You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
Pros:sensor, af and eye AF, overall quality, EF and RF optical park availability, weight.
Cons:lack of joypad, slow burst, annoying snap preview in sports use.
Opinion:When Canon pulls out a new car is always the subject of praise but also a lot of criticism, so was the R. Given that in the canon house I had 5dII - 5dII - 1DX and 80D. I ventured the switch to mirrorless, for me an unknown. Let's start from the machine body, less voluminous and lighter than the corresponding reflex, I found it well done and well handleable, gives the feeling of solidity. The absence of the joypad that I find indispensable is serious. The rest of the controls are easily accessible, the keys slightly smaller than the SLRs, but you get used to it. The menus are the classic Canon ones for about eight years, so they're fine. Let's move on to the sensor, the file produced by it follows the strand of FF that I own and that always satisfied me with colors, sharpness, embodied. Unlike the 5 series I owned, it has a huge advantage in surrender when you open the shadows. The white balance seems good to me. The AF is a positive note, always ready, it has the great advantage of being paired with an eye-AF very useful in portraits. Finally you can focus on the composition without the need to look for the focus on the eye. A great innovation. The points are then distributed throughout the frame, another advantage. The AF is also valid in the action photo. A sector in which the R is penalized by an insufficient burst and the annoying preview of the electronic viewfinder. In the video industry I have not had the chance to use it, I will update the review later. Another factor to take into account is the usability of Canon's endless optical park and the advent of RF optics that seem to bode well. I had the RF 24/105, which is from another planet compared to the EF counterparts. By the way, the ef optics do not need calibrations and even the super bright ones become precise in the focus. Overall a nice car with flaws in sports.
Cons:sharpness, image quality, chromatic aberrations, burnt lights (need to undergo a half stop), washed-out colors
Opinion:It is a multiplier to be bought for the price and for the sporadic necessity of having to multiply one's own goal. On the other hand there are many and all important: the quality of the images suffers a lot as I have indicated in the Cons. Personally I would prefer without a doubt the old Canon 1.4x II series not being able to buy the third series.
Pros:You can have a twin focus with a small object. Great construction, good optical quality.
Cons:In addition to those known, the presence of light chromatic aberrations.
Opinion:The 2x is of great and undeniable utility, having in its full size, the ability to stretch its optics consistently, has no price. The design quality is great, I personally used it on the 70/200 and the 300 isII. The 70/200 suffers the presence of the tc, the quality drops considerably even in good light conditions, but you do not think to replace the 400 5.6L, which gives the best results for AF speed, no color aberrations and Best optical quality. The 300 2.8 isII also has a loss of sharpness, but the quality is still good, but not excellent. For those who dream of using this tc on a darker view of his, I absolutely recommend this operation, a 400 5.6 would become a 800 f11 with no af and with unacceptable quality (unless you are intent on doing astronomical photos)
Pros:Price, performance, good construction quality, weight and footprint.
Cons:It has no obvious defects ... then this figure.
Opinion:A fixed with such high quality at such a low price, it is a shame not to buy it. It's not as small as the 40 2.8 pancake but put it in the jacket pocket and at the right time does his work wonderfully. Between 1.8 and 2.5 the quality is more than good, 2.8 inches on a blade. The AF is fast enough. Obviously, those with different needs (greater aperture, bokeh and solid construction) must now look at the heaviest and most expensive Sigma Art or Canon 50L. I used it with my great satisfaction and married couples in two weddings.
