about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: benpaul67  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add benpaul67 to your Buddy List
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

ef70_200_28_1_
Review Date: Aug 14, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: UNBELIEVABLY SHARP. More detailed than any other lens I own. Smooth. Best lens, overall, I've ever used. The 400mm f/5.6 may not be sharper.
Cons:
None. Well done Canon.



 
Canon EF 35mm f/2

ef35mmf2_1_
Review Date: Jul 11, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $250.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharpest lens I own below f/2.8. Wide open, its 20 times sharper than the 35mm f/1.4 (I got) wide open. Much sharper than my 85mm f/1.8 wide open by quite a bit too. Much much sharper than my 50 f/1.4 wide open. Sharpness changess very little with aperature.
Cons:
Feels cheap (is cheap). Prone to flare, but for a low light lens, for use at f2, its the best I've seen. Did I say prone to flair? Not as contrasty as a properly constructed and QC'd L lens. Excellent sharpness but it would need mo/ mo betta' coatings to be a Leica.



 
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

ef_24-70_28u_1_
Review Date: Jun 12, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,199.00

 
Pros: Really sharp at 70mm
Cons:
Its a 50 dollar lens at 24mm and it increases in value up to 300 dollars at 70mm.

My Nikon 60mm 2.8 Macro blows away the 24-70 at 70mm, it's sharpest, for resolution, but the 24-70 looks more saturated and contrasty. It's FOCAL LENGTH that determines the sharpness of this lens, not aperature. At least on a 1.6 dslr. At 24mm its marginally better than the kit lens at 35mm. At 35mm its almost acceptable. At 50mm a major jump in resolution. At 70mm it is exactly the SAME as the 70-200 2.8, quite nice. I was surprised the MicroNikkor had double the resolution of either lens at 70mm.
They're both 'prettier' than the nissen-bokeh 60mm 2.8 M-N, but, at that focal length, the 24-70's sharpest, it's not necessarily worth more or even as much as the 400 dollar cost of the Nikon.
Its a 50-70mm zoom lens for 1200 bucks? I'm losing my faith in zooms.


 
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

efs60_28macro_usm
Review Date: Jun 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

Hey all,
I just bought the 60 2.8 micronikkor for my EOS XT, but I just found out canon has a 60 macro now too. Will there be no difference between the two? Should I buy the Canon macro and return this lens? I don't want to lose sharpness in the trade though. The micronikkor lens used to be my Kodachrome 25 lens. I can only use manual focus on the XT with the Nikon lens. I don't trust AF still, but I really need a focusing screen with the Nikon lens, but that is not an option on the XT. I don't see how Canon (or anyone else) can equal the 60 2.8 micronikkor's sharpness, or improve upon it overall, so I'm skeptical.
I could use a reply soon, thanks.


 
Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor

1987NCP_180
Review Date: Jun 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Miracle Lens
Cons:
Hard to focus manually

Hey all,
I just bought this lens for my EOS XT, but I just found out canon has a 60 macro now too. Will there be no difference between the two? Should I buy the Canon macro and return this lens? I don't want to lose sharpness in the trade though. This lens used to be my Kodachrome 25 lens. I can only use manual focus on the XT. I don't trust AF still, but I really need a focusing screen with this lens, but that is not an option on the XT. I don't see how Canon can equal this lens's sharpness, or improve upon it, so I'm skeptical.
I could use a reply soon, thanks.


 
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

ef_50_25c_1_
Review Date: Jun 6, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Many.
Cons:
Fewer than I thought.

I just found out 'purple finging' is due to overvoltage saturation of a digital CCD, and has nothing to do with ANY lens. So my main beef with this lens is really with my CCD. However, PF is a LOT less with the 17-40, for whatever reason my XT likes that lens. I will say then that this is the sharpest lens for the $$ I've seen. Maybe sharper than my 17-40 by a hair, I think. But the 17-40 is just so NICELY IMPRESSIVE in every way. So the only one remaining complaint I have about this lens, that it doesn't seem 'right' compared to the 17-40, could be bokeh, but I know little about it and if someone else could post on this, it might well remove my sole remaining complaint. Other than 2:1 Macro. I'm getting a 60 2.8 micronikkor to replace the one I sold a few years ago when I went digital. At the time, it was considered the sharpest single period, and I think, 7 years later it still is. Got a nice adapter for my XT, and will slap it on asap. Will be a primarily Macro lens for me.
I would rerate this lens a 9.5 now.


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: May 29, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: It does everything very professionally. Best lens I've ever owned. For DSLR, this is THE ONE. It just looks really 'right'. Its very very accurate, and sultry even though it's razor sharp and geometrically razor straight. Wide open, 17mm through 40mm, I cant find a fault with it on my 1.6 dslr.
Cons:
Very slight purple fringing, but its controlled and subdued, kept on a very short choke chain, best I've ever seen yet.



 
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

ef_50_25c_1_
Review Date: May 29, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $260.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Pretty sharp. Maybe best lens for the $. Can't fault it other than a bit of purple. BUT.....
Cons:
Purple fringing is the drawback. AND, this is based on using it on a EOS XT, 1.6 I think. Less demanding of the lens periphery I think. Uncomfortable FL for a 1.6. Macro is sharp but too little closeup. Lens is sharp, colors sat, 2.5 is nice, purple may not be too bad, maybe so. Can't tell. Decent lens, hard to fault, because it does almost everything 'technically' right, but it just looks WRONG, WRONG, WRONG compared to a 17-40L.