about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Aaron Hogsed  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Aaron Hogsed to your Buddy List
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM

05_03_1_
Review Date: Jun 12, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Great value, nice handling, decent AF
Cons:
Not "L" quality, frequent trips to repair dept

Good lens for the money. Very nice color and contrast, sharpness is not "L" quality but is very good.

I think the color was actually better than my 70-200 2.8L IS but the canon is sharper and has IS.

You can get some great deals on this lens used and even new it is a great value.



 
Sigma 17-35 mm f2.8-4.0 EX DG HSM

sigma1735
Review Date: Jun 12, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 2 

 
Pros: comes with a good soft case
Cons:
soft soft soft.

I have used several copies and seen results from others and this lens helped me convert to the "L" series.

The images were soft at almost every f stop and color was poor. Bad distortion problems. Most images were barely usable.

I would not reccomend this to anyone but the most casual shooter who has no concerns with image quality.


 
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro 1:1 Lens

05_105mmEX_1_
Review Date: Jun 12, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $359.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: SHARP SHARP SHARP great price
Cons:
slow AF for portraits

From a Canon "L" guy who usually looks down his nose at Sigma stuff, I have to admit this is one heck of a sharp lens. I have never heard of anyone complain about it.

Makes a great portrait lens if you don't mind the slower AF which is par for macros.


 
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L

ts243_1_
Review Date: Jun 12, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: One of a kind Good focal length, sharp
Cons:
price

I had heard all the talk about the softness of this lens but I have had nothing but sharp and contrasty images. It compares very favorably with my 17-40L which is very very sharp.

Not a lens for everyone, if you don't know what you're doing you can get some bad images, but leveled up and square it is a great lens. I do wish it were a bit wider maybe 20mm at least for interiors.


 
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Jun 10, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: good zoom range acceptable sharpness, great IS, light weight
Cons:
not 2.8. pricey for what it is , not as sharp as other L lenses

I enjoyed the focal length and the great IS for weddings and portraits. The BOKEH at 105 f4 is same as 70mm @2.8 due to telephoto compression. The AF was usually perfect.

My copy, which was very sharp around f8, was not spectacular at 4-5.6. The slow f4 was aggravating in low light and so I went with 24-70 2.8.

I miss the lightweight feel of the 24-105 and the IS but the 24-70 is sharper and of course faster.

I hope Canon will came out with a 24-105 2.8 L that is a true "L" lens. Until then I am sticking with the 24-70.


 
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

ef85mmf_18usm_1_
Review Date: May 31, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Razor sharp. Great color and contrast
Cons:
doesn't have the prestige of the 85 1.2L

This is likely the most lens I have ever got for the money. Incredible sharp and contrasty. Similar performance to my L series lenses and sharper than some L zooms. Very good performance at 1.8 even better at 2.8-5.6.