 |
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build quality. Very sharp at f/2.8. Fast AF. Small, light, and affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is Canon's sleeper L lens. It is 99% as sharp as the 300 2.8L IS. I bought it to replace the 70-200 2.8L which was a huge dissapointment to me. The 200 prime is fantastically sharp at f/2.8. The AF is fast, silent, and accurate. One of my favorite lenses of all time.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build quality. Sharp. Fast, smooth & quiet AF. Affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is a bit much. I replaced it with the hood from the 24-105 which works great on a 1.3 crop camera.
|
|
|
Bought mine used and was pleasantly surprised to find it a great lens for the money. Can occasionaly be a tiny bit soft at f/4, but the lack of distortions (CA or otherwise) means a bit of USM in Photoshop sharpens the images up nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build quality. Sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Big, heavy, & expensive.
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my broken Tamron 28-75. This lens has had a reputation for spotty quality control so I was a bit hesitant. I bought a new copy and found it to be very sharp, even at f/2.8. The AF is fast and accurate on my 1D-MkII. If price, weight, and size are an issue, go for the Tamron. If you want the best lens overall, get the Canon.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build. Smooth quiet AF. Effective IS. Constant f/2.8 aperture. Impress-your-friends styling.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft at f/2.8, particularly at 200mm. AF not as fast as prime lenses. Not as sharp as prime lenses. Expensive for what you get.
|
|
|
I've owned, rented, and borrowed several copies of this lens with always the same result. Soft at f/2.8, particularly at 200mm. You have to stop it down to f/4 to get good results. I finally replaced mine with the 200mm f/2.8L II which is much sharper. If you really need an f/2.8 zoom, there's no other option. Yes, it's a staple of every news/sports photographer in the business, but many still hate it none-the-less. Hopefully the new version is an improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
