|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Jazzcocks www.juzaphoto.com/p/Jazzcocks  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Sony A7r II Pros: Sensor Reliability Q/Price Cons: Continuous Shooting Buffer Opinion: 1000€ for 42mpx of unsurpassed quality, this would be enough. In addition, I can say that it has a nice viewfinder and that it turned out to be solid and reliable; never a problem in several years. The size and ergonomics for me are excellent, the A7RIII is bigger as a grip and less comfortable. AF is good if you don't expect tracking and eye focus capabilities. The menu is more complete than the A7II and for me it's not a mess, but simply a somewhat complex menu to learn to manage. It has all the advantages of a good full-frame ML that I'm not going to repeat (AF precision, portability, optical adaptability, customizable keys...) Battery life for me is not a problem, silent shooting can be used easily with not fast subjects, but be careful that it goes to 12bit like the Canon and at low iso you lose a bit of the remarkable dynamic range, at high iso it is irrelevant). Operation not lightning fast but not problematic either. SD door seems a bit delicate, never broken anyway. I would highlight one and only one limit, the limited buffer. Shooting bursts in RAW it fills up immediately and you have to wait for it to write to the SD. This is really annoying for sports photos. For everything else still a great machine and the only quality bigmegapixel at this price. sent on November 25, 2023 |
 | Sony A7r III Pros: Image quality, build, battery life. A gem also in 2023. Cons: Increased size compared to the second generation Opinion: Coming from the A7RII, compared to this the A7RIII-A has more: -file a little cleaner, less noisy -AF system faster, more accurate, more sensitive, tracking and Eye AF much further forward -burst shutter and buffer much better. You can take action photos. It's not an A9, but you can. -battery life, double or more -EVF seems improved to me, already for me it was excellent that of the RII -rear screen certainly better and touch -better white balance and with more options -more features such as pixel shift and possibility of wireless connection and others -USB C -greater possibilities of customization menus and keys -better build quality. Looks more solid -overall operating speed is improved -14bit even in silent shooting! It is used very well, as long as the subjects are not in rapid motion, otherwise rolling shutter is visible. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° As proof of how subjective ergonomics is, I preferred the slimmer A7RII. Oh well, I can stay, but I preferred smaller. -the A7RII file immediately appeared a little, perhaps, marginally more detailed. In the III it is cleaner, but the impression is that the one in the II was rougher and rawer, the one in the III more elaborate. These are impressions, but I wanted to say it. -Stabilizer looks the same to me sent on October 27, 2023 |
 | Sigma 17mm f/4 DG DN C Pros: More or less everything Cons: No soul, zero mood. There is no pasta. Opinion: Another perspective without soul or mood of Sigma. Sharp to all apertures, across the entire frame. Beautiful contrast, with beautiful colors. Front sun fired on the lens does not make a bend neither of flare nor of loss of contrast, aligned lenses, reliable and fast AF, bokeh also cute with subjects at close range. Construction of quality, small, light. Excellent diaphragm ring. In short, a boredom of lens. Don't buy it. sent on September 19, 2023 |
 | Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN C Pros: Performance Cons: A bit heavy Opinion: Another boring and soulless lens of Sigma.... Sharp from edge to edge since f2.0, he doesn't give a damn about the backlight, well contrasted, beautiful colors, very well built, aperture ring, soft bokeh, has no tilt problems or various shifts, precise AF, decisive and rather fast .... A bore. Ah it's a bit heavy and has a bit of distortion, at least that. sent on August 28, 2023 |
 | Tamron 20mm f/2.8 Di III OSD M1:2 Pros: Price, optical quality, colors Cons: Distortion? AF not very fast. Opinion: This Tamron series (I also tried the 35mm) offers a lot at a very low price. The image quality is excellent, for sharpness, colors, backlight tightness. In this 20mm, however, there is a moderate drop in sharpness at the edges, noticeable on 42 mpx. Forgivable anyway for a wide angle. The distortion is high, but it corrects well with the profile incorporated in the lens. My specimen has well-aligned lenses, there are no shifts or tilts. It is a lens that I would recommend unreservedly. I hope Tamron continues with this series with a unique q/p ratio, it would be interesting a 15mm and in the canvases a 135mm. sent on May 14, 2023 |
 | Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN C Pros: Sharpness, construction, bokeh. Cons: No poetry. A little heavy. Opinion: Lens absolutely devoid of character or poetry. It's too perfect. Sharpening all over the field already at f2.0, creamy bokeh, excellent backlight hold, no field curvature, excellent microcontrasto and colors, fast and reliable AF, AC under control. Excellent construction: at the first specimen tried no tilt or decentralization, I believe that Sigma can be trusted for the quality of production. Here are a couple of shots without downloadable 42mpx fixes: https://www.flickr.com/photos/192665923@N06/ sent on April 27, 2021 |
 | Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Di III OSD M1:2 Pros: Optical quality, macro, lightness, cost Cons: A little bulky, 'only' f2.8 Opinion: Excellent/excellent sharpness all over the frame at any iris and even at distances close to 1:2. Excellent contrast and tightness to the backlights. Almost zero distortion. Present but gradual vignette, there is worse. Contained chromatic aberrations. True macro performance, in the sense that it maintains excellent sharpness even at the slightest focus distance. A little cumbersome, but you have to consider that it is a macro and that they wanted to keep the diameter filters 67mm. It's not an exciting goal, at least on paper, but it offers solid performance and has serious fundamentals. I am referring to distortion, chromatic aberrations, anti-glare treatment and centering optical groups. Lately there has been a tendency for some compromise in these aspects, then left to the SW corrections. That's not the case with this Tamron 35mm. To consider if you want sharpness to the edges even on 42 Mpx for landscapes and/or you want to photograph at close distances. Without emptying your wallet, it's cheap. Here are 42Mpx images. https://jazzclassicphoto.prodibi.com/a/1j894lkgeg1z44r sent on December 05, 2020 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Pros: Excellent yield to all the focal points already from f4 Cons: It has its limits but no really important cons. The tripod collar is not provided. Opinion: Purchased as a cheap telezoom for a Sony A7RII, it proved to be a solid performer despite the age of the project. It has excellent sharpness even with interfragm all open and to virtually all the focal points, from the center up to 2/3 of the full frame field. The edges are a soft at 70mm, for landscapes close at f11. Already 80mm up the edges become consistent without needing to diaphan. Classic 70mm barrel distortion and 200mm cushion, not much and regular, it corrects itself smoothly. Vignette perfectly under control. Chromatic aberrations also these almost absent, a bit at the edges at 70mm on 42 Mpx. It has focus shifts at the lowest focal points, if you focus in the manual at full opening you have to take this into account. I didn't see field warp. Certainly a fixed 200mm f2.8 is a bit superior in all aspects: deadlift, bokeh, sharpness throughout the field, distortion, but if you want the convenience of the variable focal, in acceptable size and weight, this zoom is still a valid alternative to this day. Commonplace wants the IS MKI version to be optically better, but this is disproved by both the official MTF of Canon and Lensrental (Mr. Cicala) who claim a slight supremacy of the smooth on stabilized especially at 70mm. The MKII, on the other hand, is superior. The AF on Sony with MC-11 is generally good, even in AFC, it becomes problematic in low light and/or 200mm by selecting AF spots at the edges. An indoor or evening event requires a native attack. Sony's IBIS allows you to use this freehand zoom with relatively low times, stabilizes the viewfinder and disadvens soft images for micro-movement. Perfect. Last thing to report, this 2019 (new buy) is calibrated very well, no tilts and decentralities noticeable. sent on May 11, 2020 |
