|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Gpierocompostela www.juzaphoto.com/p/Gpierocompostela  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Sony E PZ 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Pros: Good sharpness, excellent colors, stabilized, very light. Cons: A bit of Distortion and Sharpness not at the top. Opinion: After a sizeable "lightening" of my Sony outfit I took a A6300 with this "infamous" 16-50. After The first findings on the field, I must admit that I was more than favorably surprised. To read some reviews, I expected a real glass bottom, a "catorcio" of objective. It is Not at all so, anything but so. With the "Auto-corrections" in the car, it is sharp (it is not Fluorite or ED), at least as much as enough to a good photo. The examples below confirm this. Without AC, even at the edges of the image. Above all it is not intrusive, a "feather", ideal to go out informally "in the street". Distorts a little? Chisse.. Just a couple of clicks. In Summary, I think it's a great travel companion. "Photography is a pleasure if it transforms you into" Sherpa "what a pleasure it is!?" sent on March 29, 2019 |
 | Minolta AF 35-200mm f/4.5-5.6 Xi Pros: A Target 's "vintage" that when attached to APS-C, has a very interesting zoom range. In practice from "normal" to "super-tele" with a simple touch of the zoom ring being this assisitita electrically. MF also operates in the same way by pulling back slightly the same ring ... a "gimmick", after all, really interesting and above all fast and practical. Excellent neutral colors returned by a Cromatismo of high school windows that reminds me a bit 'typical of C.Zeiss T *. Measurement and weight really content, considerable mechanical construction. A purebred Minolta. Cons: Marked AC at full aperture. Closing at f8-11 greatly diminishes but does not disappear completely. There is, however, to say that such a chromatic aberration, not presented to any of the recorded image, but only in fortissmo contrast situations, which, overall, is more than acceptable. Opinion: Almost love at first sight. Obviously this Minolta's goal early 90s and will not have a stellar resolution, but its yield is more than decent, at any focal length. also it suffers from a marked AC, but closing at f8, f11, is reduced more than sufficiently. The AF is apparently "slow", but sufficient. The "zoom" is servo-electrically, as a treat. What about, for a Target "venerable", except that it has proved a real surprise, a beautiful object, almost everything "glass-to-metal" and AF, capable of carrying more than his task with dignity. sent on July 22, 2016 |
 | Zenit Helios MC 44M-4 58mm f/2.0 Pros: Ridiculously low price, only robust metal, optical quality very good, so is the mechanics. Beautiful colors, very good sharpness even at full aperture, excellent bokeh Cons: Ring maf little soft (not always necessarily a disadvantage, imho). Opinion: Recovered from a Zenit11 (still operational) just out of curiosity I mounted (by proper fitting) on ??Canon EOS 500D ... I was literally surprised by its quality, I never thought that a lens screw "Russian", with decades behind, could withstand the "modernity". Of course its resolving power in lines per mm is not stellar, it would be asking too much. Of APS is a "90mm" (92.8 Canon), good in the portrait for its "softness". At close range, as regards the focus, from the points to the most current objectives of (+ or -) of focus: It has a bokeh simply fantastico.rn Very satisfied with his performance on the field, definitely lives up to the merit of those who 'built. In fact it can also create "dependency". sent on March 15, 2015 |
 | Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.7 (C/Y) Pros: Everything: Yield of color, micro-contrast and sharpness are unrivaled, or, if the beats still on equal terms with any other brand. Cons: No One Opinion: High competitiveness, for a lens built and sold as far back as 1975: Mechanics and glass designed to last and if today, with digital, it can still compete, it is the objective demonstration. Has certainly stabilizer, nor autofocus, but for those who do not like photographing "hit and run", this is not conclusive. I also believe that, once again, is debunked the "urban legend" that the goals vintage, film, are obsolete, ie, they are not suitable, even progettualmente, the sensors of the Digital Age. I believe that in 99% of cases this is a huge hoax, understandably concerned. sent on December 20, 2014 |
 | Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 (C/Y) Pros: Large opening that allows, with acceptable times in light shortage, an already more than good definition. In the medium openings offers instead performances, I dare say, beyond the current average: Plasticity and airiness that result in a particularly brilliant rendition of the colors, a superb definition, with a marked impression of three-dimensionality of the subject portrait . Mounted on Sony ML It "self-stabilizes" and the MAF is of a disarming simplicity. Cons: Fully manual Objective. Opinion: A glass and a mechanics of The past. Solid, still very fluid rings, damped just enough, despite the venerable age, I think gives a lot of "twisting" to any other 50mm current, any Brand, including its new "close relatives", 50mm C. Zeiss T *-is Not "Partisanry", the I still believe, with data in hand, objective, verifiable, a 50mm of excellence, of pure race... On the way to extinction. sent on August 23, 2014 |
 | Zeiss Tele-Tessar 300mm f/4 (C/Y) Pros: Excellent color rendering, defining more than good, containment flare remarkable for a bright and high-contrast imaging performance. Mechanical construction high. Cons: He suffers from AC to f5.6. It improves only to f8 and f11. Very high weight for a f4. Opinion: Despite having an optical diagram very simple, "minimum" essential Technicians of C.Zeiss, with Tele Tessar f4, have managed to assemble a telephoto lens (version II, eighties, always Made in West Germany), who fought on par with the other brand. Personally (but no text) I always felt superior to the color rendition and micro-high contrast, but especially for that particular shade-light (chromatic), typical of all the glass C. Zeiss T *, perhaps due its treatment multi coating, T * Star, their patent Top Secret. - Needless to say, no glass Apochromat, Super ED, Fluorite, least one stabilizer. Given its age, beyond the fact that it was not marginal designed for film cameras, personally I think still very competitive. sent on June 24, 2013 |
 | Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye Pros: In relation to its price, very low, very good mechanical construction and very good optical quality: superb color rendition, sharpness and micro-though not stellar, definitely excellent, but above all, really unexpected. rn Cons: Lack of transfer of the data to the reflex opening diaphragm. Opinion: I was amazed by its yield, color, sharpness and contrast, even with the sun at the edge of the frame. Definitely, a good price, a lens impossible to overcome. All this, coming from an amateur photographer who has used and still uses (possibly) aims C. Zeiss T * glass of comparison for all other brands. Definitely a Samyang 8mm f3.5 great surprise, that I consider still an outstanding goal. Highly recommended for anyone who loves capturing, interpreting, the great outdoors. RNIN more, with the necessary special attentions, is able to "imitate" excellently an ultra-wide angle, overcoming, for amplitude of the angle of field. sent on October 25, 2012 |
 | Sony DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Pros: - Three-dimensionality, color rendering, brightness and sharpness of the images, already at full aperture: Do not fear comparisons with other targets of the same focal length and possibly beyond. C.ZeissT * is always a guarantee, even for this goal. At night he does not suffer from "intrusion" by spot lights, keeping a very fine detail. - Although it is not lightning, precise and accurate autofocus. Cons: - Construction not up to the "glass". Materials (a part of the optical unit), medium quality. not tight tolerances: Light "ciottolio" (on all copies), if moderately shaken. - Manual Focus is not fluid. Price a bit 'too high compared to its mechanical performance. Opinion: - It 'a lens that turning a blind eye on the rest (I personally have completely solved the "ciottolio" problem, lightweight Zoom game, with the "do it yourself"), really worth having, because of its excellent quality optics, at all focusing and aperture, with the ability to "force" with slow times, thanks to the combination with camera bodies already stabilizzati.- rating 9.5 sent on May 14, 2012 |
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
