Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: Bert 1969  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Bert 1969 to your Buddy List
Canon EOS 1D Mark III

Review Date: Jan 31, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Superb handling, ergonomics, great IQ needs little post processing, very fast AF, build quality, battery live is great. etc.
Auto WB could be a litlle beter, but thats almost the case with every body. Is it a pitty that display only has 230.000 pixels which makes it sometimes hard to check the sharpness of details.

At that time is was coming from a Nikon D200 and I switched to Canon because of the far beter High Iso controle because I'm mainly shooting at low light conditions.

Read about the 1D MarkIII and its superb High Iso. Bought a 30D for the time being and ordered the MarkIII (which was not on the market yet). In August 2007 I got the call fom the store that the Mark III was in but at that time I heard and read a lot about the AF problems so I cancelled the MarkIII and bought the 40D in October of that year.

But coming from the Nikon D200 a was not happy with the 30D/40D body, it did not feel right in my hands (except from the much better High Iso). So when finally the AF problems were fixed I bought the 1D MarkIII in May 2008.

Now after 9 months I can say that I do not regraet it one day. I LOVE THIS CAMERA. I completly forgot the Nikon Bodies. They say once you have owned a 1D you never go back and I think that's no lie. Best camera I ever owned.

I can imaging the negative comments this cam got due to the AF problems and the long time it took to fix it. But it is a pitty now that this camera is fixed it is too "old" to review it again and many new cameras came after this cam.

But I honestly think it can still match the new camera's of today like the D3 and the D700.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Review Date: Dec 30, 2008 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: IQ, build, contrast.
So many different qualities of this lens out there.

I posted a review in may this year about this lens, is was pretty negative. At that time I had owned 1 lens, sold it and tried 2 lenses later on. They all were (too) soft.

2 months ago I tried another one and the same story again.

But today I was in the store and saw the lens again and tought, lets give it another try. Made some photo's and this was a different story. Put mine 50mm on the cam took a shot and took the same shot with the 24-70 both on f/2.8.
Looked at the computer in the store and there as hardly any difference (and my 50mm is a good one).

So I took the change and bought the 24-70.

At home I took serveral testshots with the 50mm and the 24-70mm and everytime the same result.

Mounted my best lens (the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS) put it on 70mm and took some shots again and took the 24-70mm put it on f/4.0 and 70mm. is was falling of my chair, the results were the same.

Finally after 1.5 year and the 5th lens it tried I have found a good one. I'm really happy now while I'm writting this review but be honest, it is a sad story that only 1 of 5 lenses I had/tried is preforming the way it should.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

Review Date: May 16, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $380.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, fast, good colours overall good performance.
For this price not really

For this price it is a very good lens, many be a little CA but not really a problem.
Very fast AF. Sharp at f/2.8.
What can I say, for this price it is a top performer.
Wished some of my zoom L-lenses were as sharp as this one on f/2.8

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Review Date: May 16, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $360.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Performance, price, sharpness, colours
For this price nothing

This is a good lens especially considering the price/performance. Sharp from f/2.8.
Gives me much better pictures than a couple of L-zoom lenses I owned.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

Review Date: May 16, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $950.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Good build, weight, great colours and contrast, fast, very good IS and sharp, sharp and sharp again straigth from f/4.0.
IS little bit loud but this is hardly a negative point considering the positive aspects.

What a joy to use this lens, it is the best zoom lens of Canon I've ever owned. Before this lens I had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Then a friend of my gave my his f/4.0 IS version to try out and I was really amazed of the perfomance of this lens.
This lens outperforms the f/2.8 version lens when there both on f/4.0 especially on 200mm.

Not forgetting to mention the weight almost half the weigth of the f/2.8 version and that is very nice when you walk around for a couple of hours mounted on a EOS 1D.

Sold the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.0 version.

If you not absolutly need f/2.8 this is the lens to buy.


Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Review Date: May 16, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

Pros: Build quality, colour, contrast, very attrative range of 24-70mm
far too many bad (too soft) copies out there, still have not found a good sharp one.

I did own this lens for 6 months and it was very soft at f/2.8 and (too) soft at f/4.0. Sold it 5 months ago to a guy which wanted it to use from f/5.6 and up, so this was not a problem for him.

But I really miss the 24-70mm for my concert photography.

So today I went to the store and told the salesman my history with my previous 24-70mm and that I first wanted to take sample pictures to see if they had a good copy.

Got a new one out of the box and we took pictures outside and the same story again very very soft at f/2.8 and still soft at f/4.0. Then we took the demo lens which was behind the counter and this one even performed worse.

After he told me that he was not planning to go through his whole stock of 24-70mm lenses to find me a good copy I left the store.

So till now I've seen 3 copies of this lens performing bad.

Tomorrow I'm going to another store to try a (some if they let me) copie(s) there, if they still don't perform good, I'm going to give up on this lens. It feels a little bit like a having a winning ticket in a lotery when you can find a good copy but for what I can read here they must absolutly be out there..........somewhere.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

Review Date: May 13, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,600.00 | Rating: 3 

Pros: Good contrast, great build.
Very poor performance from f/2.8 to f/5.6 especially in the corners.

I bought this lens because I was not happy with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens I had, sold that one and bought a prime 50mm f/1.4.

But now I was missing a wide angle lens so I bought this 16-35mm II f/2.8 after reading serveral reviews.

My main photography is concert, events and people so I need the f/2.8 or f/4.0.

I'm very disappointed about the performance of this lens
at f/2.8 at any distance it is soft in the center and very soft in the corners.

At f/4.0 is starts performing a little bit better but far from good at 24mm, 16mm and 35mm are still bad.

At f/5.6 it is still bad at 16mm, almost good at 24mm and at 35mm a little better then at 16mm.

For people who are making landscape picture from f/5.6 or smaller this might be a good lens but I didn't buy a f/2.8 lens that starts performing at f/8.0

For this price you might expect a better product.

recently i had to make a picture of a band in the dressingroom and they lined up for the picture, I took it at 18mm f/3.2.
Next to my a young guy was asking if I could take a picture with his cam of the band and him.
He had a Nikon D50 with a 18-70mm f/3.5-f/5.6, looking a the display of both cams I could see that the picture I took with his cam was much sharper than it was with my cam.

So I was standing there with my 16-35mm lens which costs more than twice the D50+18-70 lens together and I was not able to make a better picture.

Very sad, this is the second time I'm very disappointed in a Canon L zoomlens, the other one was the 24-70 which was not useable at f/2.8 and still very soft at f4.0.

It is not my camera because my 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 very, very sharp at f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4.0 IS is deadly
sharp right at f/4.0

Maybe I will take a look at the 14mm and the 24mm, it looks like Canon is not able to produce f/2.8 zoom lenses which perform good at f/2.8.