about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: David Collomb  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add David Collomb to your Buddy List
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX SD

atx116
Review Date: Feb 17, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Impressed by the sharpness. Built quality is very good. AF is fast and sielnt enough
Cons:

Great to have such a lens, the focal length and the max aperture f/2.8 really open new horizons to creativity. CA are present in certain conditions but not a pb for me.

 
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

efs60_28macro_usm
Review Date: Jul 8, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sharp, colors, very good for non macro, built quality, light
Cons:
none

Macro world is really great. The creativity it allows is endless and you don't need to travel to amazing places to find great subjects to shoot.

This lens is great in term of resolution / image quality / color.
Its macro use is excellent. Using it for other type of photos is also very good.

It was not a planed purchase but I am so happy I did it. I really like this lens and I can only highly recommend it.


 
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Jan 23, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Wide zoom range, colours, IS, quick AF, built quality, sharpness.
Cons:
A bit unbalanced on a 400d but that's the camera's fault not the lens'

I am new to photography as I bought my first SLR (a 400d) 10 months ago. I knew nothing about depth-of-field, aperture, composition, etc…

With the 18-55 of the pack I discovered all the basis of how to use the camera (background blur, composition rules, exposition, bracketing, etc…) .

I photograph landscapes, animals by the Thames (birds), family meetings, but my main subject is my very young daughter. That’s why I was feeling the need of a longer focal length (~85mm) for portraits.

What was the rationale for choosing the lens?
A prime lens was first considered for portrait but I realised that one lens to cover the majority of my shots was the goal.
I considered sigma 17-70 and canon 17-85 IS, the fact that they are specific to crop sensors was a hurdle for the future.

I looked back at the hundreds of pictures I took during the 5 first months and very few were shot with a focal length below 24mm. It was surprise to realise that.

So I looked at 24-** lens and finally I was left with the classical choice between 24-70 and 24-105. Note that the sigma 24-70 was a good option but as I was still making my mind, my budget was growing so I looked directly at L lenses.

The classical 24-70 and 24-105 choice?
What made the difference for me was the additional 35mm, for my portraits and the wild-(but used to be fed with bread)-life purpose. F/2.8 from 24-70 was important because quite a lot of pictures were taken indoor and because a baby is rarely steady. On the other hand IS allows you more creativity. So the 24-105 won.

What do I do with the 24-105 L IS now?
My needs for portraits are fulfilled; I can take pictures from further and less disturb my subject.
Close up are nice too, not exactly macro but still useful.
Landscape, the loss of wide angle has never bothered me so far but the colours depiction has always pleased me.
Sharpness and contrast are amazing; I have shot some swans and sea gulls and it is indeed nice to appreciate the detail of their plumages, the results again are very rewarding.
IS is really effective and allows more creativity.

So I hope my review will answer some of your questions. If your profile is similar to mine, you can’t be disappointed by this lens.