about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Jesper  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jesper to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Jan 19, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Very good build quality, weather sealed, good zoom range, very sharp (even at f/4), good contrast
Cons:
Vignetting on the wide end, even when stopped down

I'm using this lens on a full-frame camera (the 5D). I mainly do travel photography, where I usually don't have a lot of time to carefully set up a shot: I often need to capture moments quickly.

The zoom range of this lens is nice; I like the fact that it goes up to 105mm, and I would feel restricted by for example a 24-70. The build quality of this lens is very good, it feels very solid and the weather sealing is very useful to keep out dust and moisture.

It's an L lens, which means that I expect the lens to have great image quality across the whole zoom range and aperture range. With regard to sharpness and contrast it meets my expectations - even wide open the sharpness is very good, and colors are vivid and have good contrast.

However, this lens is not perfect. One major flaw is that it vignettes quite a lot on the wide end, between 24mm and approximately 30mm. Even when stopped down to for example f/8 the vignetting is very apparent at 24mm. I find this disappointing for an L lens. You probably won't notice the vignetting at all when using this lens on a camera with a crop factor.


 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

ef70-200lisusm
Review Date: Feb 20, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp, also at f/4. Very good IS. Good build quality, weather sealing. Relatively lightweight, relatively small.
Cons:
Expensive compared to the non-IS version.

The quality of this lens is excellent. It's very sharp, also at f/4 - as I expect from a Canon L lens. The build quality is very good, with weather sealing to protect the lens and camera from dust, dirt and moisture.

Size and weight are important factors for me, as I mainly make photos when I travel. The 70-200 f/4 L IS is a lot smaller and almost half the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

Compared to the 70-200 f/4 L without IS, this lens is expensive. I paid 930 for the version with IS, and the version without costs around 650 here. That's a lot of money to pay just for IS, but it's worth it - the IS works really well and makes the lens a lot more useable.

I use the lens on the 5D and together with the 24-105 f/4 L IS this makes a great travel photography kit.


 
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

1ef200mmf_28_1_1_
Review Date: Mar 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Extremely sharp wide open, good colours and contrast. Fast AF. Good build quality. Relatively light and small. Black, so it's not as conspicuous as other L tele lenses. Good price for such a great lens.
Cons:
It would have been even better with IS. No rubber weather sealing ring.

I wanted an L tele lens and considered the following options:

70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM - Great lens, but very big, heavy and expensive.
70-200 f/4 L USM - Also very good, but f/4 and no IS. I wanted at least f/2.8 or IS.
300 f/4 L IS USM - Ofcourse also very good, but big and heavy.

So I chose 200 f/2.8 L II USM because it's f/2.8, it's relatively light and small (only half the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS) and it's not too expensive (about the same price as the 70-200 f/4 L). I also got a Canon EF 1.4x extender with it, which makes it a very good 280mm f/4.

Ofcourse IS would have made this lens even nicer.


 
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

ef_100_28_1_
Review Date: Aug 10, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $449.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp, great image quality, very fast AF, light weight, internal focussing
Cons:
None

This is a great lens - the image quality is super, better than any of my zoom lenses and better than my EF 50 f/1.8 II.
I don't understand the comments below about slow AF. The AF is very fast with this lens on my 10D.


 
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

ef70-300_45-56doisu
Review Date: Aug 8, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,299.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Small, black, inconspicuous, good optical quality, very good image stabilizer, zoom lock
Cons:
High price, relatively heavy, not super sharp most of the time

I wanted a high quality telezoom lens.

I've read many reviews about the various Canon EF 75-300 lenses and in most reviews people complained about the lack of sharpness, especially at the long end.

I know the 70-200 L lenses are optically excellent, but because they are big, heavy, white and very conspicuous, they are not very practical in some circumstances - for example, when I'm on holiday it would attract too much attention and would be too big and heavy to carry around all day.

The 70-300 DO was just what I was waiting for: small, easy to carry around, inconspicuous and high optical quality. The 2-mode image stabilizer works great and another plus over the 70-200 L's is the extra range up to 300mm.

Con: It's expensive for a non-L lens. Most of the time it seems to be not as sharp as my other lenses (17-40L, 28-135, 50 f/1.8 II, 100 f/2.8 Macro).


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Jan 30, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $699.95 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Sharp, affordable "L" quality, doesn't extend or rotate when zooming, rubber sealing around lens mount, small and light, ideal for digital SLRs like 10D and 300D
Cons:
77mm filters are expensive, focal length of 40mm is sometimes too short for me

This is my first "L" lens. Compared to my 28-135 IS USM (which also isn't a bad lens!), it has much more a look and feel of high quality, because it's made of metal instead of plastic and it isn't a bit loose, like the 28-135. The 17-40 doesn't extend and the front element doesn't rotate when zooming; the zoom mechanism is entirely internal. That's good, because it doesn't suck in dust or dirt when zooming. It also has a rubber weather seal around the lens mount to prevent moisture and dirt from coming into the lens and camera.

I haven't done any specific tests, but when I develop my RAW images (using CaptureOne), I can see that with my default settings, the images taken with the 17-40 look a bit over-sharpened - it looks like the 17-40 is noticeably sharper than the 28-135.

For general, "walk-around" use on my 10D, the zoom range is very useful but I find that sometimes 40mm isn't long enough and I have to switch lenses.