 | Sony A7 II Pros: Sensor, price, construction Cons: For the price nothing. Opinion: It was my first full frame ML and I was delighted. The only thing I suffered a bit was the high ISO yield ('6400 ISO', one stop behind the current standards of a full frame. I came from Canon 5DII and 6D and the thing that excited me the most was the quality of the low ISO file. The famous dynamic range, but also the noise and also the sharpness that on equal conditions is higher than 6D, probably for a less invasive low pass filter. Whether developing the file could be a source of anxiety with the "old" Canon with Sony sensors is a pleasure. Ergonomics and size: this is personal factor, many complain, I definitely prefer the small A7 body body over the big reflex bodies, very easy to carry around and also to handle for my hands. AF: There is some cliché to dispel, the AF of the A7II is not at all as scarce as it reads. It is if you compare it with the tracking of the third series, but coming from the 6D I found it definitely superior to this reflex and not only for the accuracy (no more front/back focus) and the ability to use the sides without problems, but also for overall responsiveness. Keep in mind that these sony second generation focus in stop down, this is to be kept in mind in some situations, at the edge in the studio flash better disable the preview/live view (it's a topic that should be covered separately). With Canon optics adapted with MC-11 instead it focuses on open diaphragm. IBIS: I have never been fond of stabilizers, with this I thought again and started to use it really, 2-3 gain stop there are all. I was afraid that the suspended sensor would cause misalignments of the sensor plane, instead no problem, the sensor crashes in its position perfectly, no tilt detected of the focus plane. Electronic viewfinder: even here is personal stuff, I found myself in wonder, the advantages are known I'm not going to list them. Batteries: They last much less than reflexes, it is mandatory to have at least one spare. But in practical use in the end is not a problem. Construction: This is something that is little talked about. These bodies look spartan to see, but I think they're perhaps more robust than a 5DII. One aspect struck me: in the A7II the lens flangia is screwed to a metal basket that also assembles the sensor, all constitute a metal frame that would look robust and rigid. In the Canon 5DII I had seen, following a repair, that the flangia is screwed on a plastic stand : Which one is built better? the answer may not be so obvious. Reliability: after a year and a half and 20,000 shots (even in wedding services) I have nothing to report. Never a malfunction, an indecision, a charge. P.S. Before taking a Sony I waited for the Canon RP, just since sensor there had been mounted I took Sony. sent on February 29, 2020 |
 | Sony FE 50mm f/1.8 Pros: Cost, weight/size, sharpness Cons: Af Opinion: It's the equivalent of the Canon 50 1.8 for Sony, but with bokeh and improved contrast at full opening; likely to be due to the aspheric lens. Very, very sharp to central diaphragms all over the field (landscapes). At full opening you can see how it is optimized for medium long distances (it is not internal focus). Absent distortion, good flare hold. The AF remains its most critical point; it is slow but still usable and precise to open diaphragms. Certainly not suitable for fast-moving subjects. Considering the whole thing deserves the motto -little expense so much yield-. sent on September 17, 2019 |
 | Samyang AF 45mm f/1.8 FE Pros: Image quality at f1.8, lightweight, compact, AF fast Cons: Nothing relevant. A minimum of vignette always present. Opinion: The peculiarity of this 50ino is the great quality of image at full opening, even at close distances. It has nothing to do with a classic 50ino like the Canon STM or the Sony 50mm 1.8. At f1.8 the images have sharpness, contrast, absence of spherical aberration. In addition, the bokeh is soft and even. The full-opening yield is more similar to that of the Sony 85 1.8 than that of the 50 1.8 If you add that it does not cost much, which is light and compact, that the AF is great (fw 2.0) there are ingredients for a best buy. The only aspect not quite at the top is the yield at the central diaphragm edges to infinity, here is slightly behind the Sony 50 1.8 which I find extremely sharp at f5.6 on the whole framed field, little stuff, probably many would not even notice. . The Sony 50ino seems to me to be optimized for long distances, while the Samyang also makes great at close distances at full opening. sent on September 15, 2019 |
