Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: Mr645  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Mr645 to your Buddy List
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro

Review Date: Oct 16, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $250.00 | Rating: 4 

Pros: Very sharp, even at F2.8. Decent construction. Inexpensive on the used market
Poor contrast, poor handling, issues with flare when there is a light source facing into the lens. A decent value at a few hundred dollars.

I traded some gear worth about $250 for this lens, Canon mount. Typical Sigma quality. Nice heavy construction, but focusing is still and requires two switches to go from AF to MF while most Canon lenses let you switch without doing anything. Wonderful sharpness, even wide open, but image contrast is not that of a Canon lens. Also, flare is a major issue, need to be very careful with lighting to get great images with this lens.

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II

Review Date: Oct 10, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $10.00 | Rating: 5 

Pros: Light weight, cheap
decent sharpness at around F8 and F11, poor contrast, poor construction

Picked up this lens for $40, and it also came with an EOS Elan II and off brand 28-200. All three items like new. Hard to pass up, but the items will likely end up on Ebay in the near future

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

Review Date: Oct 10, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,139.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent construction, spot on focusing, optics that rival prime lenses.

This is one of the only zooms that let me get away from prime lenses and still capture uncompromised image quality. Every aspect of the lens is top of the line. It does give up a little wide open, but just a stop down from there and were at a level of sharpness, contrast and flare control typically reserved for prime lenses. I shoot it on a 1Ds2

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Jul 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Well built, small, sharp, smooth, weather sealed.
F4 is a bit slow, massive lens hood does not fit in the camera bag. Zooming ring hard to reach when flash bracket is in use. All really minor issues

After owning various wide zooms for the EOS system I ended up with the 17-40. I use it on full frame and 1.3x DSLR's. It is very sharp, even wide open. If you stop down just a 1/2 or full stop, this "L" zoom will give many primes a run for there money. Flare is very well controlled, which solved a problem with the Sigma 15-30 that it replaced. Both the Sigma and this Canon can deliver excellent sharpness in the center but the Canon L holds up much better in the corners. Distortion in the corners are seen in both lenses, as well as the 16-35 F2.8 Canon. I choose to stick with the F4 L instead of the faster, more expensive 16-35 because I find that when F4 is not fast enough, F2.8 also is not. I end up going to a 1.8 or faster lens. Overall the 17-40 F4 L is a bargain.

Tamron 28-105MM F/2.8 LD Aspherical (IF)

Review Date: Mar 26, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

Pros: No one else makes a 2.8 lens with such range
Focusing a bit slow, optical performance poor, contruction avg.

The point of having a fast lens is so it can be shot in low light conditions. The 28-105 F2.8 is very, very soft at F2.8, virtually useless in my opinion. It needs to be at F4.5 or smaller for acceptable results. You would be better off with the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 lens since it is sharper, smaller, lighter, better handling. I returned this one after testing

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: Jul 6, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $300.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: Good range, not too costly
Needs to be at F8 and smaller for good sharpness

My decade old 28-105 is ready to fall apart and I saw this 28-135 at the local repair shop. Anyway, I wish this lens was a bit faster, at F3.5-F5.6 it needs a lot of light. The IS feature helps but typically when light levels are low, you also open the aperture. This lens is not tack sharp at or near F5.6 so the IS is not as useful as I expected. It's a good everyday lens to keep on the camera, but not built to
"L" standards, but of course it does not cost like an "L" lens.


Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

Review Date: Mar 25, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $329.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Small, silent and fast AF. Nice MF ring, excellent optics, low cost
none that I can think of

I have been using this for studio portraits on a Canon D60 and Kodak 560. This lens is as sharp as any I have used. Beats the 24-70 and 70-200 F4 for absolute detail. I have not really had much of a chance to shoot it wide open, but from F5.6 to F11, it's probably one of the sharpest lenses out there. It's also small, light and easy to handle. Well built and the wide MF ring, and USM makes manual focus a pleasure.

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR

Review Date: Mar 25, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,799.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent build quality, awesome image quality, fast, quiet
A bit long and expensive

Overall this is probably the best lens in it's range and speed. Nikon really made big improvements to their older 80-200 F2.8 optic. Image quality is much better when used on the Kodak DCS-760 and 14n cameras when compared to older Nikon 80-200 and a Tamron 80-200 F2.8 lenses.

Canon EOS 10D

Review Date: Jan 17, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,499.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: Excellent image quality, awesome performance at higher ISO settings, even delivering very clean images at ISO 800. Excellent E-TTL flash control, solid build, great battery system, great lenses
Poor AF performance, poor software, slow in camera processing

Overall the 10D is a very capable camera, but like any camera it has uses which it will excell at and others it will perform poorly at. I love the high ISO performance. I won't hesitate to go to ISO 400 even for portraits and for 8x10 or smaller, 800 delivers 18MB files that are very clean. Pop on a 550EX and you cna walk around snapping away and get consistant exposures which is a first for a Canon D-SLR. The camera feels great in your hands and with the grip and 2 BP-511's you can fire away 600-700 shots before running out of juice.
The AF system is reponsive but not very accurate. Forget using F2.8 lenses wide open, the AF is just not accurate enough to reply on. It will quickly get you within a few inches so shooting at F8 is great but try something fast, wide open and be ready to manually touch up the focus. Canons RAW image processing is weak but hopefully getting better, faster. Fortuantly shooting hi-res Jpegs yields the same image quality, you just have to be careful about setting color balance when shooting Jpegs. The 10D also processes image in camera much slower then the D60 does. The LCD respondes slowly and if shooting fast, the buffer can easily fill up. The D60 does a much better job of keeping the buffer clear. Overall for $1500 it's light on the wallet and delivers image quality that is on top of the 6MP SLR offerings, at least until next month in Vegas.


Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Review Date: Jun 9, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: Well built and sharp for the money. Silent focus
Barrel distortion. newner lenses have better flair control

Same level of lens as the 28-105 USM or 28-135, 24-85, 100-300 etc. The only thing I can say negative abut this lens is the barrel distortion. I bought this lens to do interiors for one specific client. After years of 4x5 shooting he says he found a photographer to do the work for 1/2 the price. Turns out that the 'new' photog is using 35mm, not 4x5 so I agree to shoot 35mm for less then 4x5 which is fine. But this lens distorts too much for this type of use.