Save & earn with MPB; trade-in and buy pre-loved

Activity

CorradoTopi

...Read More
Profile

A quick view of CorradoTopi's recent activity.

  • No photo comments.
  • No topics found.
  • XT1 RAW files

    This advice is probably far too late, but what the hell, it's Saturday afternoon and the sun is shining... You could also download Adobe's free DNG converter. This will ...
    by Andy_Curtis | Last Post | Unread
    Replies: 7
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 R LM WR Lens Review

    Hi John,

    Thank you for the very interesting and useful review. A minor point: there are a few more alternatives than the ones listed.

    Among the AF alternatives there are:

    Tokina 23/1.4
    Viltrox 23/1.4

    Among the MF alternatives there are:

    Andoer 25mm f1.8
    Hengyijia 25mm f1.8
    Kamlan 21mm f1.8
    Kipon IBERIT 24mm f2.4
    Meike 25mm f0.95
    Meike 25mm f1.8
    Meike 25mm f2
    Meike 25mm T2.2 Cine
    Neewer 25mm f0.95
    Neewer 25mm f1.8
    Pergear 25mm f1.8
    Samyang / Rokinon 21mm f1.4
    SLR Magic MicroPrime 25mm T1.5
    Zonlai 22mm F1.8
    7Artisan 25mm f0.95
    7Artisans 25mm f1.8
    TTArtisan 23mm f1.4

    Best,
    • 11 Mar 2022 7:13PM
  • Posted on: Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Lens Review


    Quote: I was a bit puzzled though whether your comments were for real? I've never read a review that mentioned lack of VR on an M-lens.


    Not even on Leica lenses specifically, on any manual lens on a manual rangefinder camera it is close to a physical impossibility. It would be like saying that one of the cons is that it has not wheels and no windscreen!
    • 1 Feb 2022 12:21PM
  • Posted on: Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH Lens Review

    Apologies, but 4.5 to a lens that does nearly 5000 lw/ph and "no VR" among the cons of a manual lens on a manual rangefinder camera? It feels like kind of a joke.
    • 31 Jan 2022 7:47PM
  • Posted on: Sony Alpha 7 IV Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera Review

    Dear John.

    What happened to the flash speed of the mechanical shutter? Not mentioned anywhere, yet quite important!

    Regards


    • 24 Nov 2021 7:37PM
  • Posted on: Samyang AF 12mm F/2 X Lens For Fujifilm X-Mount Pricing & Sample Photos

    Please Samyang, release the spectacular 135/2 (and 2.2 Cine) in AF next!
    • 29 Oct 2021 3:27PM
  • Posted on: Voigtlander 110mm F/2.5 Macro APO Lanthar Lens Review

    Thank you for the excellent review. The real issue is: when are they going to release this lens for X-mount Wink .... If you have any way of feeding this back to Voigtlander (well, Cosina of course).
    • 29 Oct 2021 9:41AM
  • Posted on: Nikkor Z DX 16-50mm F/3.5-6.3 VR Lens Review

    I am confused the editor choice for a lens that is fairly dark (50/6.3) and has a LW/PH just above 3000, which is something you would expect from a Micro Four Third lens, not a DX. Then what do we do with the Fuji 18-55 to which you gave four stars, yet it outperforms the this lens in all respect, and it costs about the same (even if it is a 2013 lens)? I am really confused ....
    • 17 Sep 2021 9:05PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR Review

    By looking at the review, John, it should have deserved an essential .... why did you not give it top mark?
    • 4 Jun 2021 6:54AM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro Review

    Hi John,

    How do you compare the MTF of this objective with the MTF of the Fujinon 90/2? They ave completely different scales!!!!

    Best,
    • 29 Jan 2019 11:12PM
  • Posted on: Olympus PEN E-PL9 Full Review

    Dear Joshua Waller,

    You forgot to consider the XT20, your editor's choice, as one of the most valid alternatives!!!!

    https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-x-t20-expert-review-30487

    Best Regards
    • 4 Jun 2018 9:26PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 60mm f/2.4 R Lens Review

    Thanks a lot John! I though Gary was still around to help out. Apologies for the mistake. Thanks a lot for the excellent reviews in any case.


