about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: KevinA  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add KevinA to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM

EF24_14LII
Review Date: Nov 3, 2011 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 4 

 
Pros: Fast aperture
Cons:
very very soft in the corners wide open

I bought it some time ago for it's ability to shoot at f1.4, after all that's why you pay the money.
If you need anything near sharp in the corners at f1.4 it will be a disappointment. I don't expect centre sharpness in the corners but this is way off the mark and so was another one I tried.
If your idea of using f1.4 is to throw the background out of focus and your subject is central, no doubt you will think this lens a great performer. If like me you need the lens speed for low light work, I think Canon should of done much better, It needs about f3.5 to start getting acceptable in the corners.. The 35mm f1.4 is a better bet if 35mm can be made to cover your subject.

Kevin.


 
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

EF10-22
Review Date: Oct 18, 2010 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: OK for day to day use with the Sun over your shoulder.
Cons:
Flare Flare and did I mention Flare......Oh and it's the most ugly flare you have ever seen.

OK it's close to the 17 - 40mm L for sharpness, it's light weight and build quality is good. I am sending my one back today, point this lens towards any light source, Sun, reflection on water etc and it will produce the most awful flare I have ever seen. I have a late 1800's uncoated brass lens that does not flare like this.
Don't think it's something you could tweak in Photoshop either, this is every kind of flare you have ever seen all in one lens and all over the image, it's plain ugly. I was shocked at how bad it is.
Yes it's a decent performer until you decide to shoot something back lit.
The 17 - 40mm lens on full frame handles flare very well and keeps the colour and contrast. The 10 - 22 is not in the same league, no this is not "L" quality at a knock down price, if you keep the Sun over your shoulder you will never have a complaint. Shoot something backlit and you are in for a shock.
I am very disappointed with this performance, the flare is so bad I think the lens is pointless to have in your bag as lots of great images will be ruined beyond salvage with this.
I do have full frame and the 17 - 40 mm, I am not a fan of the 17 - 40 mm sharpness (I have primes for that) but for it's ability to shoot into the light I think it's extremely good. Seriously I would stay well away from the 10 -22 mm if photography is a serious business for you.

Kevin.


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Mar 5, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: Good Colour, nice and contrasty
Cons:
soft and dreadfull distortion

Strange lens i love it and hate it, I use it on a FF cameras both 1DsmkII and 1DsmkIII, I know of other photographers that had this lens and got rid of very quickly. It is not a sharp lens, well it is at about 32 mm setting. Use it stopped down between 8 & 16 and the corners become acceptable - ish.
Awful distortion, don't ever think of using it for serious architecture work. The Sigma 12 - 24 is much better for low distortion, although that is also on the soft side.
Compared with the wide Nikon it's a bit of a lemon, I also tried the latest 16 - 35 mm, I thought that a bad joke to only much more expensive.
That is the bad bit, the good is it's perfectly usable, vignetting is OK, colour and contrast are excellant as is it's weight. I have shot thousands of images with this lens, at the moment it is as good as it gets for a Canon zoom in this range. I keep it for convienience, I now have the prime 35mm f1:4 and 24 mm f1:4 II, soon I will add the 14 mm and maybe 17 mm T/S. The 35 & 24 mm are leagues better than the zoom and so they should be.
The 17 - 40 mm is a good lens to have but should be much better than it is, the same can be said of the 16 - 35mm.
Yes by all means get one I would find it difficult to be without on some jobs but Canon should be able to offer much better with their UWA zooms than this.


 
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

ef50mmf_14usm_1_
Review Date: Mar 4, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 4 

 
Pros: Sharp after f4
Cons:
unsharp below f4,

It's not really a fast lens as wide open it's very soft, stopped down it's nice and sharp. I'm hopeing the new f1.2 performs at the wide end.
Don't buy this lens if you want a sharp fast lens, buy it if you want a sharp f4.


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Dec 5, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: It's in my bag
Cons:
I wish it wasn't

I've met quite a few photographers that have this lens, everyone of them thinks it's a real stinker. I can only assume the people that like it have a crop factor going on with their camera 'cos on a full frame it's a joke. Sharpish at 40mm, but you don't buy it for 40mm you buy it for the wide end. This is very poor, but is up to par with other Canon wide offerings.
Oh and the distortion at 17mm, try getting a level horizon in the top third of the frame, I could cope with a gentle arc, but a wobbly line that's all over the place. Don't buy this lens, it's not heavy enough to use as a door stop and rubbish as a camera lens on FF. Get anything else.