, 17 1.8, 25 1.8, 45 1.8, 75 1.8; 12-40 2.8) allow to shoot at low ISO with great quality: If need be, however, the yield is good up to ISO 3200 . In 6400 the file must be edited during shooting and possibly PP: it should be stressed that the noise is not of the luminance and chrominance. The 81 AF points covering the entire frame, and is fast and precise: the area considered is reduced and this fact allows great precision (there is also the loupe with which you can zoom in the viewfinder point MAF chosen and the focus peaking as an aid for the MAF manual). Good AF-C, although here SLRs beamsa high or medium-high, in my opinion, still have an advantage. Tethering remote is so simple, and check well the machine from your smartphone or a tablet. Use one is struck by the amount of good shots that you take home from this point of view is the car more "safe" I could usare.rnPunti Cons: battery life is much lower than that of the SLR, and you do not make more than 300-400 shots without exhausting it. It becomes mandatory to have at least 2 or risk being left without or, for those who love him, you can use the BG (I do not like and do not use it). Compared to Canon, the menus are not intuitive: it takes a little 'time to become familiar and then seize the many opportunities offered by the software macchina.rnQualcuno could say the price (currently about 1400 euro body only): certainly not low but it is true that the quality you pay for and here, of quality, there is much. rn sent on May 16, 2014 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 Pros: Good sharpness from edge to edge already in TA; collapsible ring for MF; construction; compactness and lightness. Cons: Hood not included. Opinion: Along with the 12, 25, 45 and 75 is part of the fixed quality dedicated to the m4 / 3: and like the other does not disappoint either for construction or for optical quality. Corresponds to a 34 (then actually 35mm) on FF is therefore one of the universal optical excellence. You can in fact do anything: from portrait to landscape shooting environment. In the portrait, of course, one must take into account the wide factor for not having any unpleasant distortion: what is common to all 35 The sharpness, as in all these telecentric optics (hence the higher cost: telecentric lenses are more expensive because they have a larger diameter) is high edge-to-edge already in TA: this is one of the strengths of all of these goals and 17, always considering his nature a bit 'wide-angle, is no exception. RNLA construction is excellent: with the collapsible ring in a moment you pass by AF to MF without taking your eye from the mirino.rnSe you consider that all this quality weighs 120 gramme, and, together with the flagship EM-1, the total weight does not reach 7 ounces, you will understand the reason for the success of sistema.rnSul price: it costs about 500 euro, but considering just the quality and the cost related to the construction ( telecentric optics), the price is understandable. Less understandable that the absence of the hood should be bought separately and are expensive. sent on April 17, 2014 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f/1.8 Pros: Sharp TA edge to edge; creamy bokeh; yield of the best fixed Canon and Nikon; excellent all-metal construction Cons: Hood (expensive) not included Opinion: I have to basically repeat what was written by Ilfabbricante is a magic lens, with a soft and creamy bokeh as only the best fixed Canon and Nikon can give. The result is comparable to that of FF. Sharp already in TA from edge to edge, free from chromatic aberrations (typical bright) virtually absent, has a fast and accurate AF. The construction is excellent. rnrnContro: a lens for almost 1000 Euros and this quality, Olympus finds a way to ruin the picture is not including the lens hood that you have to buy separately for the modest sum of 90 Euros. There is not even a leather / leatherette that a lens like this deserves. rn sent on April 14, 2014 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f/1.8 Pros: Image quality already at RT, bokeh, a minimum distance of MAF, weight, size, price Cons: Absence of the hood (which is expensive), slight chromatic aberration at TA Opinion: I can add little compared to those who preceded me: the lens is tiny, lightweight (116 grams), but has an amazing quality: clear already at room temperature, better yet prepunched to a stop. The bokeh is creamy, fast and accurate AF. If we consider that with a modest (new costs 290 €) you will come home to a beautiful glass portrait, I would say that there is little to add. It should also be considered to be the minimum distance of MAF (50 cm), usually longer on this medium telephoto (85 cm. 1.8 for the excellent Canon 85). rnL'unico drawback is the absence of the hood, plastic and also expensive (about 30 euro): Olympus makes us look bad in here. The slight chromatic aberration sometimes present in TA in areas of high contrast, almost entirely because I do not speak in normal lenses so bright (affects targets are also much more expensive): everything is resolved fairly easily in PP. rnrnInsomma: a lens must-have for anyone who loves portraiture on m4/3.rn sent on March 16, 2014 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO Pros: Image quality already at room temperature and the entire zoom range; AF; color rendering; minimum distance of MAF; minimal distortion even at 12mm; construction; MAF collapsible