|
| sent on 24 Marzo 2015
Pros: 2.8 aperture throughout the frame, Tropicalisation, Construction, Mechanics, Reactivity AF, appearance, materials, colors, sharpness in the center
Cons: Sharpen the edges, Vignette (for me it is a PRO), distortion 16mm
Opinion: I decided to replace my trusty 17-40 f4 with this 16-35 2.8, despite having heard conflicting opinions and reviews not very satisfactory, mainly on the quality bordi.rnL'ottica I really like: the construction is equal to that of brother less bright, then the highest level, the mechanical internal focus is fantastic, and the AF is even faster than that of the 17-40: 2.8 is really fulmineo.rnA utilizzabilissimo - I thought not - and closing becomes more and more clear. The edges in fact are not high quality, but I knew that this was the price to pay to have this lens. At the center instead my copy af 2.8 is already very nitido.rnI genres that are practical reportage, street, still life and figure set, weddings and events: the maximum aperture of f4 had become not just a limit, especially in low light: with this in mind I will not have big problems, considering the fact that the edges will not have objects / subjects of note from evidenziare.rnQuello I noticed & egrave; vignetting high (which I like a lot so I consider it a PRO), and a distortion evident in 16mm.rnIn PP can overcome the drawbacks mentioned above by software with Photoshop or Lightroom.rnDevo admit - needing a bright lens - was the only logical choice: the second set cost much and what they say is not worth the money, as it is also full of difettucci edges compresi.rnNon I have not tested the resistance to flare, which was impressive in 17-40 .rnLa most pleasant thing optics is the blurry soft and gradual, which gives the picture a unique look: on this aspect of the 17-40 was back: the blur was hard and dry, in my opinion the most "obvious" and less artistic : surely the diaphragm 2.8 helps a lot in this circostanza.rnAltra pleasant surprise colors: warm and saturated (very similar to those of 17-40), and not as cold as someone had noted (typical yield "hot" Canon) is .rnUsato in reasonable numbers, and applies them all: both of which FF on APS-C is great: on 7d even eliundermines the "defects" thanks to CROP 1.6, and it becomes quite a handyman luminoso.rnAlla end a bell'upgrade my 17-40. I feel really consigliarlo.rnrnrn |
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.
