user12181
| sent on 06 Maggio 2015
Pros: See below what I say about its use in landscape photos. I am not the one who has to say something new about its ability to resolve it. I do not know chromatic aberrations that bother me and I appreciate the possibility of extremely precise focus in close ups, thanks to a very long focus throw (almost 720 degrees), and also over long distances, where the degrees available are reduced a lot. The relative resistance that opposes the focus dial has, if anything, the advantage of hindering accidental shifts of focus. With the Elpro 1:2-1:1 I still can't see a quality depleting. Note that the focal length at the minimum focus distance remains almost unchanged (it seems to me around 95mm), unlike the current macros in which it shortens significantly.
Cons: The most noticeable is the flare in the appearance of haze, a veil with a collapse of contrast in the backlight shots, with the sun in the lens (or even close). It could be used for expressive purposes, but it remains a limit, sometimes quite serious. In more than one case it has puzzled me, in the close ups of alpine flowers, the nervous blur to the more open diaphragms around F/5.6. Double margins also appear, but this does not happen to F/2.8 that I learned to use and gives beautiful results, in terms of both sharpness and blurring, with light yield pleasantly bollosa, as said, at full opening. To more closed diaphragms probably for some would be preferable a greater number of slats of the diaphragm, I do not yet know what to think of the perfect heptagons (above, in the "Optical features", it reads that the diaphragm is six slats, it is an incorrect fact, has seven) that appear on the blurred high lights, even if they would tend not to mind. You could then argue that it stops at RR 1:2, with the Elpro dedicated however comes to 1.1:1. Here, however, one could complain that the working distance is reduced to 9.5 cm from the Elpro and 7.2 cm from the lampshade (of the Elpro). I don't care that the animals eclipse, I didn't take it for them, but it bothers me that it tends to slam more easily on the rocks and imposes a proximity of the human body to the object that accelerates the process of melting the most delicate formations of ice or snow.
Opinion: I have not given any numerical votes, it is a method that gives completely unreliable results. I copy with changes a judgment that I wrote in a section of the Forum, can perhaps serve someone: "The resolution seems to me perfect on the D800E. The lens is not only optimized on the close distance, but looks great (which is the absolute superlative of good) even at infinity. The colors are all very well separated, for the landscapes I would say too much (will this be the "dryness", which may not even please, of which I read somewhere?). One surprising thing is the obvious ability to separate the planes, in an infinite shot each of the trees that line the mountains is evidently separated from the others and in itself closed. This is also why I say that the conversion to BN of these landscapes can give great satisfaction if you manage to place each object in an area or subzone of gray (more or less). In my eyes, the ability to separate the mountains from the clouds that envelop or cover them in part is now attested. You can clearly perceive the space that separates them, even in conditions not particularly favorable of light, even in the live view I noticed this effect, to know how to exploit would make a huge contribution to photos in the mountains, even if imposing a homage, however pleasant, to the romantic taste of the sublime." |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
