|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Robyscuba www.juzaphoto.com/p/Robyscuba  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Pros: Brightness Cons: I do not know it really is more efficient than the little brother 1.8 Opinion: Taken from the rampage I have not slept for several nights because over 2,000 Euros are so many for a goal, especially if you are not professional. In the end I could not resist and bought kg of glass. In hand and 'definitely a beautiful object, imposing. The build quality and 'typical L. Impresses the view from the front lens. 6d mounted on the machine I made a bit of test shots. The ficus car and 'indeed especially for its slow, only suitable placed shots, but you know it is' fiber from environmental portrait. It is not 'certainly a lens that can be used for much else. The colors that returns are very beautiful and natural and defocused and 'very nice. I must confess though that I was not impressed as it may have done the 135 L f2 that I think is really the best lens ever proven. I also took L 85 mm indoors because the 135 can really be too long. What I honestly have not got to try and '1.8 which quanto apparently offers exceptional quality at a price 5 times lower, and that with the money saved could then buy both the 135 that another lens more. But rationality and reason do not always have the upper hand. For sure it's a quality product, but to exalt the qualities you need to use it in extreme lighting conditions. I can think of shots of ceremonies in church, rather than the glamorous, obviously with natural light. In retrospect, I can think of that would make more sense to buy the 50 1.2 as the focal 85 mm and 'well served by 70/200 2.8 zoom that still have practical objectives and beautiful, flanked by 135 for specialized use close-ups. If the budget is not a problem and 'a lens that you should have in your kit because then you can have no excuses: if the picture does not come out well it will not be for lack of technical means, but for their inability to know how to exploit as must. In the case of 135 the feeling is' more immediate. sent on June 03, 2016 |
 | Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Pros: Amazing Cons: I can not find, if not in the amount of euro that have to shell out Opinion: I bought this lens after reading hundreds of reviews and testing times. I have never read a negative judgment. The I own a couple of months and I L addition to my kit which already boasts a good selection, including the 85 1.2. Unlike the 85 that I have yet to understand whether it really all a nutshell, the quality of the 135 you miss it the first click. The result on the display is already evident, but when you download the files remain open-mouthed. Af fast, beautiful color rendering and a beautiful blur. Indoor perhaps it can be a bit long even on FF (for this I also took L 85), but in external or with large spaces and 'really a lens to which a portrait can not give up. rnEro undecided because I also have the Tamron 70 200 2.8 vc that still gives great shots and all in all very well covers the focal 135. I used both lenses to one mounting them on the show alternately 6d. Once in front of the monitors have always been able to understand the fly, without reading the details, which were the shots of 135and what the Tamron, although this last it has often set the focal it. sent on June 01, 2016 |
 | Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Pros: Value for money Cons: Tropicalization Opinion: Like many fans of photography in my brain cells lurked for some time the iconic image of the noble Canon 70200. A doubt tormented me: f 4 is? Or do the folly of buying directly f 2.8 is ii? I possessed also the Tamron 70 300 4 5.6 and despite having paid 300 euro gave me great satisfaction. Lately I have dedicated myself to take portraits, also ambientati. In my head it was so often the head 135 l f2, definitely one of the best lenses ever for portraitists. But then, by setting the focus of my zoom to 135mm, I mounted on 6d I was aware of the limits that this lens would give me. So off to read reviews. I was convinced that it would be better for me 100 f2 or maybe even save a bit 'and then take 85 F1.8. But the red line Canon attracted me too. And so to read reviews and see photos. In the end I decided: I sell my madness and the 16 35 f4 is used very little, sell the Tamron 70,300 and I take the best of the best: Canon is 2.8 ii. Yesterday I left for my store. Featured also the ottimthe used 2.8 with and without stabilizer, but only the first series. I express my will and the owner said to me: you've tried the Tamron 70,200 2.8 vc? You take it so you can mount it and test it. He adds: clearly the Canon and 'best level constructive and probably slightly better performance, but it also costs 900 euro more. If you take the first series Canon strongly urge you to take this. The first had some problems with af. Now all sorted. So you have a crystal-clear lens, practice is very versatile. It weighs but not excessively. The mountains and the more they take away. The purge the day you'll feel younger brother 24 70. Many business customers are replacing their series with these two gems from the 'excellent value for money. Bartering and 'lasted a few minutes and left holding the new tool. Actually were days that comparavo various pictures here of Juza and I had already realized that it is true that many shots with the Canon arebeautiful not 'only due to the quality of the machine and of the lens, but it is for a whole series of reasons, first among many the handle of the photographer. For example taking into consideration the portraits and 'clear that if taking and' an experienced photographer with a model super cool, in a fantasy setting, with the right lighting and so the result is' beautiful. But wonderful results the photographer gets even using the 85 mm f 1.8 which costs 6 times less. In order to make a fair comparison we should then have to repeat the exact same guy shot with two lenses and check on a 27 "screen at a 100% crop. And I'm sure the difference would be negligible anyway. So, given that I do not live in photography, which I must not take and sell photos to an international factory, which probably will use the lens to capture more the recitation of Christmas my children rather than Naomi Cambpell, and that if one day I were to do the limits will be more my that those equipment, I acceptedgladly advice the shopkeeper. Back home I immediately put to the test the new lens with taking the bad artificial lighting. Results are definitely evident. The pictures come out clear already at 2.8 and have a blurred very nice and pleasant. The stabilizer does its duty, with the only light bulbs at home 1/30 the image is perfect. Certainly if my intentions were those to take pictures of the rally, motocross, sandstorms or challenging situations and probably a tropicalization a more massive construction may be helpful. But at the time I have left in my pocket 900 Euros profits to buy more, pay some beautiful models or maybe just take a trip to take with the new lens! sent on December 11, 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
