 |
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
wide focal range, IS, weight and a lightweight solution
|
|
Cons:
|
bad Vignetting especially at the wide end and wide aperture, distortion and color fringing. Is it really L-worthy? I can not recomend this product in combination with FF
|
|
|
I bought this lens as a "one for all purpose" lens on FF. It has really disappointed me. Because it has not given me what I expected. Or to put in other words, yes I have learned to appreciate my 24-70 even more! So that's the good news. For travel purposes - the reason I bought it - it is however sufficient. Recently I started using my 24-70L and 135L combo instead. A bit more weight but better results. It is my first lens ever I am thinking about to sell (but have not decided yet)
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,179.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Best build Canon Zoom! weather sealing. Optical quality is outstanding, @24mm better then prime, usefull zoom-range (on1.6x), I like the color and contrast, very sharp. It really competes constantly with my 24-70 al the time (on 1.6X), on FF great U-WA. No distortions in 24-35 area.
|
|
Cons:
|
the hood is a not allways usefull (can be solved by using 24L hood) on 1.6.x, fair amount of barrel ditortion at wide end. No circular diafragm
|
|
|
This lens is really ecceptional. I don't understand why it is lower rated then it's little brother. When you stop this one down to f4 it is one of a kind.
It is my favorite zoomlens. On a ff it's o good ultra WA but with more restrictions mainly barrel distortion and corner sharpness.
I hesitated a very long time before buying this one. I now own it for 1,5 years and enjoy it EVERY DAY!
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics, sharp and good color rendition, no distortions and f1.4. Very nice blur. Price
|
|
Cons:
|
The USM is a bit noisy and could be more accurate, the built quality is more then sufficient but not up to L standards. The price difference betweem this lens and his slower brother is appalling
|
|
|
I use this lens as a portraitlens on 1.6x and in situations with extremely low light. Overall IMO this lens is a very good performer.
At 1.4 it is noticably less sharp then when stopped down. But when stopped down a bit (f2.2) it becomes incredebly sharp!As stated the USM is a bit noisy and crude, but overall performing sufficiently.
Although the built quality may seem less robust then most L-lenses I own I don't have anything to complain about, it's all within functional requirements and sturdy enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