Pros:image quality, construction, stabilizer, focusing distance, the focusing speed and precision
Opinion:The new Canon 100-400 Isii is ideal for those who want a zoom lens from the high quality of image. Canon has packed into a single objective qualities of fixed f4is 300 and 400 5.6L, with the advantage of having an excursion that goes from 100 to 400, a latest generation stabilizer, all for a sum of approximately two thousand euro. A figure definitely not low especially for amateur photographers, but the focus speed and accuracy of AF, the construction and the materials used in it, the image quality they soon pleased the most demanding photographer. Hard to find flaws, especially considering that the goal that Canon produces the same end is the expensive 200-400.rnColoro which are in doubt whether to take the 100-400 70/200 or 2.8 Isii with TC, I would recommend the 100-400, because despite having the 70-200 tc with a good quality, there are differences. Of course, the 100-400 is a relatively dark objective, therefore difficult to use in lighting conditions basYou know, in concert or in the halls. In this case, the iso will rise rapidly and a 2.8 will have his rematch. In addition, 70/200 in portraits has two speeds more. In summary who can take them entrambi.rnPer As regards the comparison with Sigma or Tamron zoom that trip more boost, as they arrive to 600 mm, in my experience discourage their purchase for Variability precision of af. Spending 1000/1500 euro to focus a picture out of ten, it is not recommended, although there are many who live so happy ...
Cons:autofocus slow, inaccurate and noisy - construction fair - chromatic aberrations
Opinion:I had borrowed to make still life for a few days and I appreciate the quality optics that can produce optimal results. In the still life autofocus it can not be used and the manual focus is easy even without live view. If the af need, they leave the first curses, because it is slow, inaccurate and noisy. The quality of materials is discreet and does not give the feeling of long-lasting, good lens hood. The weight is low. Some aberration cromatica.rnIl price of used (since it came out production) is one of the lowest for a macro to full frame and with less than two hundred Euros, you can take home a lens with which to get professional photos, but if you are looking for something better, with little in the more you buy the Canon 100 2.8 macro.
Cons:Build quality - noise and speed af - soft to TA
Opinion:The first thing that comes to mind when thinking of this lens is the ability to provide excellent file that dwarfs the zoom L-series at a lower price to a hundred euro. And 'that's the reason why you buy. Low financial commitment and high yield. All this if you are willing to live with the noisy autofocus and a speed of focus good for portraits. Build quality and robustness are the worst Canon offers. The high optical performance as I said is from 2.8, excellent f4 f 5.6, while 1.8 to 2.5 is good. rnHo compared with 50 1.8 40 2.8, although aware that they are two different focal enough given that 40 is closer to 35, the winner being equal framing and diaphragm, is 40.
Cons:tendency to produce files with dominance of magenta; af limiting.
Opinion:It 'was my first digital SLR. After a couple of years covering the files, I appreciate even more the quality species with fixed (owned 85 1.8D). The colors are very beautiful, as well as the complexion, the only flaw is the tendency to magenta colors that must be promptly corrected pp and highlights that must be handled with care. The af is older, the build quality excellent. The sensitivity is good at high ISO up to 1600 ISO, I would not go over. I consider this actual car, with the optical fair and in good hands can give files of the highest level.
Pros:Sharpness at maximum levels, weight, size, stability, and high quality construction with tc.
Cons:The prohibitive price
Opinion:Along with the 400 2.8 is ii, is the lens that offers all the quality you would expect from a Canon telephoto and a little more. In the test it I got confirmation of what they read on specialized sites: three paintings at a high level. With both multipliers has a fast autofocus and full-aperture image sharpness have to be sold, with the advantage over the canvas longer in size, weight, portability. Needless to say, as it offers without the tc, splits the pixels in the camera sensor. rnL'unica big downside is the high price.
Cons:spot metering on one central point, advanced metering, video section with af not always usable. Auto white balance improved.
