Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Good Price, Excellent Build and Image Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
I've owned this lens for more than 2 years. I feel like it is up there with Canon L lenses quality in terms of build and image quality. This is my go to macro lens on a fullframe body. The only thing I wish is maybe IS which can come in handy sometimes but other than that it is an excellent value and performer all around.
Most of the macro shots in this gallery were taken with this lens:
http://www.blypix.com/Album/Art/Flora.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
this lens is one of the most interesting buys i've made. it is fairly specialized but very effective when you find the right subject. it is also sharp for a wide angle lens. i find that at f/5.6 it is already razor sharp but still not bad wide open. here is a set of pictures from princeton unversity that were mostly taken with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157604477874253/detail/
buy it and enjoy the fisheye effect on a fullframe!
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM
|
|
Review Date: Apr 8, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
colors, contrast, build
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
i previously posted a review of this lens. i took it out for the second time this weekend and it is even more impressive than i originally thought. the colors and contrast from this lens are simply unbelievable. it is without a doubt worth every cent i paid for!
here are some more examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157604407944054/detail/
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp at 16mm, light, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at 35mm, flares like crazy
|
|
i recently got this lens for my 1d. i chose this over the m2 because of the 77mm filter size. this lens is very sharp on the wide end but a tad soft on the long end. it also flares easily compared to the canon 10-22 lens. i use this primarily for landscape so shooting at f/8 or smaller gives me excellent results at all focal lengths.
here are a couple of fall pictures i recently took with this lens:
1. fall in vermont:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157602485887165/detail/
2. fall in new paltz, ny:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157602588709235/detail/
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 6, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
i've previously posted a review of this excellent lens. just to give you an idea of the quality of this lens, i put the 1.4 canon teleconverter on and took it out to the philly zoo yesterday.
http://flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157601246635381/detail/
all shots are were hand held with the 1.4 tc on all the time. notice that some of the shots (monkeys) were made at iso 1600 and the shutter was still not fast enough for handholdability but the IS saved me on those shots.
as you can see, even with the tc on, the pic degradation is minimal to none. this is a very high quality lens that produces excellent results.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, light, contrasty
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
i've had this lens for almost a year now. i use this primarily for portraits, zoos, and flower shots. this lens is sharp and contrasty right out of the box. i love this lens as much as the canon 17-55, i.e. i know it will give me consistent and good results whenever i use it.
the following set of pics are some sample closeups that i've recently done using this lens (except for a few shots, most of these were taken with the 70-200):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157600642625653/detail/
i did try the f/2.8 version a couple of times at the store and found out that that one is a real brick to carry and handhold. i know some people think the f/2.8 feels like the "real" lens but i do a lot of walking (sometimes continuously for 4-6 hours a day) and the f/2.8 is not something that i would want to lug around unless i have at least a monopod. other than the missing extra stop, the f/4 seems every bit as good as the f/2.8 - at half the weight of the f/2.8.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $675.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light, fast, good price
|
|
Cons:
|
tad soft
|
|
i just got this lens recently and found it to be very useful on my xti. it is light and fast but i find it a tad soft (compared to my other lenses) which is to be expected for a wide angle. flare seems well controlled and as long as you are careful with your orientation, you can get very nice wide-angle pics.
i took it out for a spin right after i got it and you can see some sample pics here (note: a few pics were taken with my 24-105 but most of these were with the 10-22):
http://flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157600465798863/detail/
on a crop camera like the xti, this is a fun lens to own with almost no alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
wide focal range, light, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
tad soft for an L
|
|
I use this lens on a drebel xti. The wide focal range (24-105) and the IS are what I like most about this lens. Color and contrast are very good but this lens is a tad soft but usable at f/4 (compared to my 17-55 and 70-200). I sent mine to canon and they said it was according to specs so I assume that this is just the way the lens is. After all, I can only imagine how they were able to make a fixed f/4 lens all the way from 24 to 105 - you'd have to compromise on something!
I wouldn't hesitate to take only this lens if I go on vacation or when lighting is good. The IS works very well and I've used it with great success inside churches or when there is challenging light. I find that the 24 end is sometimes not wide enough (probably not a problem on a 5D) but the 105 end is definitely a lifesaver a lot of times.
Here are a few sample pics I took using this lens when I was on vacation last year:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157594465123139/detail/
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
I have previously posted a review of this excellent lens. I have another set of pics that further demonstrate the IS, low-light, and wide-end/landscape capabilities of this lens.
http://flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157600285172822/detail/
If you take a look close look at the EXIF information on each pic, you'll see that it is either taken on its 17-end, or at ISO 1600, or using slow shutter (~1/15 sec).
Note that all these pics were taken handheld so I had to make aperture setting compromises in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
|
|
|
|
|
