about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: artguy  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add artguy to your Buddy List
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

ef70_200_4_1_
Review Date: Jan 9, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $575.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: very nice lens - light weight for the style
Cons:
no IS

This is a very sharp well built lens. I like it because it is lighter that the 70-200 IS and much cheaper. If you often shoot weddings or race cars or sports then I think the IS lens would be worth the cost to get.

But a nice mono pod will also give 3 stops advantage and now I have $1,000 to spend on other lenses that are faster than the 2.8 would be anyway.

Anyway, I like this lens and would recommend it.


 
Canon EOS 20D

20d
Review Date: Jan 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Well made, professional features and control, feels and operates fast like a good film SLR camera
Cons:
1.6 crop factor, viewer size - as related to film SLR bodies

Coming from the film world, art photography, and pro level Nikon equipment it was quite a leap for me to try this body.

My main complaints would be the small viewer compared to film and the 1.6 lens conversion factor.

That said, I'm very, very impressed with this camera. It allows for tremendous control of the image. Basic image quality seems determined more by the lens than the cmos sensor size. Nice SLR feel.

Professional level control of image creating is certainly available. For me this has been a hard (because of my 30 yrs of nikor glass mainly) but great move to Canon and I'm not looking back.

A really fine camera and I enjoy using it. 5/5 for me - and that's not given lightly.


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Jan 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $740.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Smooth action and nice size
Cons:
F4 and a bit soft on the wide end

I read all the reviews before I purchased this lens, and it is a very good lens.

However I have returned it because the focus seems rather soft to me on the wide end. Perhaps I had a copy that is not as good as some of the others that people are raving about.

My general guess is that the 16-35L will be sharper on the extreme wide end (at a higher price of course).

Since my favorite film lens for many of my shots was a 24mm, this lens also suffers in that the 17mm wide end is equivalent to only 27.2mm on a 20D.

Since that is the range that I shot in often I think that it accentuated the weakest area of this lens to the point that I'm really not happy with it.

If this doesn't apply to your shooting and you don't need 2.8 then this lens should be excellent for you.