 | Sony FE 28mm f/2 Pros: Price, weight, size, sharpness, AF, Cons: Distortion, absence of MF switch, absence button assignable. Opinion: The value of this lens is to have an excellent quality and bright (f2.0) in really minimal size and weight. It is built well, it is internal focus so it has no external parts that move/stretch. It is fully usable at full opening and also with a good blur. It has no particular problems with chromatic aberrations, flares, vignettes. Great and saturated colors, reminds me of the zeiss/contax 28 f2.8 in this. The AF is fast, quiet and precise. Sharpness in the center very good at full opening, I would say excellent from f2.5 onwards. At the edges very good from f5.6-8. (if not, it would not be a perfect specimen). Focus on edges, not center. The only real flaw is a distortion a bit high to be a 28mm, it corrects itself without problems, but it costs something in terms of resolution and mm of focal; in C1 there is a trick to remedy. It would have been nice to have MF switches and button on the barrel, like the 85mm 1.8. Lens for me multipurpose, from reportage on the go, to portraits set, landscapes, street. Certainly recommended for the Sony E system. sent on September 02, 2019 |
 | Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Pros: Cost, AF, compactness. Cons: Edge sharpness, microcontrast, distortion. Sony should make an updated version and take it out of circulation. Opinion: Ok is the classic cheap kit goal. I'll say, there's some upside. The negative ones are soon said: drop in sharpness at the sides, moderate distortion at 28mm, zero to 35mm and remarkable at 50-70mm and microcontrast not quite by record. Positives: very sharp in the middle and also on the sides at short distances. At medium and long distances there is a field curvature that sends the sides out of focus. This is the biggest annoyance. In landscapes, if you find the sides you'll face, the problem is the point of fire. try to focus on an edge and not in the center; f11 diaphragm and you'll find a good yield. AF, it's quiet and fast. He doesn't suffer particularly from the backlights. The construction, which is plastic, but is tight, that is, it has no parts that have games, neither the barrel, nor the ghieres of MaF and zoom. In addition, the length remains practically constant from 28 to 70mm. A couple of examples: https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=3094340&l=it https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=3094316&l=it sent on February 20, 2019 |
 | Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Pros: Nitido in all conditions light compact reliable Cons: Manual focus excursion too short. Opinion: Sharp and contrasted to any diaphragm and even at close range. A f2.8 edges a little 'softer but still usable, f6.7 clear to the corners. From f8 onwards we begin to notice a decay of the resolvence on 6D. Never as in this case I find myself in the mtf tests of lenstip.rnSembra optimized to be used at full aperture and voted more to reportage than to landscapes.rnDramatic lateral chromatic variation is present only at the edges. It is completely eliminated in development.rnCurvement of field noticeable in the landscapes.rnVery good to the flare.rnBokeh good, shooting at f2.8 at short distances.rnAF reliable and accurate.rnBrown with the excellent zoom 24-70 f4, this fixed is sensibly superior for edge performance and vignetting.rnStabilizer up to 1/8 s.rnrn ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- rnrnObject not very popular because now there are zoom performance at prices reasonable and because of the high price at the exit.rnPer% 26ograve; I prefer it to the Canon 24-70 f4 (if the zoom is not essential). Optically it is significantly higher, has an extra stop, is compact and light, has no barrels that extend and can be exposed to mechanical stress.rn28mm is an intermediate focal between the most common 24 and 35mm, has a fairly wide shooting angle without having the obvious perspective characteristics of a more wide-angle lens. In short, it is versatile enough to do both landscapes and reportage / street.rnrnDifetti; focusing in manual to infinity is a bit difficult. A greater reduction in gear would have been very good for us to get the most out of the landscapes on the whole field. (If you trust the AF in the landscapes do not take advantage of all the quality of optics in my experience) .rn -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- rnUpdate on AF to infinity for landscapes: I discovered a banality%26agrave; ..... just make sure to match the reference cleat precisely with the infinity bar of the scale (just like in the image above), close at f8 and you have the whole field clear without problems, you do not even need to use the live view. sent on December 23, 2017 |
 | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical Pros: Sharpness Construction Durability Cons: Lack PDC references scale distances distortion Opinion: E 'has all been said on this goal. Arriving finally I add seguenti.rnHo the cinema version, optically equal to the regular version. rnrnObbiettivo wonderfully crisp on any field at all diaframmi.rnCostruzione other metal times for the cinema version at least (reminds me of the Zeiss Contax) with no automatism or electronics. This makes it very reliable and enduring, as the optical than once. There is very little that we can break with time. Nothing flat cable, no capacitors or chips, no electrical contacts, no motors and ingranaggi.rnHa coma basso.rnE 'compact for focale.rnCosta poco.rnrnI few against are those already highlighted by others. I add only that the distortion is corrected well enough with its profilo.rn sent on March 08, 2017 |
 | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Pros: Quality on the cheap Cons: Careful to strike the right example Opinion: A quality canvas in all respects, sharpness even at TA, yield uniformity over the entire field, fast and accurate AF, low distortion, compact, great blurry. rnPurple fringing present at full aperture in extreme contrast transitions in the case of scenes with hard light can give fastidio.rnUnica negative note ... it would seem to be a project that more than others is sensitive to diseallineamenti at production / assembly. I saw him in service as fractions of mm of the optical calibration ant. They can strongly influence the performance. rnSono stumbled upon a first copy which was sharp in the center but had the right part of the field out of focus a lot (tilt), also diaframmando.Alla order was sostituito.rnE 'an objective in production for more than 20 years and has definitely had some small changes over time. Surely one of the electronic circuit, documented by a site (look for silent upgrades). I would recommend taking it back or, if used, a recent production. sent on December 02, 2016 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Pros: Very good in all areas. Resistance exemplary flare. Cons: It has no real weaknesses. Perhaps the construction that not being from L series casts some doubt on the duty to heavy usage. Opinion: An excellent sharpness throughout the zoom, distortion control and in any case in accordance with a zoom lens, always visible vignetting at 24 mm, chromatic aberrations limited, modest flare. The real limitation is that it is only a f5.6 and often is better close at f8 to get the maximum quality throughout the campo.rnConfrontato with clicks of a 24-105 f4.0 L USM I had in testing time ago, the two lenses are very similar. What most differentiates it from the L series it is the diaphragm less the focal more. The sharpness to 24 mm is higher in the STM, but I doubt that the L series had some centering problem, I do not know. In short, a zoom that does everything well (you see that it is a recent project) that costs half the 24-105 f4 L with an image quality comparable, which can be used easily even in aperture fully open if the subject is in the center, which is stabilized, quiet, lightweight, can be used in backlight, rarely it does see the purple fringing.rnSe seeking comfortZoom is you can not spend large sums this does not disappoint. Certainly not the WOW effect of a 'fixed lens, but not so much for the resolution (it was delicious but still lower than the very high frequencies compared to the best fixed): it opens and all that this comporta.rnrn forgot, the focus STM splits for precision hair. I was surprised, I thought it was less than USM for accuracy, but here is perfect. We see that even the STM systems are not all uguali.rn Latest photos of my gallery are made with this goal in high resolution. sent on July 10, 2016 |
 | Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Pros: Sharp price stabilizer 5 year warranty. Cons: zoom ring a little 'tough. nothing else saw the price. Opinion: The first impression is of excellent sharpness at all focal lengths, also usable at full aperture. It will not get the resolution of a fixed lens, but if the shot is correct, the difference must really look carefully watching the image at 100%. Even the bokeh is not bad; you can make good portraits 100mm f4. Unlike most I see well even resolving to 300mm, and the contrast is always great. The stabilizer would say, powerful. But be careful to use it only when needed, and leave the second to work well, otherwise you will lose sharpness. Contrary to what usually many do, I leave it off and active only when times drop below a certain threshold. Doing so can make the most of 'optical clarity. very good building, not at the level of the Canon L series, for example, the zoom ring is duretta, is not as fluid as the canon pro, but there is the advantage that sets a focal remains pretty firm, also the Barilointernal tto is stable and does not play as it does on many zooms too expensive. Autofocus great and even accurate, does not