about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Digital Matt  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Digital Matt to your Buddy List
Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 Tripod Legs

product_83
Review Date: Feb 6, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $138.13 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Rugged, tall, sturdy, very adjustable, even for low to the ground shooting.
Cons:
None

These are a great set of legs. I'm confident when I set $2000 + on top of these legs, that it will be safe. They are very adjustable and great for outdoors, landscape, cityscape, whatever. I can get very low to the ground, or very high, over my head, and everywhere in between. The center post is removable and can be mounted sideways for shooting down over things. Just a very versatile set of legs.

Anyone who complains that these are too heavy for hiking needs to get in shape. I had a heart transplant 7 years ago and I hike with these legs combined with a 3265 Grip Action Ball Head, a 300D, 20D, 70-200 f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 17-35mm, up and down hills, mountains, you name it. If I can manage, so can you. Hiking isn't supposed to be easy.


 
Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical

sp-af17-35
Review Date: Aug 7, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $470.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Sharp, well built, 2.8 max aperture, takes font screw in filters.
Cons:
Slow, noisy af (not really a problem though), barrel distortion, (again not a huge problem)

I too bought this as a replacement for the Digital Rebel kit lens. So far it seems much sharper than 18-55, and the build quality is much higher for sure. It's heavier, and the zoom ring and focus ring are of nice thick rubber, and are tight, smooth. The af is noisy and rather slow, but if you are shooting mostly landscapes, which I am, you aren't really needing to change your focus very far ever.

I liked the fact that it took front mounted screw in filters. The Canon equivalents only use rear gelatin filters, and it's just not something I wanted to get into. There is barrel distortion present, like in all wide angle zooms, but it's not terrible, and it does seem to be a bit better than that 18-55. I noticed slight chromatic abberations on one shot that was in direct sunlight, but it was very minimal, versus the 18-55, where I noticed it rather often, and much worse. Flaring is not a huge problem either, like some people complained about in the Canon L lenses.

Overall, this is a cheap alternative to Canon L glass, and after reading reviews of the Canon L wide angle zooms and seeing more negative reviews than I cared for, I took a chance on this and I'm glad I did. At $470, it's quite worth the money. I highly recommend it.