about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: ladomat2001  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add ladomat2001 to your Buddy List
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

ef50mmf_14usm_1_
Review Date: Jun 26, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, sharp , sharp. Fast. Very light and portable. Wonderful Bokeh and very goos resolution.
Cons:
Build quality is not the best , but ok. Not faster than 1.4 (?)

Firstly: I had 2 copies of 50L 1.2 that i sent back - one was backfocusing, other just didn't meet up with my expectations to a L prime.
My 24-70L 2.8 was sharper at all appertures (from 2.8) than the 50L.

The 1.4 50mm on the other hand met all my expectations - especially for this price. My Copy is sharper at 1.4 than the 1.2version at the same apperture.

If you are in for a low light capable 50mm lens- byu this one - it's 4 times cheaper, it 3 times lighter and it's only slightly slower but sharper that both 50L that i tested - what do you need the 50mm 1.2 if every second shot is out of focus and you have to send back and forth the copies hoping to get one that is ok??!


 
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

ef50lusm
Review Date: Jun 26, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Build Qulity, best bokeh (out of 50mm primes).
Cons:
Heavy, overpriced, major sharpness issues, purple fringing.

I purchased this lens to be able to shoot in low light wide open, or at least at f1.8. The biggest problem with this lens ist the sharpness and purple fringing. I tested twho copies: first was always backfocusing, the second was kind of blurry - even at f8 - f 11. The purple fringing was also quite present, a lot more than on my new 50 1.4 - That is in my opinion not acceptable for a L prime at this price. Instead i bought the 50 1.4 and it's really sharper at all appertures also at 1.4. So the L is only a freak, that you will need if you REALLY need the 1.2 - if you ca live with appertures below - you dont'need it.

 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

ef70-200lisusm
Review Date: Nov 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: lightweight, IS, sharpness, contrast, color,
Cons:
none

I sold my 70-200/2.8 non IS and baoughed this one. Why? Because it's much lighter, and you get more usable picture in low light situations - that it is sometime essential.
Also: It's nice, when you forget the weight of a lens, while shooting -it's easear to concentrate on the subject, rather than be busy with balancing your heavy equipement! The only think i am not a big fan og, it's the color of the lens: not real white, more grey and for the price the tripod mount could be supplied... but hey, you never get everything for free, so for that price it's a killer and best vlaue for money - i think.


 
Nikon D2Xs

d2x
Review Date: Dec 26, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: ***
Cons:
noise in high iso

actually the camera is useless for fashion or beauty over 200 ISO..
thats not really cool. People are actually comparing the d2x with 1dsmk II all the time. Well i sold the d2x and bought the 1dsmkII and i must say that the files of the canon look more "film" like and have the same look as my scanned 645 mamiya afd slides even better as there is no ugly grain. Nikon has more DOF and because of that the picture look more like digicam pics. I would not say D2X is not good, it's very good even, but not for all areas of photography. Also upsizing the files is easear with the canon as with D2X.
Thats why i give the camera 9 out of 10.


 
Nikon D2Xs

d2x
Review Date: Dec 26, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very well built, very intuitive controls, image quality, speed.
Cons:
LCD is not exact in reproducing color and exposition. Dynamic range could be better. Crop sensor.

I sold my D2X. It's a great camera for general use, for sports photographers and for news paper work. For Fashion and Portraits it's not the best. The dynamic range is good, but could be higher,
especially in highlight - you have to control the exposure, as the detail in overwxposed areas is often lost (maybe the result of the samll sensor?). The LCD Screen is really big and nice, but it shows not the correct colors and exposition - you will notice this, as soon as you open the raw files in nikon capture. Nikon Capture is slow and you have to pay four the full version (sorry but when you invest 6000 dollars in the kamera, the software shouldbe free!).
So now i switched to the dark side...


 
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II

1dsmarkii
Review Date: Dec 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Built like a rock, perfect "fit". Currently best Camera. Sold D2X and switched to the "dark" side. Film like look of the pictures, beats my mamiya AFD 645 hands down (scanned film). Superb dynamic range. Colors and Exposition is displayed quite correctly on the lcd.
Cons:
Small LCD Screen (compared to D2X). Need some time to get used to the menu options (but its a minor issue). Price.

Had boughed a D2X 6 moths ago. But since i rented the 1ds mk II for a job (the D2X resolution was not enough), i have to admit its a camera that suits me most. The look of the files is more Filim like, The resolution IS higher than D2X, because of the better dynamic range you can process the canon images more (if you postprocess your picture). There is more "material" to work with. THe nikon LCD is bigger, but mostly shows completely "wrong" colors and exposition - so you can't really judge the picture. Canon also has a battery charger where you can plug to batteries, and a AC conntector (if you work in studio its very handy - don't need battery).
If you are wildlife or sportfotographer - buy nikon. if you are fashion or in general studio photographer - it'S canon.
The AF works greate. I am really impressed - since i was a nikonian... Nikon delivers more crisp and sharp images "right out of the box" but if you post product your pictures like me it's much easear with the canon files. Last but not least - the dynamic range. What really was disappointing to me with nikon, were the often blown highlights and lost details in bright areas. Canon handles this issue very well - the detail is still there and also the noise is much less in higher iso than nikon. Both cameras are greate though, depending on your tasks.


 
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S DX

DX-17-55_L
Review Date: Sep 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Real Sharp, Good zoomrange, Professional feel, Greate contrast and colours
Cons:
maybe a bit heavy (tamron sheap plastic lens is less heavy but performs also "light")

I mostly shoot fashion and people, so i need good colours and goos contrast. First i baught Tamron 28-75 2.8 because of good reviews i've read about it. It might be a good lens, bu i wasn't really happy with, it was not tack sharp and the colours were not really goos. Also the zooming was not technically superb. Of course it's 1/3 of the price of nikon, but when it comes to image quality i think it pays off at the end of the day. The Nikon is the opposite of Tamron lens. It's tack sharp already at 2.8 and through the whole zoom range. It's built like a Tank and feels very professional. The zooming is precise and very smooth and quite. Did i mention the sharpness? It's the sharpest Lens i've tried (before buying i tried Sigma 18-60 and also Tamron 17-35). The other manufacturers are of course cheaper, but than when you have bought them, you think : what if i have bought the nikon? The answer is: it would be much, much better!
The price is high, but when you have so so pictures because of the cheap lens, than you would regret not have invested in better optics, expecially when shooting with D2X, as it performs best with best nikkors (60mm Micro is wonderful on D2X!!!).