Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: aero145  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add aero145 to your Buddy List
Canon EF 28-105 F/3.5-4.5 II USM

Review Date: Jul 29, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 2 

Pros: Light - Cheap - No lens creep as people complain about - Smooth zooming - Fastest focus I've seen on a Canon lens!
It backfocuses on my 20D!

Paid little for this one, but it backfocuses and is just not a good lens. If you can get a good one it might be alright, but my example sucks. Going to try to afford a 24-70 f/2.8L and put this one to my "retired stock".

You gotta buy this one from a shop and you have to be able to test out its focus. And oh, the quality sucks all the way to stopped don't f/9.

Canon EOS 5D

Review Date: Jul 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Superb image quality - Very nice hand grips (camera and BG-E4) - Fullframe sensor is a godsend - The screen is good
Maybe would be nice to get a 5 fps buffer

Canon EOS 20D

Review Date: Jul 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $2,200.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Strong - Fast - Not too expensive - Grip is very good with Battery Grip E2
Too much noise on ISO 100-200 compared to 10D at the same settings - Screen is not good - It's too slow to transfer images on a fast CF card

My first dSLR.

It's a good camera, but as said above, there are some annoying things with it.

Though I want to upgrade to a newer body soon, I'll never sell this one. It's both useless and you won't get enough money out of it. :-P

Recommend the 30D, like it more. The only thing that might be a problem is that some lenses backfocus on the 30D which they don't do on the 20D.

If you want something better than the 350D/400D and you cannot afford the 30D, you can find a new 20D somewhere in stock, maybe at B&H. You could call them and ask.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Jun 15, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $735.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: superb image quality - little chromatic abberation - very good build quality
I had to test SIX copies of this lens until I was satisfied!

This is a very nice wide angle lens with superb image quality, lots of sharpness, little CA and very good build quality.

As to expected with wide angle zoomlenses, it's more difficult to find a good copy than with telephoto zoomlenses (e.g. I found my 100-400L copy straight away), so I had to try 6 copies of the 17-40L to find the right copy. This is however *'Canon's horrible quality control'* to blame, as it shouldn't be that difficult to find the right wide angle lens copy.

Nevertheless, my example is good and it's a recommended lens for this focal length range.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Review Date: Nov 7, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp - Image Stabilizer - Solid
Left hand arms hurting after shooting one day

I tried this lens out for a whole day, and I had only got one negative aspect; heaviness. I held it all the day (didn't have a neck strap) with my hands, so they begun to hurt slowly.

I tried 2 copies, one with and without an 1.4x Extender, and an other one with and without 1.4x AND 2x Extenders, and I'm a lot surprised that those combos were a success. The quality may not be good, but at least MUCH better than one can imagine. Just sharpen in post-processing! But at full zoom the lens is f/13, so boosting the ISO up to 400 is a must... Mono- or Tripod would be good too. With the Extender combos you must be good in manual focusing!

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

Review Date: Jul 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Short, small, nice green ring.
A little too heavy, zoom ring pretty stiff, zoom-lock locks to the wrong direction.

I have tried this lens often.

The quality of the lens is pretty good, but the photos are blurrier than from the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens.

The build quality is excellent, but the zoom ring is pretty heavy.

The FTM is good, and the hood is pretty nice. But the cons of the hood is that it almost covers the lens fully when turned backwards.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Jul 9, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Light, white, strong, sturdy, small.
No Image Stabilizer.

This is a lens which I recommend everybody to have.

It is strong and light, and small, so its size wont bother most people, it is white, which I like.

Though told to be softer than its uncles, 70-200 2.8 non-IS and IS, it is really sharper. I have tried the 70-200 2.8 IS on a 5D and 20D, the photos weren't sharper than taken with 70-200 f4 on a 20D. I also tried the 70-200 2.8 non-IS on a 1D II N, and they were even worse than from the 70-200 2.8 IS.

Everything about the 70-200 2.8's surprises me - because of the bad quality.

If the 70-200 f4 would have had an Image Stabilizer, it would be a killer!

A little bigger tripod collar would be nice to be in the kit of 70-200 f4 IS.

Here's my idea of the 'kit':

The Lens
Lens Pouch
Tripod Collar
A Petal Shaped Hood

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM

Review Date: Jul 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Good quality.

A very nice lens. Heavy, but quality excellent.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

Review Date: Jul 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Ultra-sharp, light, small, front element does not rotate during focusing.
Focus ring small, loud focus, AF/MF switch pretty stiff.

This lens is an ultra-sharp fixed-focal lenght lens.

I haven't got anything to say about it other than this:

'The photos taken on the EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens are TOO sharp for me! Almost un-possible to use the shots, they're TOO sharp. However, if you only use orginals, its sharpness is good. :-)'

If you go into menu on your 20D, and put sharpness down, the sharpness is OK.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: Jul 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Small, light, fast, silent autofocus, FTM.
Loud IS, flimsy hood.

This is my wide-angle lens.

I can't really say anything about it bad. Just everything is perfect.

And I do not regret of not having a aparture of 2.8. I use apartures most often about f/11, so no problems for me.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/7.1 IS USM would be all right. :-)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Review Date: Jul 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: L glass - light

When I tried this lens, I thought I was trying a marvelous piece of glass.

When I looked at the pictures after I had photographed, the photos were very good. But when I looked at the photos on computer screens, the quality was bad! Soft focus, and blurry.

The IS works, but not well.

Don't go for this lens, go for the uncle: 24-70mm f/2.8L USM!

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: Jul 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, light, inexpensive, black.
Hood is not following the lens, front element rotates during focusing, a bit to long.

This lens is a good lens! ;-)

It has a great focal length, and is sharp at all focal lengths. When at f/5.6, the photos are pretty sharp, and when moving to f/11, the photos are as sharp as out of L-lenses.

The 70mm lock-ring is a good feature.

The only things on the lens that disappoint me are the big hood, and that the front element rotates during focusing.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Review Date: Jul 1, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

Pros: L glass, white, popular, pretty sharp images.
Images not as good as the should be, heavy lens, tripod collar just a bad thing to have on when not using tripods/monopods.

I've tried two examples of this lens. One example on a Canon 20D, and another on a Canon 5D. The shots I took were suprisingly bad! They were not sharper than out of my Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens!

The lens is heavy, and the tripod collar is just in the way when zooming. The lens hood is big, and would be nice white lit.

Overall, the f/2.8 is a good feature, but the photos are not sharp then.