    Quote:Sadly we don't have Gary's figures, so that isn't possible. I have run a few comparison tests of my own where I have re-tested a lens and the descriptions such as "excellent" and so on are fairly close with old and new tests. I'm afraid that's the best I can do without re-testing the lenses the new way.
    • 8 Jan 2018 9:39PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 60mm f/2.4 R Lens Review

    Dear Gary, John,

    I own the 60mm/2.4 lens, which I use extensively for botanical macro with and without the Fuji extension tubes. I like it very much, but I would like to complement it with something longer. I would like to compare this review with the review of the 80mm/2.8 recently published by John. Any chance you could translate the MTF chart from this version with "literary" labels to the LW/PH version with values of LW/PH, so that we can compare the results?

    Best Regards


    Quote:It does seem extraordinary that a macro lens can suffer from such internal reflections when used as a macro lens. We are used to macro lenses being just superb and that should be the whole story really.
    • 8 Jan 2018 5:37PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro Review

    Dear John,

    They get similar resolution figures centre of the lens, but Fuji is much more planar, nothwithstanding the fact Fuji is working on a 24MP APS-C sensor and Sony is working on a 42MP FF sensor.

    In other words, it seems the Fuji lens is optically superior, and a clear technical winner particularly for a high magnification macro lens where resolution and planarity are important features.

    Yet, the final rating in terms of stars (and of Editor's Choice) is lower for the Fuji. I understand the reasoning behind the VFM, but the optical superiority, particularly for macro, seems to balance out the higher cost and make the lens deserving a higher star score.

    Thanks again for the very good reviews.

    Best,



    Quote:When you say a higher score I'm not sure whether you mean higher resolution figures or more stars in the summary. If the former, then figures will be in a higher range for a 42MP sensor than for a 24MP one, but we can still relate the performance of a lens to its theoretical maximum. If the star ratings, these are bands of performance and, adding up the various ratings and then averaging them will give us an overall rating. Both lenses score very highly in performance and handling, both are close in terms of features offered but the Fuji does lag a little in terms of VFM. This is mainly where the Sony gets a slight advantage in being truly excellent and rather more accessible in terms of cost.

    Hope that helps!

    John

    • 8 Jan 2018 4:58PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro Review

    Dear John,

    Thank for the review, I always find your reviews useful.

    I have some questions and comments: this lens on a 24MP Fuji X-T2 seems to outresolve or resolve very similarly to the Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS mounted on 42MP Sony Alpha A7R II. Furthermore, it is much more planar than the above lens.

    I do not udnerstand then why the Sony gets a higher score than this lens.

    Best Regards



    Quote:I can remember a time when some USA photo magazines would include dismantling a camera as part of a test/review, thus commenting in detail on how it was made. This stopped a long time ago, whether or not because manufacturers didn't like such a degree of mistreatment of the products they loaned out or because of increasing complexity of the products I do not know. The point I'm making is that in the limited time products become available for review there has to be a limit as to how much can be included, and indeed how much people want to read about. This review tells us how well the lens performs on a variety of subjects, shows the data measured, comments on the handling and other general observations that hopefully give us the conclusion that it's excellent, albeit expensive.

    As regards the macro capability, it is of course so much more and can cover all the other short telephoto applications. The picture of the stamps has been included to show the field of view, which is comparable with a similar picture I have started including in the reviews. We can all relate to the size of a stamp. This also shows it is highly rectilinear and that it renders the texture very well, which indicates the high resolution. I will see about finding some other suitable subjects that are readily available for next time around with a macro lens.

    As regards the OIS, I'm not sure that this is very useful at macro distances anyway. I would be putting the camera firmly on a tripod, in which case OIS would be switched off. If chasing butterflies in the field, for example, OIS might still be switched off as it won't stop subject movement and any delay in it locking on would be undesirable. Having said that, if you have some application in mind in this respect do please let me know and I'll see if it can be incorporated in the future.

