about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: UsaFromAbove  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add UsaFromAbove to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

ef_24-70_28u_1_
Review Date: Aug 23, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: good overall quality
Cons:
heavy!

Excellent Lens!

The 24-70 I mostly use it for real estate photography on a 5D. I also use it for aerial pictures although it is a bit heavy for it.

For interior shots it is not the best, I use my 17-40.

Image quality is also good. It is a little bit bulky though.

I mainly use it for real estate photography and wedding photography. www.usafromabove.com If you want to see samples.

Look for the interior pictures.

I would recommend it.


 
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

ef85mmf_12_1_
Review Date: Aug 21, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Great Blur
Cons:
Focusing issues

I would add that the lens has some back-front focusing issues. I have a it on a Canon 5D and sometimes pictures are totally out of focus. My Canon 28-70 or 17-40 never had this kind of problem...Any suggestion? I have a few examles at www.usafromabove.com Furthermore, it is a heavy lens!!! Smile:):)

 
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM

ef20mmf_28usm_1_
Review Date: Aug 11, 2009 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $300.00 | Rating: 3 

 
Pros: small
Cons:
lack of detail, not sharp

I used it to shoot from an elevated angle. The result were disappointing.....I paid $300 but I don't think it is even worth more than $100 to tell you the truth.
The colors are lifeless, "burnt-out". There are no details on the images. You can see the samples on my site: www.usafromabove.com Look for the huge house with the red roof. You will see what I am talking about. Normally, I use the 17-40 L on my elevated system. I thoguht the 20mm would be a good replacement even if it not as good as the 17 40. I think even the 18-55 Canon kit lens produces better images. Add a few hundred bucks and buy a decent lens.