Opinion:I come from 5dII producing excellent file, but it had some flaws that largely have been resolved in the III. Let's start: rn1 - camera body that looks more solid and ergonomic; RN2 - the display is more grandern3 - memory cards are two, in addition to cf also the sd. The dual slot is critical to the ceremony photographers who can not afford the risk that a card is burned. We 'a very rare event but not impossibile.rn4 - the barrage has increased by 50%, we are far from the series 1, but you can shoot at a sporting event taking home a good number of scattirn5 - the af was the weak point of 5dII, now is the strong point of the III. Customizable to the point of confusing those coming from II, second only to 1dx, so superior to what exists in commercio.rn6 - customization of the machine allows you to set a personal functions. At this operational advantage it is difficult to give up. rn7 - meter. I see no advantages over 5II, and I regret the work that Canon could do. Thepoint spots and selected only the center point, then the operation to reassemble knows me from entry level machine. RN8 - silent shooting. Beautiful. Concerts and ceremonies without hearing the clang of the II. Taken that no one accorgerà.rn9 - sensor performance. we are not in front of the miracle compared to II, but if you were happy with the 5dII files, here you find an almost identical file from iso 3200 to rise is cleaner and you can push almost a stop more. The ISO 12800 can be used, rather than the no.rn10 - the improved white balance. rn
Pros:Focal length - construction - versatility - excellent performance at all apertures - stabilizer
Cons:Vignetting and distortion at 24 mm - Luminous limited to f4
Opinion:Use this zoom 5d mark III and find it irreplaceable for its price / quality ratio. Is not perfect, but it allows you to do everything with decency. The affiancherò at a fixed light, but I find it comfortable when I am in all those situations where you can not take a step backward or forward. The first copy I had with the 5D II was less sharp than that I own now, so I understand the mixed reviews you read on the net.
Pros:image quality even at 2.8, good construction, ability to take unusual images
Cons:the protection cap that is removed with extreme ease putting at risk the safety of the lens.
Opinion:Lens with a great value for money, offers the possibility to take pictures unusual about focal length and image quality and good value to 2.8. I find it interesting to play with distortion. The af is a bit 'noisy, the construction is good. I did not like the damn cap covering the lens, since it tends to slip off easily and the risk of scratching or breaking the lens is alto.rnVoto 9
Pros:Very high sharpness from 2.8 up, excellent construction, nice blur.
Cons:There is a risk of getting into a malicious copy, af impeccable.
Opinion:I have purchased this goal from a trusted forum user and I have had some initial puzzles, so much so that I have decided to sell it. After taking a hundred photos I began to appreciate the lens. Sharpness is 2.8 inches high, 4 and 5.6 is gorgeous, so it is capable of fantastic color photos. From 1.4 to 2.8, it is usable, although the edges do not excel; blurry is pleasant. I decided then to sell it, especially because on all the sigma 50, af, sometimes, makes the whims, with the result of having some photos out of focus or having a veil. I can not snap with the doubt of what I'm going to do with my goal, so the desire for the 50's has vanished. In the Canon home with the fixed 50 1.8stm I found the problemarn solution
Pros:Sharpness, build quality, autofocus, optimum quality with multipliers
Cons:Price and weight
Opinion:Maybe one of the best zooms built by Canon. I was patient before buying it because of the price, not really low. Once purchased, I have found out how much I had read in dozens of topics. It's fabulous. It has the best fixed yield, although compared to the 135l for example loses that magic stop and a bit of blurred artistic typical of the old style lenses. At any focal and aperture always provides stunning images. It's a little heavy, on the other hand it makes you forgive for its versatility. It is true the F4 costs and weighs half, the 2.8 snaps where the F4 can not: In the theater, in the church, concerts, in the gym, when looking for a dense blurred, the 2.8 primeggia. Excellent quality with the 1.4 x multiplier, comes down with the 2x, but remains more than good.
Pros:Construction - made - money - keeping the value
Opinion:It 'a lens that does not disappoint the amateur as professional. The performance is high and if the f4 is enough, buy it as well, will give you the beautiful shots. Silent, accurate, clear, well-constructed. Can be used with the 1.4 extender, becoming a 280 without suffering declines evident. I took some pictures that I found very good although not reaching the levels of fixed. These considerations are confirmed by the resale value, which remains high.
Opinion:And 'the objective that I did prefer the Canon system to Nikon. Born for the film, the digital age has found a second youth, therefore winning team does not cambia.rnSplendido for portraits, where stands for focus, sharpness, colors, indoor sport, thanks to the brightness and AF veloce.rnA 2.0 clear, although a little vignette ', 4.0 and 5.6, has values ??of sharpness impressive. Can be used with multipliers, in this case loses all its charm and its own qualità.rnSe wanted something more, I would not mind the stabilizer, but would weigh and cost more. rnih conclusion is a high-level fixed at a relatively affordable price.