Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: The Big Bad  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add The Big Bad to your Buddy List
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Review Date: Jul 10, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $749.00 | Rating: 5 

Pros: size/weight, 77mm filter, USM, 16mm equiv (sorta)
though 16mm equiv has the distortion of a 10mm, cost, very soft corners, EF-S only

Well this lens has alot going for it but I dont feel its the wide angle solution that APS-C sensor usesr might hope.

Its very small and light which is great. Ive had the 16-35 2.8, 17-40 f4 and sigma 12-24 and those are all twice the weight of this. UWA to me means travel and light weight is always a plus. The build is pretty decent as well, not sealed like some of the L's but its well made Id say

Fast USM focus, shares 77mm filters, though will vinette at wider settings unless you use slim ones, and with f3.5 on the wide end, its reasonably handholdable even at very slow shutter speeds

$749, Im used to the world of L supertele's so technically this feels "cheap" to me, but at the same time with what other options are on the market, its pretty high. Sigma, tokina etc all are coming in around $500 or less so.......

Overall, I was pretty happy though, that is until I went and used it. Very soft in the corners and I personally dont really care for 10mm perspective in most shots

See, while the crop gives this lens a modest 16mm FOV, its still 10mm and the perspective is pretty wild. Good for some stuff but gives a great deal of distortion to other things such as buildings etc. Not a fault of the lens per say, just the focal length. This is why some still prefer full frame, so you can get wide angle but still have a fairly "normal" focal length.

Now thats a subjective thing but what I feel really was a deal breaker was the soft corners. yes its UWA but its just unacceptable to my standards. Even in websized images I can see the softness in the corners, almost as if I used the photoshop radial blur tool. My sigma 15mm fisheye is so much sharper when framed the same. now the 10-22 goes wider but what good is wide if the image quality lets you down ?

As for me, Im sticking with 17-40 and 15mm FE when needed. I will try the new sigma 10-20 and see how that fares but if like me, you really want the best image quality in your UWA landscape shots, then FF is the way to go.

Keep in mind though, this lens is still great for casual vacation snaps etc. Im very very picky and just have high standards for my work as I do gallery prints etc.

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM

Review Date: Apr 13, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: $659.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: good size and weight for a 2.8 zoom, nice tripod collar, sharp once stopped down
very soft at f2.8, cost $650 is alot for a f4 zoom, weights alot for a f4 zoom

I tried 3 copies of this lens. All of them had very poor performance wide open. Much worse than Canons 70-200 2.8, and ALOT worse than my cheap old 80-200 2.8 canon zoom.

Now when you stop the lens down to at least f4, it becomes a really good lens, as good as anything else ive used honestly. But when I pay for a 2.8 lens, its because I want to use it at f2.8. This sigma simply doesnt provide that.

I think its overpriced and overweight for a f4 zoom, might as well save yourself the money and weight and get a new canon f4 version which is just as good or if you need 2.8 on a budget, find a used 80-200L.

I did love the tripod collar though. Its so nice to be able to take it on and off without having to unmount the lens.

Bottom line is that this lens is a case of you get what you pay for. Your simply not getting the performance of a Canon 2.8 lens while saving about $400. Would be nice if you could, and sigma does make some good lens, this one just isnt one of them