ring; tropicalization. Cons: No one. Maybe the price, but the construction and the quality you are paying. Opinion: I come from Canon and excellent zoom like the 17-55 on APS-C and the classic 24-105 on FF. Well, this is the best zoom "generalist" I've ever had. The image quality is already excellent TA: sharpness, color rendition and microcontrast are close to the maximum to 2.8 and practically all over the frame. The AF is very fast, and moving the dial, you can switch in an instant to MF. The other surprising element, albeit correct software from the machine, is the almost total absence of distortion at 12mm, which is on the side of the wide angle, something that makes it suitable for urban areas, where the lines are often important. The bokeh is nice, even if you have to get close to the subject. The minimum distance of MAF makes it great for close up: amazing quality it is capable of in this field. Finally, the build quality should be highlighted, really excellent. rnrnNon I can find fault: maybe the price. But when you consider that we are talking about a Pro lens, the cost is still a fraction of their Canon and Nikon on which also has the advantage of stabilization (in the car, in the Olympus) and dell'accoppiata weight / ingombro.rnrnAssolutamente recommended: a "must have" for users of the Olympus brand. sent on March 14, 2014 |
 | Olympus PEN E-PM2 Pros: Same sensor OMD 5: good dynamic range, good performance at high ISO (1600 usable, 3200 with a little 'attention); excellent recovery of the shadows at low ISO, the good JPEG, RAW processed (it takes the latest editions of LR and PS); contrast AF very fast and precise, good touch-screen, good stabilizer; discrete zoom kit (14-42, equivalent to a 28-84 on FF); supplied flash; ability to enable the format 3/2, weight and portability of a compact with the quality, however, un'APS-C; default menus (scenes) easy to use and understand. Cons: The operating against typical of a compact, albeit quality: ergonomics and speed of use in manual or semiautomatic. Zoom in a little kit 'protruding. Opinion: E 'in effect a compact with a sensor and quality of an SLR. The sensor, a four-third from 16 MP, is the same as the OMD 5, and, while being a fraction of the APS-C, has an image quality absolutely comparable if not superior: excellent dynamic range and excellent yield at high ISO (1600 usable, 3200 with a little 'attention); absolutely amazing recovery shadows at low ISO. Very good JPEGs baked directly from the machine: it is of course possible to shoot in RAW with all the benefits of the event (watch out though, if you use Adobe products, to have the latest version of LR or PS). The AF, in contrast, is surprisingly fast and you can focus directly with the touch screen, touching on the monitor case in point: the shot is virtually instantaneous. Very good stabilization, that is, according to the philosophy Olympus, on the sensor. Decent zoom generalist (equivalent to a 28-84 on FF), not very bright but sharp enough: with fixed lenses you may haveobviously better. If you are using with the "Scene", the menu is practical and intuitive. More complex instead use it in Manual or semi-automatic: a Reflex in this field wins hands down. Very comfortable to use it in size 3/2, disabling the 4/3. Well the flash, provided, that can be applied on the slide where you can enter, for those who wish, the viewfinder elettronico.rnIn conclusion: if you want a compact with the image quality of an SLR, to be worn effortlessly on occasions not challenging (parties, sightseeing) and without the hassle having to drag backpack and everything else, this is the camera for you. Then combined to pancakes, lies in a shirt pocket. rn rn sent on September 11, 2013 |
 | Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pros: Image quality, construction, value, size, focal handyman. Cons: Vignetting at 2.8. Opinion: Canon, this lens has given us a little gem with a really interesting with 200 euro you take home a fixed-rounder quality. Just installed, you get the impression that he still has and body only: the footprint is minimal (the lens can lead easily into a pocket), the weight also. However, good construction, not plasticky (nothing to do with the fifty-per-understood). Amazing image quality: even at room temperature, the lens is extremely sharp and set slightly at the edges. The distortion is practically irrelevant, absent chromatic aberrations. The colors are typically Canon. The AF is not as fast as USM but is still quite fast and above all accurate. The focus, rather hard, it is quite pleasant. The focal length allows you to do a little 'everything from portrait to landscape. The cons: I'm tempted to say no, since the value for money. Perhaps the vignetting in this TA: I say maybe because there is good in portraits and still, in a moment, when it is not acceptable can be corrected easily in PP. In conclusion, a lens to buy for quality, versatility and price. sent on September 24, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Versatility, clarity, stability, precision and speed AF, color rendition and micro-contrast, tropicalization. Cons: Distortion and vignetting at 24mm (on FF), is "only" F4, on APS-C best 17-55. Opinion: The 24-105 is a very versatile lens that allows you to do a bit 'of everything with a good quality. E 'then a handyman particularly suitable for genres such as street or reportage, because it passes in a moment from wide