|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Filippo Secciani www.juzaphoto.com/p/FilippoSecciani  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Pros: Relationship between compactness and quality, quality acceptable to all focal points Cons: Sensitive to extreme openings, a lens that makes it best when used for easel or strong light. Opinion: I would like to confirm what Mr. Chancellors has just written. The various 70-200 besides being limited are very heavy and if you consider the 70-200 f4, it's really not worth it! If this zoom is flanked by a 135 or in 85 lights, they form an extremely effective and quality set. I consider it a panorama goal: the best diaphragms of use are around f8 or more closed. It is true that open diaphragms are to be considered as a real L-series target, but they are not the best. Of course if you use planting it firmly on easel is better! Nothing forbids being used freehand for sports photos or anything like that, but it's much better to wait as long as possible, shorten the times as much as possible and turn on the very effective stabilizer. The micromovement is always lurking even at the shortest focapi! sent on August 13, 2019 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM II Pros: Sturdy and well done; Heavy, but light to be a 35mm f1.4; Sharpness character at full aperture; Simple and ergonomic use Cons: Plastic lens hood, metal was better; Important dimensions. Opinion: As a lens is great and weight, but you need to make some considerations: the lenses from 35mm to aperture F1, 4 for reflex, are all big and weights. But this compared to the Zeiss Milvus that I used for a long time, is much lighter. As far as size is concerned, it is true that a small lens is better, but I find that large ones are easier to handle: they give more stability when you grab the camera. This is a purely personal opinion because I have big hands, but that obviously goes to the detriment of weight and clutter. The 35mm lens for me is irreplaceable and has always been the fulcrum around which I have always made my choices. Until just now I had the 35mm F2 is, of which I was more than happy, but this optically was an unexpected surprise. I never thought I'd find all this difference. Quietly holds the comparison with the Milvus 35mm f1.4. Probably the pure quality of the Zeiss is better, but at certain levels it counts more the taste of the absolute performance and in this case I must say that this Canon I find it beautiful. The yield of the blurred is very beautiful, the colors are dense and plastic, the light-dark well modulated makes an excellent relief effect and all this in a way quite similar to the Zeiss. The surrender to all openness is truly exceptional and gives it its specific character. If you grant me the license, I would say that the photo with the 35mm f1.4 full aperture is everything except perfect, but in much like other Canon lenses, are beautiful, even more than when you use them to intermediate diaphragms of work. sent on April 26, 2019 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM II Pros: Versatility and effectiveness Cons: Footprint Opinion: I have not tried with diagrams or things like that, but after more than twenty years of photography though amateur, I can make a judgement. It's a great lens to do the dirtiest jobs. From 24mm to 105, it covers the overwhelming magigornanza of applications, a decidedly high-level mechanics, an excellent optical yield, considering the object and very good in absolute terms, an effective stabilizer, a brightness that... ok not the best But for a 4x that starts from 24mm an F 2.8 is not prpprio to be proposed: weights and encumbrances would be unmanageable. I have sharper lenses, nicer, and plastic I don't deny it. However this is a lens that makes it pretty good in the embodied and even the Greens are very beautiful. Colors are affixed! It has no poetry, this is normal for a zoom like this. The opening on the Shadows is generally good, by the standards of a product like that, but the blurry is really valuable. It denotes a general quality of respect, both mechanically and optically. So it is a professional lens in all respects and should not be considered as the poor child of an excellent class of Canon lenses, it is not so! Inside the bag of a he manages to make sense and finds its space when it needs an operational ease and at the same time a good yield, without having to go down to the compromise of a stinking optics to be able to do something very difficult. Undoubtedly an exceptional lens for the photographer who looks for a good quality, a truly professional object and a zoom to make us all with the least effort. I made a good buy! sent on June 24, 2018 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Pros: Price in relation to exceptional yield, overall efficiency, light and compact Cons: Chocolate Sheep toy appearance. Opinion: The most inopportune aspect for a lens of this price, corresponds to a solidity anything but fragile or inaccurate. The brightness is excellent, but not exaggerated, so the simplicity of design has given the possibility to create a little gadget, light and an excellent performance even at full aperture. Hard to leave him at home. I personally use this lens almost always and for all possible applications. It is known that 35mm for many photographers is the lens of reference and this embodies all aspects. In addition it has a general optical performance worthy of higher class objectives, thus making this objective an instrument of a truly unique efficacy, especially if compared to the cost... Certainly the cost is not really fantastic, if you take into account his very toy, but certainly if you take into account the performance of the lens, the fact that it is not at all fragile, the lightness... You can not absolutely consider it out of cost and its effectiveness Intrinsic is exceptional. It's my favorite Canon lens. sent on May 28, 2018 |
 | Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM Pros: General efficiency, sharpness, ergonomics, efficient stabilizer, fast autofocus, brightness Cons: Weight, what are you going to do? is a f 1.4!!! Price, encumbrance... precisely... everything related to brightness. Opinion: Hard to be shiny when changing a Zeiss Milvus 1.4/85 for a Canon lens, whatever it is, but unfortunately the eyes didn't assist me anymore and the manual focus had become now unmanageable. The difference is there. The comparison I do not think is merciless, but rather volgerei the look at a matter of style, more than pure quality and the style of a Zeiss is much more similar to the type of images that we Europeans are accustomed to and usually prefer. However, after some time of use of the Canon, I have the certainty of having bought a lens of class, a beautiful object, solid that has made the general efficiency its winning weapon. It has a sharpness at the top of the category and does not give some dull photographs, even though it is a jiap, it has a beautiful depth. The yield to the intermediate shades is excellent, the tonal passages are gentle and delicate. For cons The Zeiss gives an imperial contrast but with an excellent read on the shadows. In the end I would say that Canon has a completely different picture view, almost the daughter of a different visual culture, more than a lower quality. In the use you learn to understand and appreciate it and frankly now I have no reason to sell, I hold it tight and use it with satisfaction! The combination of a quick and precise autofocus, an efficient stabilizer and a strong luminosity, make this lens an exceptional strumeto and that in the end does not make me regret too much the Milvus. I don't know the Canon 85mm F 1.2, ne the Sigma ART 85mm, but for sure this lens has numbers to be chosen in spite of almost everyone else. Maybe it's not the best at all, but it's there, very close: Bright almost like the Canon F 1.2 tridimenzionalità similar to the Zeiss, very nice and balanced color, sharpness at the vertices, unique with the stabilizer! He has everything! A bureaucratic note: a lens from all this money, to deserve a ten must do more. I gave a very good 9, the same vote that in my opinion has deserved the 85mm Milvus, which lacked autofocus. On the date 18 \ 06 I modified the comment a little, because with the use of this lens I realized that it is advisable to spend words more flattering and decided, because it is a lens that is worth it! sent on May 26, 2018 |
 | Manfrotto MT 055 X PRO3 Pros: Manganese version, really light, despite the enclosed dimension. Stable and versatile thanks to the column joint. Cons: It will be the fact that it is the manganese version and the intrinsic lightness of the object transmits the wrong feeling of fragility, I will come from a 028, it will also have Gitzo ... Manfrotto seems to have made some general quality choices rather questionable. Opinion: The stand is absolutely efficient, lightweight, weighs less than my old aluminum 190, stable and "mobile", in the sense that thanks to its wide and ingenious movements it can also be supported in disparate level and the camera can stand from three cm to the ground up to the meter and the abundant eighty. As I have already anticipated, I replaced two stands, one too small and the bigger, too big but a few generations ago. Frankly find in the plastic control stand is not the best, but in fact it works really well and ... if I can not say that's all right, I can not say that it sucks. To give an answer, I would say that this truck is light and looks current. sent on November 29, 2017 |
 | Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4 Pros: use that in spite of everything is fantastic, rendered optic, a wide and precise focus ring. Cons: cost, dimensions, weight, physical length, barrel diameter, amount of grams, innate gigantism. Opinion: Dimensions are large, big enough to be a wide angle, so much so that people think you're using a canvas! However, if used in situations like a "one-lens machine", it's not uncomfortable to use for street and report photos, but weight and dimensions are really important. Anyway, what's next is a lens that once mounted on the reflex is used very well. "I will not talk about the optical rendering to the holders of Nikon and Canon optics, because it is useless, no one believes it. I'm just talking about holders of Zeiss optics. Comparing the various 35mm I have possessed, ContaxYashica 2.8 and 1.4, Zeiss ZE f2, Milvus 235, this is a length ahead at all. No aberration, no distortion, no light at all opening very well controlled and no annoying, phenomenal sharpness reading of the shadows of exception even for a Zeiss.rn For those who do not want to give up an autofocus ... the other brands remain but not you will never know that you are lost. sent on September 14, 2017 |
 | Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 Pros: I first list the cons, because everything else is pro ... Cons: Weight, size and price. Opinion: I give it 9 the poll, because the price and the weight brought him down, though, to make a purely technical thought a 10 would be too tight. You could make a disquisition on the fact that the Zeiss Otus 1.4 / 85 costs over € 4000.00, then perhaps you would think that 10 he deserves it, but the comparison I can do with my finances ... Comparisons with other brands , they are not compatible. We are in another dimension. And to think that I speak as a happy owner of a very good Canon 135mm, (which is lighter and cheaper). The absence of autofocus, I can not find a flaw, because when you need to think about the right focheggiatura does not hurt, adequate mechanical and not adapted, it does not hurt. Perhaps, to be accurate to that genre, you have to make some sacrifices. Milvus the Zeiss 1.4 / 85, finds its natural application with a ring of focus (perhaps a double helix ...), smooth, precise and absolutely flawless. I would say that is mechanically superior to the old Planar 85mm f1.4 C / Y and the newer classesc ZE. Optically it is comparable only to his brother Otus and the old men just mentioned. I have never seen in any goal, in my possession or other colleagues known to me, a concentration of sharpness, dynamic range, readings of the shadows and ... everything else! sent on March 28, 2016 |
 | Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 Pros: General optical performance very much in line with the blazon. Mechanics highly professional turner, with few equals. Compactness. Calata characteristic of light that often from a value to the images. Cons: Slight descent of light at full aperture. Barrel correction not up to the old f4. Opinion: Now sacrificed at the altar of the most expensive 21mm, it has long been my companion found (I had the old f4 attack c / y). Color rendering and no terms of comparison except with optics of the same brand, is characterized by the very special lowered the light to the edges that still appears valuable and characteristic of this perspective. Disappears at f8, at f5.6 is almost imperceptible, but in fact from the images a peculiarity and is fun to play and then be able to choose: often surprises are interesting! Fun but challenging for reportage and useful for scenic effect (it has a lot of effect !!!), to disappoint people like me who thought like the old f4 for his stratospheric lines correction. In this aspect, it remains only in line with the best wide-angle other brands, forcing you to work in pp for architectural photos. sent on February 17, 2016 |
 | Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Pros: Lightweight, ergonomic, efficient, dynamic, made more than welcome optics. Cons: Bulky, plastic hood Opinion: 26agrave; to people like me who have big hands, to feel more present and tinker better. It is however very light. The plastic hood is a bit 'CEEP, for a product of that prezzo.rnTutto in all I consider it a good goal. sent on February 04, 2016 |
 | Zeiss Milvus 21mm f/2.8 Pros: Construction, precision focusing, optical performance, aesthetics. Cons: Weight, price, high but to date (January 2015) does not come to € 2,000.00 !!! Opinion: It 'a goal by impeccable construction, beautiful to see, a metal hood that when assembled makes a wonderful designe, not comparable with anything else on the market. And 'robust and knows robusto.rnCome lens is phenomenal. The shadows are open and the phenomenal detail is enhanced by the excellent micro-contrast. It has beautiful colors and raw really require very few interventions. It changes color in black and white, popping up an incredible amount of shades. There are most distorted excessive. To be fair I should say that in practice just are not there, but at 100% magnification you notice a "nothing", that surely Nikonisti Canonists or they will look like a beam. Therefore, it lends itself well to works of architecture. The edges is present a minimum of chromatic aberration. Usually not to absolutely boredom, because it appears only under certain rare conditions and light. Everything else is superb and highly distinctive. It also works well in the whole beertura. No important diluce dropped to bordi.rnLa made ufoco manual forces in a traditional way to photograph. The fact that it does not have the automatic focus, opens to all the advantages of a photograph conceived and obliges to an extreme concentration. And 'divertentimento pure state. The focus is percisissima and the ring is smooth and balanced. The confirmation of focus by the sensors af works fine. It takes a little 'practice, but then you work with fluidity. Council a slide focus of quality and not those glasses scraped with sandpaper that put the house (Canon or Nikon that are). sent on January 25, 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
