about | support

  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

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

Pros: Great value, nice handling, decent AF
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

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

Pros: comes with a good soft case
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

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

Pros: SHARP SHARP SHARP great price
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

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

Pros: One of a kind Good focal length, sharp

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

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

Pros: good zoom range acceptable sharpness, great IS, light weight
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

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

Pros: Razor sharp. Great color and contrast
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.