angle to medium telephoto and then from the context of the subject. The sharpness is always good (it has only a slight decrease at the edges around 70mm at room temperature), micro-contrast and color rendition typical of an "L" series. The AF is fast and accurate, excellent stabilizer. Obviously, its strong point is, if you want, its limit: is a fixed F4 and then remains a lens is quite dark. The bokeh fact, although of good quality (8 blades), not "off" as the objectives brighter. The distortion is quite relevant to 24mm as well as vignetting: just click on the profile but a lens of software development and in a moment everything works out. For the little I used it (I have it for 10 days) did not have any particular problems of flare. According to me, on APS-C is preferable that the 17-55, although less long, is more wide-angle and is fixed a 2.8. sent on June 16, 2012 |
 | Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Pros: Range of focal lengths, stabilization, USM. Cons: Unsatisfactory image quality at least up to 35mm, dark. Opinion: Of all the goals that I bought was by far the one that disappointed me the most. The image quality of up to 35mm is really just fine for the lack of clarity, as compared with the "stabilotto", the 18-55 IS kit you offer, from 18 to 35 there is no match for the quest ' last. To this is added a strong distortion least up to 20-22mm, a strong vignetting always the focal low (problem altogether inferior to others, it corrects PP), and the fact that it is still a dark lens. Finally, it was not exactly a slow economy, so with a negative value for the price. Pros: good range of the focal (from wide angle to medium telephoto on APS-C), good stabilizer and fast AF. It must be said that the quality of image improves significantly over 35mm to overcome also the stabilotto from 40mm onwards. Ultimately a lens that does not recommend it, absolutely outclassed by the new 15-85 and 17-55 always absolutely not comparable to the Canon of the house. sent on January 23, 2012 |
 | Canon 30D Pros: Quality of files, dynamic range, ISO 1600 can be used, battery life, weight and ergonomics of the body. Cons: AF, LCD screen, no LV, resolution, absence of "sgrullasensore." Opinion: The 30D is definitely one of the best APS-C manufactured by Canon has a good image quality, a good dynamic range and the ability to use a little 'PP also ISO 1600. In short, from the point of view of IQ you can not complain: the 8MP sensor does a great job and provides files that would normally require little PP. Very good also the recovery of the shadows (definitely higher than that of 7D). In addition, a battery that lasts forever (I came to make 2000 shots without refilling!) And the classic Canon ergonomics that puts everything at your fingertips. Defects: the main, for me, was the AF. I do not know if my model (got it used) had some flaw in most, but apart from some imprecision in One Shot (greater in lateral points, of course, but also the central was not so sure) as soon as evening fell was literally to bed, and guess the fire was really an adventure. In this case weighed so the absence of LV (replaced with the 40D) that could have helped not a little at least for static subjects. The LCD screen, then it is more useful to look at the histogram to realize the real quality of the shot. Missing then sgrullasensore. Finally, the resolution: 8MP are clearly more than enough, but if there is a need to crop a shot can be narrowly limited. In any case, we are talking about a machine that, the second hand market, now costs little (2-300 euro) and still offers very much. sent on January 07, 2012 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Pros: Image quality, value for money, sharpness at room temperature, weight, compactness. Cons: Noise and speed AF, focus hard. Opinion: I purchased it for a week, I use it on 5D II and I'm very satisfied. Sharp already good at room temperature and even at the edges, further improves closed even only half a stop. Color rendering typically Canon has also its weight and compactness, as well as a value for money really interesting with 280 euro you bring home a lens through which you can make a bit 'of everything (from the street, the landscape , half-length portrait in the interior). The build quality is much better than that of fifty, which looks only for its size, and is close to the 85 1.8 (I speak of building materials). Sore spots: the AF is first generation and it is noisy and slow, but good accuracy (I also took with lateral points of the 5D II) and obviously the focus is not that of his older brother (the 35 1.4 L), because it only has 5 blades and is therefore hard. Since this is a wide, distortion is well controlled even though it is not recommended as portrayed by the first floor because-of course-tends to deform the nose just enough. Reading other reviews, I'm thinking that there is some variability from specimen and specimen, because again, in my sharpness is already good even at room temperature and at the edges of FF. Finally, I have not spoken of vignetting (present at f.2) because it removes easily in PP, the same for the AC that are much lower than those-for example-85 1.8. A lens is therefore absolutely be considered, versatile, good performance and above all with a value for money unbeatable. sent on December 29, 2011 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Pros: Value for money, brightness, sharpness, weight. Cons: Construction, manual focus ring almost non-existent, blurred hard, MAF difficult to TA Opinion: It 'an objective surprising because beyond appearances-is lightweight and plasticky, looks like a toy with complimentary detergent! - The center is clear already at room temperature and just diaphragmed becomes a real blade across the frame. Considering that costs as much as or less than a polarizing filter, is a lens-school that a neo-canonist can not fail to consider. Of course there are also drawbacks: the AF TA is not accurate (especially on 7D) and sometimes it is useful to use the LV, the ring of MAF is almost non-existent and focheggiatura in manual becomes difficult, it is not soft or fuzzy very progressive, the AF is fast and noisy. But we are talking about a lens that costs 100 € (70-80 on the used market) that allows really good shots as the tunnel itself demonstrates unequivocally. Considering the low price (and not the quality itself), deserves at least an 8. sent on December 19, 2011 |
 | Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Pros: Value for money, color rendering, minimal distance of focus, clear if closed at least one stop Cons: Too soft to 2.8 hood very plasticky. Opinion: It 'a lens, good value for money, clear closed if at least one stop: a 2.8 is too soft, but it definitely improves already f.4 to become really very good from 5.6 onwards. Beautiful color rendering, similar to the 24-70: Tamron tends to saturate less the image. The AF on my 5D II works well: of course not as reactive as a USM, but it is quite accurate and I have not found it ok. Thanks to its magnification and if you have special demands, can partially compensate for the absence of a Macro. Dignified the construction, even if the hood is too plasticky. In short: if you do not pretend sharpness at 2.8, is a good alternative to the Canon 24-70 especially considering it costs only a fraction (1/3) of the same. sent on December 17, 2011 |
 | Canon 5D Mark II Pros: RAW engraved, clean and workable, excellent color rendering, high ISO exploitable and rich in detail, high resolution, live view, video, value for money. Cons: AF reliable and responsive in single central point; features improvement; Hatch CF plasticky, lack of pop-up flash, slow burst. Opinion: I use it for a few months and am very happy: the machine produces excellent files and almost definitive in the sense that often do not need to work in PP and in any case, if the shot is not perfect, it is at the stage of development with great ease. Beautiful color rendering, excellent detail thanks to 21 MP giving benefits without taking anything away; very good performance at high ISO (usable also have the 6400: exposing third-two thirds to the right file remains workable and made even satisfactory). Great live-view, the camera also lets you record video of the beautiful (though to get good results you have to have expertise and capacity). Currently I would say value for money makes it particularly interesting. The cons: the AF is the old generation and the only central point (in AI Servo assisted by a further six points ghost) a point reliable and most accurate (I was not wrong even large openings). Among other things, it is also a reactive point: often burst into a whole does not miss a single messaa fire. The problem is that the lateral points, besides being too central, are useful only in conditions of optimum light. Another element is the "castration" of software by Canon mother, castration which could alleviate simply via firmware, for example currently you can only compensate the exposure by two stops, the automatic ISO if you are working in "M" function only at ISO 400 and so on. Who is the 7D you realize you have made, from this point of view, quite a downgrade. The body is well built, but the lid of the CF is light and not up to the rest. The blast, limited to only 3.9 frames per second, it is not a strong point. Finally I find really stupid the absence of the pop-up flash, that in certain situations, however small, can be helpful. In conclusion, a machine that makes the image quality of its strength and which sees the landscape and portraiture in his field of choice. sent on November 26, 2011 |
 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pros: Value for money, construction, ultrasonic motor, good image quality, lens hood and pouch included, possibility to use filters Cons: Yield variability from specimen to specimen, lower yield on the edge at room temperature Opinion: Considering the price, this is an ultrawide attractive: the construction is solid and consistent, the fast AF, good sharpness (which improves closing of a stop), and finally gives the possibility to use filters. Compared to Canon, less saturated colors and them "warm" a little 'more, but to have a beautiful sky saturated, however, is just close to two-thirds of third-stop during the trip (otherwise go towards the heavens white). Fair held at the flare. In terms of sharpness, we are close to 10-22, but here it is also variability in performance from specimen to specimen and it is often necessary to send everything in assistance for the calibration of the lens. My though was perfect and did not need the Micro. The equipment is complete and offers hood and leather bag. In conclusion: the Canon has its yield better overall (saturation, micro-contrast, greater consistency between the center and edges), and certainly requires fewer interventions in PP, but compared to 10-20 also costs twice as much and still the Sigma certainly his front looks good. sent on October 11, 2011 |
 | Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Pros: Value for money, range of focal lengths, stabilizer, lightness. Cons: AF slow, brightness, lens hood not included. Opinion: The 70-300 is a good lens that has its low cost and the range of focal lengths that allow it to be versatile. The image quality, good, falls a bit 'after the 250mm while remaining decent however: as noted by others just close a couple of stops. The stabilizer is effective, light weight allows you to carry it anywhere easily, thanks to its reduced. The weaknesses are two: AF, which despite being marked USM, it is very fast and makes it less suitable for the objective of the airborne photo hunting or rapid and irregular motion, and then the brightness. Finally, there is the question of the hood which must be purchased separately. sent on October 05, 2011 |
 | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Pros: Image quality, autofocus, image stabilization, 2.8 fixed focal range (equivalent to 27-88 on FF). Cons: Construction in relation to the price, resistance to flare, lens hood not included. Opinion: Canon at home, is the best all-rounder ever for APS-C. The sharpness is already very good at room temperature, the autofocus is fast and accurate, the stabilization is very good, very good image quality, the range of focal lengths is by far the most "general". Excellent interior thanks to the 8.2 drive, great for portraits, is also extremely effective in the outdoors: a lens that never staccheresti quality and versatility. The only weak points are the construction, certainly solid but considering the high price (900-1000 euro on the new, in practice such as the 24-70 0 24-105) could expect a little 'more. It 'best to use it with a UV filter always mounted because some speck of dust can infiltrate under the front lens. Suffers the flare, but not so dramatically. The lens hood unfortunately, as in all the lenses do not "L", must be bought separately. And, given the cost, Canon could certainly make an exception. sent on October 01, 2011 |
 | Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Pros: Construction, sealing, lightness, resistance to flare, color rendering and micro-contrast, value for money. Cons: Distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting and loss of sharpness at the edges at 17mm at RT. Opinion: The 17-40 is a great zoom for landscapes on FF. Lightweight, durable, has a high resistance to flare (very important factor in a wide-angle), good sharpness and beautiful color rendering. A defect on FF, is the chromatic aberration at 17mm to TA: you can solve simply by closing a pair of stop intervening or by clicking on the Lens Profile of LR or PS. Since then a lens whose vocation is precisely landscaping, this difficulty is almost negligible because in this kind shooting usually rather closed aperture (f8 onwards). PP, always with the lens profile is also corrected the distortion is more evident between 17 and 20mm, and vignetting present mainly at room temperature in the same range of focal lengths. Very good AF, fast and accurate. On APS-C, while gaining the edge, has a range of focal lengths is not particularly attractive, and especially dominated by the 17-55 IS is that in addition to stabilization and 18mm plus it has one stop advantage (at a cost, however, is greater). Very good value for money. sent on September 29, 2011 |
 | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Pros: Sharpness, AF, rendering colors, brightness, bokeh, value for money. Cons: Chromatic aberration at room temperature, lens hood not included. Opinion: It 'a lens from relatively low price (about 400 €) it deserves-for image quality-the "L" series. The sharpness is already very good at room temperature, the AF is fast and accurate color rendition very good, the beautiful blurred. The construction, although not that of a "L" series, is solid and very little plasticky. Great for portrait set on FF, it is practically 135 on APS-C: in this case the extension is preferable to a 50 1.4. Closed just one stop is crystal clear even at the edges. The only flaw, absolutely manageable in PP, is some chromatic aberration at room temperature visible in areas of high contrast. Then there is the vexed question of the hood and shameful that mom Canon is sold separately. In short, it is an incomparable 85 1.2, but it costs only a fraction, and offers a lot of quality. sent on September 28, 2011 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Sharpness, lightness, stability, strength, construction, fast AF, can multiply (1.4x) with virtually no loss of quality, value for money. Cons: No. Opinion: A "must" for the canonists. It 'an objective free from defects, with perfect image quality already at 70mm at RT. The light weight allows you to carry it everywhere, maybe with 1.4x multiplier. The AF is lightning (especially if you tare from 3 meters to infinity), the stabilizer really effective, robust and tropical. The bokeh, although not to the levels of other targets far more celebrated, is more than good. In short, a versatile zoom and high-level, with which you can do a bit 'of everything from portraits to sports photos, landscape. The only flaw, if you will, is that it is only F4. For the weekend. sent on September 28, 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