    Hope that helps

    John

    • 8 Jan 2018 2:43PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD Lens Review

    Dear Gary,

    Thanks a lot, this is exactly what I was trying to gather. Thanks for excellent explanation from the physics point of view. I expected the diffraction effects to play an important part but I did not imagine such a big difference .... I wonder how much of it is due to variation between samples and how much to diffraction effects.

    I think I will go for the non APD version because of its better light gathering abilities and of the phase detection auto focus. It is really not an easy choice because they are both exceptional lenses, but from the Fuji documentation it seems that the light gathering ability is reduced to around f 1.7 and contrast auto focus does not seem to be able to cope well with low light moving subject photography .... in an ideal world I would buy them both Smile

    Best,
    • 29 Jan 2015 4:20PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD Lens Review

    @themak: they did not cripple it, it is a technological choice. If you put the filter in, then phase detection autofocus does not work (apologies for writing phase contrast). See for example:

    http://www.fujivsfuji.com/56mm-f1pt2-vs-apd/
    http://www.fujirumors.com/xf-56mm-apd-vs-xf-56mm/
    http://blog.prophotosupply.com/2014/fujifilm-xf-56mm-f1-2r-apd-review-circle-confusion/

    • 28 Jan 2015 6:03PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD Lens Review

    @themak: I disagree. If phase contrast AF is not working, then the lens is not really usable for following moving objects or when the light is not really good and you are shooting in the field, e.g. for street photography and street portrait, hence you need to choose the non APD version. If that is the case, the use of the APD version is more limited. We are just thinking of going for the non APD version for that very reason, and would like to know Gary's opinion.
    • 28 Jan 2015 4:48PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R APD Lens Review

    Hi Gary,

    Thanks for the extremely useful review. Two questions:

    1) How is it optically and technically possible that the sharpness is higher than the non APD version???? They are the same lens, the only difference being the APD filter!!

    2) Phase contrast AF should not work with this lens because of the APD filter. Is that still the case? You do not seem to consider it in your review.

    Best,
    • 28 Jan 2015 3:53PM
  • Posted on: Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS Lens Review

    Dear Gary,

    Excellent job as usual.

    Two clarifications .... the lens is actually available also for Fuji X (see here http://www.samyang.co.uk/index.php/new-products/new-samyang-10mm-f-2-8) .... and from the review it sounded like you were going to give it a highly recommended. Why did you decide to go for recommended only?

    Best Regards
    • 16 May 2014 3:37PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4 Lens Review


    Quote:Mmmmm...impressive IQ in the 'real-world' shots, backed by those bar-chart figures !!......rather pricey compared
    to say the Tamron equivalent ??



    Well, it is not really comparable though .... the Tamron is a good entry lens, this is a professional grade lens (series XF).

    The comparable lens from Nikon costs 839, but does not go even to 10, but only to 12 see http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-12-24mm-f4-g-af-s-if-ed-dx-lens/p12893?cm_mmc=googlebase-extension-_-camera-lenses-_-nikon-fit-_-nikon-12-24mm-f4-g-af-s-if-ed-dx-lens_12893&utm_source=googlebase-extension&mkwid=1zdzcn2q&pcrid=22191572169&gclid=cpcyokx_4r0cfuvjwgodowkala.

    The Canon 8 - 15 /4 series L which insists on similar range and aperture is 1099 (it goes to 8 but does not go to 24)
    • 15 Apr 2014 6:19PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4 Lens Review

    Thanks a lot for the quick reaction Josh
    • 15 Apr 2014 2:12PM
  • Posted on: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 10-24mm f/4 Lens Review

    Dear Gary,

    I do not understand why it is rated only Recommended (and not highly recommended or essential) .... your review seems to talk about a truly outstanding lens. Could you explain the rationale behind your decision? By the way, thanks for the excellent string of reviews, they are very helpful in making decision on lenses.
    • 15 Apr 2014 12:48PM

Limited to latest 30 results.

No profile comments.

Limited to latest 30 results.