|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Riccardomelzi www.juzaphoto.com/p/Riccardomelzi  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon 5D Mark III Pros: Almost everything Cons: The selected AF point does not remain illuminated after the MAF Opinion: The ultimate SLR. He has everything that is missing from MkII, a faithful companion for years. An AF finally efficient and precise, which hooks well even in low light, with numerous and well-arranged cross points; impeccable display meter; ISO holding excellent up to 6400, besides you still take home the shot with fine grain and easy to work; ISO automation with the shutter speed setting really convenient in many situations. Opening shadows of dreams compared to MkII. Files of size still reasonable compared to the new big pixels, double slot very useful. Power button finally in a rational position and key block dial very useful. Large and faithful display, level, grid and other small features that are convenient. Intuitive and well translated menu. There is a lack of Wi-Fi and orientable display but who cares: finally it is used at reasonable prices, super recommended. sent on January 06, 2019 |
 | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Pros: Stunning sharpness, easy to use all-in-one Cons: Somewhat difficult focus with low light, hard / plasticous AF / MF switches Opinion: I came from Canon L first series and decided to change with this Sigma, which I already knew well, because I was dissatisfied with full-featured performance: even though I had calibrated my Canon MkI in CS and after having used it to rotate on three FF bodies Canon, I can say that I have never been able to use it with greater aperture than f / 2.0. The Sigma is amazing for ease of use and full-open sharpness: tested on two different bodies without any calibration, the MAF falls exactly where I want and the detail in the fire area is impressive. The difference with my (L) L series has suddenly appeared remarkable, even if you pay with the loss of the wow effect: Canon returns more picturesque and "round" images; there are those who define it as "vintage"; I leave the evaluations to the most competent even because there are a lot of discussions on the forum in the forum. Personally, I believe that the reason is the transition between a focal and blurred area: in Sigma & egrAve; very sharp, while in Canon is more gradual and pasty, which gives the images a greater roundness. Here you enter the subjective, personally Sigma I really like because I find that exalt the three-dimensionality (almost a pop-up effect), while many claim the opposite opposite. However, I still prefer Canon's rendering, imperfect as long as you want it, but absolutely "magic." Personal preferences and tastes, Sigma seems to be far better on all fronts: beautiful and well-built, also gives a very good bokeh, online with expectations for a lens of this type. It is cheaper than Canon and also more efficient, sharp and precise; only small neo: some hesitation in the MAF in low light, but it should be said that my reflexes (5D and 5D2) do not shine on this side. For the time being I have no tendency to front / back focus: it can happen, as I do with Canon, that more shots sequentially have a focus pointslightly different, but we are talking about a f / 1.4 full-frame freehand, the depth of field is so low that the minimum motion implies a shift of the MAF.rn the heavy chromatic aberrations of Canon have actually never bothered me any more so much so, it's easy to delete them with a click; to point out that with Sigma there is nothing to be eliminated, no trace of purple or blue edges even under the most unfavorable light conditions (branches against the sky) .nn I pronounce on the characteristics of the lens when using closed diaphragms: I do not care about it, otherwise I would not buy a superluminous. Of course, like flicking af / 1.4 with MAF on infinity-so, for the sake of trying to get clearer and more detailed images than Canon's 17-40 to f / 4. I do not know if I explain. Purchase highly recommended, if you like genre is a lens to have. But I prefer Canon. :-D sent on September 24, 2017 |
 | Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pros: Dimensions, optical quality Cons: Focal "strange" (for me), low brightness for a fixed optic Opinion: Purchased and resold within a week, I had taken it for a special occasion and I can say I have tried it thoroughly, to raise any doubt and see if it was my case. R The image quality is excellent already af / 2, 8 and autofocus, especially when compared to other Canon's low cost realizations (50 f / 1.8), is not lightning-fast but very accurate at a much more expensive and cost-effective level. The ridiculous footprint transforms a reflex entry level into a quasi-mirrorless, portable and lightweight. I sold it because I did not like the focal length, too long for my needs, and why I preferred a brighter, though more Expensive and heavy. Overall I found it more than honest but too "perfect" and without a great character. If it were a f / 1.8 it would be perfect. sent on May 17, 2017 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Pros: Magical goal, wow assured effect Cons: Do not break the hair at all Opinion: The most beautiful goal of my kit, even the most beautiful I have ever tried. If I often prefer other lenses it is just for the low versatility. Fantastic lens, it delivers really magical images. It was love at first sight: colors, contrast, bokeh, sharpness ... all perfect, as I always dreamed of. Incredible detachment of floors considered the wide-angle focal plane. Obviously it is often opened at all or almost, conditions in which it is not easy to use due to the reduced PDO. AF and L series construction, for me is also aesthetically beautiful and light the right one. My own, after some time-to-day microregulation attempt in the room with improvised focus charts, needed calibration in CS (which I strongly recommend to those who should see clarity issues); it was well worth it, but at f / 1.4 it was still a little soft, but already from f / 1.8-2.0 it is very clear. There are certainly 35 mm f / 1.4 sharper than allat opening (Sigma Art above all, online also for the price) but if you look for the wow effect there is no match. To try. EDIT: Replaced at a time of madness with Sigma 35 Art: there is not, I came back to my steps. Unsellable. sent on March 14, 2017 |
 | Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Pros: Colors, contrast, focus Cons: Sharpness sometimes not at the top Opinion: My favorite target, purchased for a different use than the classic one, I do not use it for landscape but for street and reportage. A great lens although sometimes I miss the lack of a light stop, especially on dated bodies (5D). The image quality reminds me very much of the beloved 24-70 f / 2.8L first series, although at full aperture the sharpness is not at the same level. Closest diaphragms are excellent. The most impressive aspect is the backlighting and flare resistance, which is the absolute primacy in my optics. All in all a must have that will not easily replace, with a best value for money in the L series. sent on February 15, 2017 |
 | Canon 5D Pros: Pro body, robustness, lightweight file, file quality and workability Cons: Outdated technology, unusable display Opinion: Beautiful camera, had, sold and then bought back to hold and use for undemanding exits. Indisputable photo quality: the combo with the 35 f/1.4 I gave me the most beautiful shots ever. The gap with the MkII is not huge: less dense sensor, more or less the same AF module (not efficient, especially with superlights), one ISO stop less. Small files that do not allow clippings, if not minimal. Very poor display, small and "random" colors (on the first all red, on the second all yellow). Robust and tireless, with the first I did a Holi Festival without protecting it, took water, dust, blows and did not blame the slightest failure. But a lot of dust comes in, you have to learn how to clean the sensor yourself if not it's a bloodbath. I do not recommend it to newbies except with a certain amount of masochism: it is not very easy to use, it has a very "analog" approach, good to learn but nowadays a little anachronistic. If, on the other hand, you started with film and want a simple, essential and high quality FF, which is almost gifted, it is unmissable. sent on February 15, 2017 |
 | Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di Ld IF Pros: Price range of focal Cons: Construction, optical quality Opinion: First serious evidence for this wide angle purchased at a very low price here on the forum. Original in good condition, tires a little discolored and some wear but perfect working condition and immacolate.rnAcquistato lenses for use on FF, explain that it is an experiment to see if these focal affect me and are functional for the genre i prefer (street and reportage) .rnAF noisy but discreet, the central point is not wrong, the side instead of on my 5D MkII suffer from pronounced front focus, so do not use them. At the center engages well in low light even better than the famed Tamron 24-70 f / 2.8, which possiedo.rnLa optical quality is Scarsini, TA throughout the frame is rather mixed and, as expected, the edges decade quality further. Good to f / 8 - f / 9.rnCostruzione just enough, my copy is free