Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom ring the opposite way to what I expected. Cost.
|
|
|
I bought this lens when it was still rather expensive .... but don't regret it as it is so good. Some people wondered where it would sit in Canon's line up but I thought it was just what I wanted for my 5D II ... and I was right.
I use it for weddings and general photography and find it is not too slow in any way for the use I put it to.
The images are the sharpest I have seen from a zoom of this kind except the 70-200 f2.8L. The focus speed is good and the lens though heavy balances better on my 5D than the 70-200. The IS is great though takes a second or so to click in like most IS systems.
It is built like most big L lenses ... like a tank ... but feels OK.
The biggest issue I have with the lens is personal preference really - in that I love the twist zoom style like the 70-200 as opposed to the push pull of a 100-400. The problem is on this lens that the zoom ring is at the front of the barrel - the opposite way round to the 70-200 and I find it ungainly to use .. This is, however, a minor issue for what I consider to be a stunning lens and one I would highly recommend !
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, black casing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor sharpness, poor contrast and colour. Cost
|
|
|
I had high hopes for this lens.... small, not white and very manageable. Am I satified though - NO ! The images I have had from this lens have been poor at all focal lengths, soft and lacking in contrast. It has been very disapointing. I really wanted to like it. It is an ideal travel lens and marketed as 'near' L quality. Well, it isn't near the quality of any of my L lenses..... I have compared it to the 28-300, 100-400 and 70-200 - all of which are in a different league! To be fair they are all huge, heavy and white whereas the 70-300 DO is light by comparison, very compact and black. The trouble is the cost of this DO lens puts it up there with them and not say towards the 75-300 IS.
The size and colour make me want to keep it but I will probably sell it - the image quality just isn't up to the standard I want and am used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,769.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality, build, handling, buffer & write speed.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost, doesn't seem as 'snappy' as a 1D Mk II. Our first 1Ds Mk II was defective with a marked sensor (not dust). To be fair CPS were very good and it was replaced in 2 weeks - which was how long it took for Canon UK to get stock!
|
|
|
It does exactly what I expected it to do - the image quality is stunning. It is just like the 1D Mk II which I love but with a bigger sensor.... perhaps not quite as snappy in use as the 1D Mk II but it is aimed at a slightly different group of photographers.
Everything is spot on - if you are prepared to spend the money you won't be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, Range, Image Quality, Sharpness, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight and cost..... oh, and weight again!
|
|
|
I bought this after comparing it to my 35-350. Though larger and heavier the IS is a great addition and the image quality was noticeably better than my 35-350 with much better sharpness, contrast and colour. The downside definitely has to be the weight as the image quality and flexibility the lens provides is great. I have no regrets in buying this at all - even if it is very expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,239.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp images, IS, build quality, range
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, Cost, colour
|
|
|
I've only recently got this lens but have taken alot of shots with it already and been really impressed - I was concerned by some of the reviews saying it's a bit soft at 400mm but I have found my copy very sharp. I also have a 35-350 and though the scales say the 100-400 is heavier it certainly doesn't feel it.... The push pull on my 100-400 is smoother than the 35-350 but I am sure this varies with individual copies of the lens.
I have done a brief test of a static subject using a 70-200 f2.8 with 2x TC at 400mm, a 35-350 at 350mm and the 100-400 at 400mm f5.6. The result was that the 70-200 with the TC attached was clearly the worst for sharpness and contrast; which surpised me as the lens without the TC is a stunner. The 35-350 produced a very good sharp image (which I have come to expect from it) but the 100-400 was noticeably better - sharper and with more contrast.
I look forward to using this lens alot!
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 21, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,175.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness and contrast, build
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost and weight
|
|
|
I have been really pleased with this lens since getting it to replace my 28-135IS. I don't think the lens is quite as sharp as my 17-40 or 70-200 2.8 but it is very near indeed. It is certainly much better than the 28-135 and that wasn't that bad! The build is superb - but I try not to use the hood so haven't found the problems others mention. It weighs a bit but I don't mind that too much. It's black so doesn't get as much unwanted attention as my 70-200. It is my 'standard' lens when I am feeling sensible and not lugging my 35-350 around.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,480.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom Range, Build, Image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, Cost
|
|
|
I bought this lens to use on a 10D. I haven't had it long but have taken alot of shots and have been really impressed with the results - others said it was very soft but I have not found that to be the case. It is streets ahead of other 'standard' zooms for quality.... it is just very expensive and heavy!
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality better than you would expect after reading many of the reviews.
IS useful
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost compared to non IS version.
Slow focusing.
|
|
|
I have just traded this lens for a 70-200L.... but that doesn't mean I didn't like it! I had it for a couple of years and found the image quality to be quite acceptable. If you read many of the reviews of this lens on the different forums you may think it's a bit of a dud - well I had no complaints re the quality. It doesn't cost the same as the L lenses so it is not fair to compare it with them.
The problems I did find were mainly related to the slow focusing ability of the lens. I also think it's a bit dear when you think how much the non IS version costs. The IS worked well but I found I just didn't use the lens that much - mainly due to the poor focusing.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,570.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp images
Quick and reliable autofocus
Build
IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight
Attracts attention
Cost
|
|
|
I bought this lens recently after reading so many good reviews.... and I can only agree with everyone else's comments. Yes it's heavy, white and costs alot but the results I have had so far show me what a quality bit of kit it is! I bought a converter to use with it and don't regret either purchase - a super lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom Range & overall flexibility
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp compared to other zoom lenses.
|
|
|
I have had this lens about 18 months and only really used it recently - I got it as an addition to my 28-135IS & 75-300IS. The idea was to use it for holidays so I would only have to take the one lens.
When I did start using it I found it produced images which were noticably not as sharp or clear at any focal lengths or apertures than my 28-135IS or indeed my wifes new tiny Tamron 28-200. I thought I may have just had a few bad days so set up numerous boring tests involving this lens and the folllowing to check its quality... the lenses I checked it against were Canon's 24-70L, 28-135IS together with Tamron's newest 28-200 and 28-300 lenses.
The tests showed me I should get rid of this lens as soon as possible - it was noticeably the worst of those I tested. Unsurprisingly the Canon 24-70L looked the best in my tests with the canon 28-135 and the Tamron 28-200 not far behind. The Tamron 28-300 was surpringly good though it only goes to a true 260mm due to its design. The Canon 28-200 was firmly last! Nothing was as sharp as the other lenses and it seemed to regularly back focus which didn't exactly help matters.
If you really want a 28-200 then seriously consider the little Tamron... it's quality is almost identical to my 28-135 and that in itself is not far off what I get from a 24-70L lens!
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness and cost
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I got this lens earlier this week as my first 'L' lens to use with my 10D and to say I have been impressed is an understatement - it is just so much sharper than my 'standard' lenses. I have read lots of reviews of this lens, some of which report softness but my lens is very sharp. Interestingly though, as I was so impressed with it I got a second mortgage and went out and bought two more 'L' lenses : a 24-70 and 70-200IS. The 70-200 is great but the 24-70 is disappointing; no better than my 28-135IS lens and compared to the other two 'L' lenses it is soft! I haven't got enough 'evidence' to return it and try another yet but it begs a queston about Canon's quality control ?????
|
|
|
|
|
