 |
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb value for money
Sharp
IS works a very well
Light travel lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Not L build (half the price)
IS is noisy
Needs slightly fragile
|
|
Price is excellent considering the IQ, IS works very well indeed, although it's noisy compared to that on my 24-105 L.
Due to the plastic constuction the lens is very light, and I have yet to require a mono/tripod whils shooting at 300mm.
PQ is sharp, even wide open, and 99% of the wildlife images I took on the trip i took to the Galapapos came out superbly, with nice bokeh at F4.
Noisy compared to my 24-104, and USM motor not as accurate/fast. Build isn't great, don't drop it!
Some samples
http://images.fotopic.net/original/ylihcr.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/original/ylx367.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/original/ylx36x.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost and Size, nothing else really.
|
|
Cons:
|
not sharp, lacking in detail. Blurred right hand side on all images.
|
|
|
I bought this instead of the Canon 10-22mm to save some money but boy was i disappointed! Pictures produced with this lens were very soft, and the lack if detail at 100% was shocking. The right hand side of all photos was very blurry as well.
I would not recommend this lens. I ended up buying the Canon 10-22 in the US, saving £100 and it's superb, way way sharper than the Sigma.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Clarify, Sharpness and good zoom range (especially on 1.6 DSRL). Almost the perfect walk-around lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight. Serious landscapers not using a FF dSLR will require a wider lens in the kit bag to compensate for the 24mm low end
|
|
|
Having used a 17-85mm IS USM for 6 months I was starting to wonder if I would ever see sharp images on my 350D
Having spend an eternity deciding what to replace it with I finally decided to cough up the $$$ and buy the 24-105. It also has IS which was something I wasn't prepared to lose, and works exceptionally well
For me the longer bottom end compared to the 17-85 is more than compensated by the sharp, sharp and detailed images. The long end is quite decent too.
Add a decent ultra wide angle and you have a very very good walk-around kit bag with only 2 lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent travel lens, very good clarity and sharpness, little distortion at 17mm, Image Stablizer is a god send and works amazingly well
|
|
Cons:
|
costly and quite heavy. IS does drain the battery. Zoom ring a bit loose and plasticy
|
|
|
I consider this one of the best travel lenses around, and will not be buying any further lenses since this gives me everything I need. Eveb with the 1.6x Canon crop factor, 17mm is more than wide enough for landscape/architectural photography, and and I can live with 85mm zoom.
Image Stabalizer is some dark magic - I have no idea how it works but it does the job astoundingly well, and have taken photos at 1/10 of a second ISO100 and they are still razor sharp.
Both myself and friends have been amazed by the detail and sharpness of this lens - it's just superb.
Hopefully Canon will emulate Nikon and try to build a 17-200 IS USM version!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