from games or malfunction and the ring flowing fluid, but the poverty of the materials, especially the exile lens hood, is well avvertibile.rnDistorsione important and aberrations, butwell correctable in CameraRaw, where I had the pleasant surprise to find the dedicated profile. Color a little bit dull and sometimes unsatisfactory contrast. I note no particular problems of flare.rnPersonalmente I found little usable in the field of street: the autofocus forces me to recompose, which is not always possible, and the quality of the images that returns, the openings necessary to ensure appropriate shutter speed to ' action, is not always satisfactory. Good for landscape photography: if diaphragmed and used quietly, perhaps on the tripod, you can bring home decent shots (certainly not without proper PP and sharpening galore) .rnConsigliato only for intermittent use without too many expectations: it costs for that that vale.rn sent on October 17, 2016 |
 | Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Pros: Price, effective stabilizer Cons: Image quality just enough to open diaphragm, improves very af / 9 Opinion: Bought for a trip, I'm just trying to use the canvas. Comparing it with other canvases (Canon) I tried, that is 70-200 f / 2.8 IS II, 70-200 f / 4 IS and 200 f / 2.8, of course there is no comparison. I'm just saying that after a couple of shots a bit under all conditions, the image quality up to 200 mm seems close to me or slightly higher than that of the 18-200 Canon, a handy, certainly not brilliant. Above 200 mm is even worse, at TA the images are rather kneaded. Those who are satisfied will enjoy it, especially at this price (288 euros VAT included, with hood and free UV filter). Stabilizer really ok, nothing to say in this regard. Embarrassing vignetting on full frame. With hindsight, between having it and not having little difference. UPDATE: After a trip during which I often had to use the long focal lengths, which I usually do not like, I can say that my exemplary bestself closed at af / 9 and focals up to 250 mm; under these conditions and with the right light the riresults are more than dignified. It does not have the character of "whites" but at this price, I repeat, you can easily settle down. sent on January 07, 2016 |
 | Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Pros: Price, quality optics, image stabilization, great, high quality real handyman Cons: Onion-shaped bokeh, lens hood is kinda slim, battery drain Opinion: I have this lens for October 2015, picked to replace a 24-70 L first series for stabilization. Build quality and good image even if compared with the product of the parent company. The sharpness at room temperature is noticeably larger than the Canon MkI although these kinda regret the bokeh and focus, which gave it to my pictures a mood closer to what I'm looking for (but I have the 35 f/1.4). The most negative feature of this lens is in my opinion the unattractive formation of concentric circles at point lights in the blurred, the so-called "bokeh onion", however a very short account. On the 5 d MkII I have encountered no problems with front or back focus and autofocus is much better than I thought, even with low light side steps, conditions under which accuses only a certain slowness. Excellent, never had problems shake stabilizer complained by many, 1/8 shooting handheld. Colors to my taste a tad cold. Battery drain striking if left mounted on the body, I must remember to remove or disconnect battery. Lens that I would recommend strongly: If you require stabilization is a solution that I personally feel much better than the Canon 24-105, in spite of mm less. Due to the lower brightness I did not take into account the Canon f/4 so I can't make any comparisons. sent on October 21, 2015 |
 | Canon 40D Pros: Robust, ergonomic, eternal battery, excellent image quality, good workable files and lightweight: a real pro. Cons: ISO tall, display resolution. Opinion: Re-edited my review in April 2017 to reiterate that this is the most underrated camera in the used market. Sturdy as a rock, it offers professional chamber features and performance that come very close to the 5D MkI (but sells for more than twice), if not better in some cases, such as burst and AF. I specify that I have owned both. The picture quality is excellent up to ISO 1000; "counter" (the only really relevant is the display, however, equal to that of the 5D) are absolutely minimal and negligible impact on photographic satisfaction, not least because you can easily bring home a perfect condition to the ridiculous figure of 150 euro. Combined with a 17-55 f / 2.8 or a fixed return superbright you beautiful photos and easy