seem to have the back front focus issues. If you serve in these focal FF landscape, wildlife, this is perhaps the best choice under 500 €. For portraits you can get good results between 70 and 135mm shooting at diframma everything open. Although ideal for portraits remain large openings fixed. In conclusion, for € 300 it is also too much stuff, good Tamron. I do not understand those who accuse him of little detail; or the variability of the specimens is high or there is some error in the shot. It can often be linked to these shake-focal. Here a fine move down 300mm f all open, tell me if it is not clear: http://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=1857893 sent on May 25, 2016 |
 | Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pros: Optical quality - compactness, lightness - economy - comfortable focal length Cons: vignetting and field curvature Opinion: High performance / price ratio. I found it clear even at f2.8. I use it with satisfaction on 5D MKii to carry it around as if it were a compact. AF precise. This price is definitely advisable if you are looking for compactness and good / excellent optical quality.rnCosta little and in its simplicity probably also gains reliability. rn sent on May 22, 2016 |
 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: those known Cons: often results do not meet expectations. Mystery to mixed results. Opinion: L 'I was on probation for a bit' of days of 5D MKII. It must be one of the first esemplari.rnPer me this lens is a bit 'a mystery. With flash light, let's say in the study, the results are beautiful. But under different conditions, with natural light, outdoor, the sharpness is as if he lost significantly. Fine details are mixed. It almost seems like an economical zoom. Especially 24 mm I expected more. Dunno, I came to doubt that the IS, always inserted during tests, in doing its work face losing something to the resolution of the lens, it would explain why the results are better with flash. rnForse the first samples had benefits which have been optimized for newer ones? Or this one in particular has had a few small problems maybe even use? Or am I tried it too little and not well? Unfortunately I have not thought about putting the 'IS off and repeat also scatti.rnVero that of full frame I have the eye accustomed to fixed lenses. 50 / STM 1.8 or 40 / 2.8 STM knowswill objectives for the poor but on the 5D MKII do enjoy .... rnInsomma at the end rather than taking this zoom, I prefer a couple of excellent fixed, less bulky although less practical and without IS. Excite more. sent on May 18, 2016 |
 | Canon 5D Mark II Pros: Compared to 'APSC while the 760D good, the picture is always better. Cons: Only one memory slot and only CF. No silent snap. Opinion: Still a great machine, reliable, robust. It has the charm of things well fatte.rnL 'on the central AF point is reliable and fast, side seem less sensitive, but I can use them for portraits if there is light. The points are not enough for today's standards and the management in AF-C is definitely not on the level of noise and MKIII.rnBanding become bothersome only when retrieving different stop exposure in dark areas of 'image. rn ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------------- rnEdit: recently rnPassato to 6D, i must add that the 5DMKII files in comparison seemed to have a higher microcontrast. It 's just an impression for the moment, but 6D, although less noisy (beautiful at high ISO) and more responsive, it seemed the least return files "vivid." Boh, is suggestion? I'm not saying turn back, but the first shots with the 6D have left me a bit 'puzzled compared tothose of old 5D.rnrnrn sent on May 09, 2016 |
 | Canon 760D Pros: updated sensor. much lower noise than the old 18 megapixel of 550D. Cons: Lacks the micro autofocus. sensor still a step backwards compared to Nikon. Opinion: Taken recently, he replaced a 550D. Compared to the latter the breakthrough there and justifies the expense, not only for the many more features or improved, see the AF system (fast and accurate) or live view, but especially for image quality. The shots are always cleaner than the 550D and you can get to 3200 with ISO files still usable. The 24 megapixel allow crop more. To get 100% resolution 24 megapixel optics are needed at the top. Shame about the dynamic sensor has reached the Sony / Nikon level but the images are still high quality and fully comparable. For the rest is a rebel, and ergonomics, quality of materials and assemblies are absolutely in line with the serie.rn sent on December 28, 2015 |
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
