 |
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
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
|
|
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!!!  :):)
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