to handle and store. What do you expect ??? Buy at! sent on September 22, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Pros: Image quality similar to 70-200 f / 2.8 L IS II Cons: Lack of versatility and IS Opinion: I have tried this for an afternoon, about a hundred shots, so I can not say I have deepened my knowledge, but I can say that it will be my next purchase. The immediate impression is exactly the same as it did to me , in its time, the 70-200 2.8 II: you are not supposed to, amazing image quality, crazy clarity even in full opening, blurred by dream. A fairy tale also as a street-portrait lens, the first planes are 5-6 meters, thus avoiding "letting" the lens into the subject and stealing beautiful portraits. I see that it is a fixed, but not stabilized , it is not easy to use or versatile as the "white", but it costs a third, which becomes a quarter or a fifth if you buy used. For those who like me use zoom only in special circumstances and almost always at the maximum focal length , it is astonishing. rn sent on September 14, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Pros: Mah .... Cons: The list is too long Opinion: I can not unfortunately join the chorus of plausibles almost unanimously: I have never been able to use this goal, which I found to be attached to the first reflex in kindly (and less badly), getting decent shots; I have come to prefer an old Helios, which is, in my opinion, the most powerful thing that is all to say. My sample is clamorously lacking in clarity at least until af / 4; then use it to use it; while vignetting is even ridiculous. The blur is not the beauty everyone says and the hexagonal bokeh denies the poor design quality. The autofocus, in addition to making the noise of changing an old truck that "scratches", never puts it in the fire where I want; the manual ring ring is ridiculously small to the point of being unusable. Finally, perhaps because it is too light, there is no way to crawl firm stills, even with times far greater than the security level. rnInsomma, I'm probably not capable of either maybe it's mine which is%3B defective, but for me, even if it costs very little, it's a sham sent on September 11, 2015 |
 | Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Pros: Crisp, super cheap, very good autofocus, very light. Cons: At this price no cons, perhaps the bayonet plastic that requires a little care (delicate). Opinion: Had of late, and sold with all the kit for transition to FF, this goal still me very favorably with the well impressionato.rnConfrontandolo more famous-and expensive-10-22 I have not personally noticed any difference, indeed it seems even sharper this little one super cheap (paid EUR 180 on offer in a chain). The only problem with an "old" APSC limited by ISO (40D) is that it is a little dark, but the stabilizer, as well as the whisper-quiet AF, works very well indeed. Blatant distortion to 10 mm., The rest ... is a wide angle. The maf to 20 cm. that's cool. If you are looking for your first wide angle Canon APSC when there is nothing better as value - price. With the 17-55 2.8 is the lens that regret more. sent on September 11, 2015 |
 | Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Pros: Comfortable, well done, good stabilizer. Cons: Image quality from mediocre to poor. Opinion: First lens of reflex, as it should be. To understand: if you come from a bridge or a compact and scare you often have to change objective, or do not know that you'll be using focal, it is the solution for you. Great for learning. The factor "travel light" for me is a false problem, however there tired soon. Very soft at room temperature, improves between f / 9 and f / 11 to focal intermediate. The zoom is unusable for me is so bad quality, I find it frustrating that more than 150 mm. returns only ever images "mixed", with any opening. I do not exclude that this is my original, particularly botched. In terms of construction is done well, it is solid and does not come so much dust. Convenient the push-button to lock the extension, which prevents the elongation of the barrel with the machine shoulder. Ugly bokeh, woody. Pitch dark, if you can raise the ISO on your camera so you will often get into trouble, even if the stabilizer does its job well. AF decognawed. Objective certainly very practical, but recommended just to start, used to buy no more than 250 euro. sent on September 11, 2015 |
 | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Pros: Bright, clear even to TA, excellent stabilizer. In my opinion, the best handy solution for Canon APS-C. For what it does not cost a bit. Cons: A lot of dust comes in. Opinion: I had this lens for two years on APS-C before switching to FF and I must say that I almost never disconnected it. The picture quality is excellent: sharply sharper than the 24-70 f / 2.8L first set, it is comparable to the Tamron 24-70 f / 2.8 (I have them both) but with a more beautiful bokeh. Unfortunately you can not use it on FF! Excellent stabilizer. In the face of a full-scale image quality L, the construction seems a little defective: the barrel extends somewhat on its own, it's also a vacuum cleaner, I had to clean it twice in 2 years. Anyway, great, overwhelmed. It will revive your old apsc: try it before changing the camera, you will not regret it! sent on September 11, 2015 |
 | Canon 5D Mark II Pros: Robustness, pro body with all the features of the time, image quality, price of the used Cons: Autofocus, banding Opinion: Edit 2019: Faithful travel companion for years, now that I have the mkiii I recognize the limits but also the merits. Professional room with all the features of this headband (for the time), beautiful and well-machinable file, within the very pronounced limits of an opening shadows almost impossible, in pain the appearance of a very evident and invasive banding, which often manifests itself also In the shaded areas of photos taken at low ISO with proper exposure. This for me, in addition to a very insufficient AF module, is the biggest limit. power button in a demenial position. Enter a sea of dust: As for the 5d old, in spite of the automatic functionality of cleaning the sensor (not efficient) you have to learn to clean the sensor yourself. For the rest, an indestructible camera, always efficient and versatile, with a great image quality, with an absolutely decorous ISO up to 3200, able to offer still many satisfactions to the amateur photographer, at a price of the used now Ridiculous (you buy at the same digits as the 5d old). Recommended only if you are aware of its limitations and you can not spend more. sent on August 26, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Pros: Image quality, blurry, color, three-dimensional, perfect focal range on FF. The MAF is great. Cons: Bulky hood. Opinion: Sold, sold and reconditioned. Magnificent lens, much loved by the matrimonialists and trying it out, you understand why. I also have the 35 f / 1.4 l and I find that they are, opening apart, very similar: both have a magical, so-called "wow effect". But both are a bit lacking in open-mindedness. The first specimen was better than the second, which starts to offer the best at f / 3.2 - 3.5, although probably with a body-slow accurate calibration (which I never wanted / reason to do) would improve the notorious issue of productive tolerances.rnConstruction and Focus from L series, of the highest level.rnWow effect for the wow effect remains my first choice for ceremonies and events although I often prefer other lenses, stabilized and sharper in travel . The hood, very protective, is, however, ugly and huge. sent on August 26, 2015 |
 | Nikon Coolpix P500 Pros: Extremely high range of equivalent focuses, a very useful digital viewfinder with compact displays, weight and dimensions, comfortable and bright orientable display, priority or manual shooting modes such as large, cost-reduced, especially for use, optical quality All in all passable. Cons: Jpg only; Zoom difficult to handle, impossible to obtain a reduced depth of field due to the tiny sensor; Materials and construction very cheap; Much noise over iso 800. Ineffective autofocus in video mode and inefficient in general. RIDICLE battery life. Opinion: A decent, cheap (new cost 100 euros less than a poor Canon canvas) toy, very useful to begin to understand the photography and its needs. He soon outlines his limits, urging the newbie to point toward the reflex. The very high focal range allows, with a good tripod, to bring home discrete facial (static) shots. Unmanaged zoom especially in street-tip-type situations: above 300mm equivalent focal length. It becomes difficult to shoot freehand (tiny body and low weight do not help), and after a little zoom, driven by uncomfortable cursors, goes mad and does not stop, at least on my specimen. Poor quality of materials: on my specimen, the shutter button has oxidized and corroded, and the cap of the lens has virtually dissolved by coming in contact with a normal anti-repellent repellent. Still drinking drinking to get close to photography, used is nothing. Good also as a backup for a more experienced hairdoer, or for someone like meBought an old reflex that did not make videos. The macro is great, as with all the compact, provided they do not have great pretensions. sent on April 23, 2013 |
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
