Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: Jan Waumans  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Jan Waumans to your Buddy List
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM

Review Date: Oct 4, 2011 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated


Correction to my previous post: the zoom turns the same way as other lenses do, my apologies

The lens is very sharp full open from 17mm f:2.8 to 55mm f:4, I will keep it as walkaround lens.

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM

Review Date: Sep 29, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $220.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: fast and correct AF, good image stabilisation, sharp on wide angle at f:2.8, short focus distance
not sharp at f:4 on the long side, big and heavy, yellowish color tone compared to Canons

Since I was very pleased with the Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX and 180mm macro EX, I bought this lens second hand to see if it could replace my good old but dying EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM (own Canon 10-22, 70-200L f:4, 100-400L, 400L 5.6, 60 2.8 macro, 18-55 IS kitlens, use also 17-40L and 50 1.4).
Hesitated to buy the EF-S 17-55 f:2.8 since it is a lot of money for the short tele reach, I have an UWA, and the 30 and 60mm primes for low light.
Other candidate was the EF-S 15-85 but f:5.6 at 85mm is rather poor.
Used it 2 weeks on 7D and 40D (> 1000 shots).
Had to give AF microadjust +6 on the 7D (this is OK for my 40D since it has the same offset with other lenses).
The lens looks and feels solid and heavy, but the zoom ring turns not very smooth and the wrong way (certainly no need for the zoom lock).
The "HSM" AF is fast and exact, also in tracking playing children, but there is no override as with the a real USM.
Sharpness and especially contrast are better than the kitlens, and on the long end it is sharper than the EF 24-85.
Side by side the Sigma photos show a much warmer tone.
I also made some macros of butterflies, sharpness was very satisfactory for an occasional close-up and the IS can be an advantage.
This lens certainly replaces the kitlens and my 24-85 on the cheap, but it adds more volume and weight than justified for the quality.

Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF 193

Review Date: Jun 3, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $50.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Well build, sharp, cheap
Quite heavy barrel distortion, slow AF, unpractical focus range on a crop

I bought it with some other items for 50 EUR just for fun (I have an EF-S 10-22)
At f:8 it is very sharp even in the corners
Not for architecture
I wish I had this lens 10 years ago on my FF film EOS !

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Review Date: Oct 6, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $590.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Amazing lack of distortions and CA for this wide, sharp, solid built

I have this lens for 10 months now on my 400D

I can compare with a 17-40L and do not see any quality or build difference - except the position of zoom and focus rings Smile

This is a very good UWA lens

No vignetting with a Hoya Super HMC PRO1 UV(0) filter

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Review Date: Aug 19, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: very good colours and contrast, sharp, still compact
zoom lock

This lens is my most expensive lens and my first L

After evaluating all intermediary solutions, I found this one second hand last month to replace the old EF 75-300

My interest is nature photgraphy as an amateur and I have a 400D with EF-S 10-22, EF 24-85, EF 100 2.8 macro and EF 50 1.8

In this short time I have enough good fotos at 400mm wide open to be satisfied with the lens, I see it not much better at f:8, f:11 is worse
Despite IS, at 400mm I have no really sharp shots under 1/400
DOF is limited too, this lens needs good technique
I have insufficient references to compare the quality, but I receive less critiques on sharpness

With an EF25 extension tube the focus is from 1.20m-6.50m at 400mm

I can pack the lens mounted on the body together with 3-4 others in a Slingshot 200AW

For my needs I think I made the best choice

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: Feb 11, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: IS, compact, 300mm
Optical difference with 75-300 insufficient

After reading the very positive test results, I compared this lens with my old 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 II (non USM).

On a tripod the sharpness and contrast is better wide open, but at 300mm f:8 the difference does not convince me to choose this lens as an upgrade for the old one.

IS allowed me to take some sharp indoor shots at 70mm 1/8 sec, outdoors the advantage was much less, even in winter.

The 70-300 IS gives a lot for the money, but the 75-300 (IS or not) stays a valid second-hand alternative (even 70-300's already go for 350 second hand)

Personally I expected more from this lens and (un)fortunatily will have to spend the money for a 70-200 f/4 L IS + 1.4 TC.

My interest are travel, hiking, landscape and nature, I use a 400D with EF-S 10-22mm USM, EF 24-85mm USM, EF 50mm 1.8 II and EF 100mm 2.8 Macro USM as other lenses.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Review Date: Dec 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Very sharp, good distance to object, size does not change when focusing
Weight and size, possible addiction to good lenses

I bought this lens second hand (with hood & UV filter) for my new 400D since I wanted a real macro lens all my life
The lens behaves exactly as described in the reviews: it is very sharp and the autofocus is effective for macro subjects when helped in the range by hand
I would not buy it for portraits or landscape because of the slow autofocus, but if I have to choose between this lens and my old 75-300 1:4-5.6 II (120g less weight, same length) I will take the macro on a hike
Chances are 2x crops from this lens stay competitive with the zoom, not to mention distortion, CA, contrast and resistance to flare
I am pleased with my purchase

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II

Review Date: Nov 6, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 4 

Pros: Low price
Low contrast

I've got this lens with my EOS 500N 10 years ago.
On the 400D the resolution is IMO comparable to the 18-55 kit lens, while contrast and colors are weaker.
This can be corrected afterwards.
Not bad as a temporary solution at a (very) low price.
It takes photos !

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Review Date: Nov 6, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: Good resolution and contrast, borders too, light, real ring USM
Some wobbling when zooming out (due to age ?)

I bought this lens (champagne version) second (n-th ?) hand for a 400D to avoid the kit lens, and plan to add the EF-S 10-22 (X-mas !)
Resolution comparable to 50mm 1.8 II.
Underestimated, good value at 30-50% of new price