backup
Photoshop actions
 
 


  Reviews by: Toronto_Tim  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Toronto_Tim to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM

ef24mmf_14l_1_
Review Date: Feb 18, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,126.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, light, bokeh.
Cons:
Expensive, hard to use (for amateurs).

I bought this lens for low light and non-flash photography. The results have been not so positive. But this is due mainly to my lack of knowledge about how to work with this lens.

Because when I've gotten it to work right, the results have been stunning! I've also handheld this lens 100% of the times which makes it more challenging to get a sharp picture.

When there is sufficient light and it's sunny outside, this lens works just as well as the 24-70. Of course, the main reason I bought this lens was the f/1.4.

Was it worth it? I must add the non-L 24mm f/2.8 USM is $900 cheaper. In the end, I gave this lens a "9" rating because of what it can do in the right photographer's hands, just not mine.

Tim


 
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

ef_24-70_28u_1_
Review Date: Feb 15, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,128.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp (especially during sunny daylight), contrast.
Cons:
Expensive, heavy, & draws unwanted attention.

I'm more than happy with this lens! It has provided me with mostly excellent photographs. I've taken a lot of bad photos but that's due to my lack of photographic skills.

It is NOT that heavy to carry around all day. And it's definitely no where near as heavy as the 70-200 lens. The 24-70 zoom range is perfect for everyday photography. My "everyday" photography involves people, cityscapes, and natural landscapes (waterfalls, gorges, valleys).

The 24-70 hits the "sweet spot". The 16-35 is also very good but it doesn't provide enough reach for me. I love the 70-200 but I cannot justify paying so much for it when I would only use it less than 10% of the times.

I owned a Rebel 2000 before I purchased the 10D. Along with the Rebel 2K, I owned the kit lens and a 75-300 lens. I used to think the 75-300 lens produced excellent pictures (circa 2000).

After I purchased the 24-70, I compared pictures taken with both. There is no doubt that an "L" lens produces superior quality photographs. The first thing that struck me was the contrast! It was clearly noticeable as compared to the 75-300. The next thing was the sharpness.

Simply put, the pictures produced from the 75-300 look like they were taken by a point-and-shoot user. The pictures from the 24-70 look like they belong on a post card! And this is with the automatic setting!

I haven't had as much success in lowlight or indoor photography but I'm still learning! All I can say is, for a beginner like me, the 24-70 lens is perfect!

I was VERY skeptical about paying so much money for an "L" lens. But I'm happy to say I felt much better after seeing the results!

Tim