about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: bergie  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add bergie to your Buddy List
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

ef50mmf_18_1_
Review Date: Nov 8, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

Some of the previous posts have complained about poor AF, especially indoors. What was the ISO speed that you used?

Will the performance increase if you bump it up to 400 or higher? I would think it should. Canon is known for exhibiting much less noise than Nikon when it comes to higher ISO's, so you should still get good results. I've shot 800 ISO on my 30D and the quality still looks great.

Just curious.

-bergie


 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

ef70_200_28_1_
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,050.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp. Pro build quality.
Cons:
None really, but it is expensive and should still come with IS anyway IMO.

When looking for a sports lens for my son's football games, it was a toss up between this lens and the f/4 IS since they after all, are about the same price.

I decided on this one since I reasoned that I planned to use the 1.4 extender anyway, and losing a stop would make it a f/5.6 which made me nervous.

Well, after a couple of games, I realized I needed to use a higher ISO anyway for proper stopping of action (duh), so although I was able to hand hold all of my shots at f/4 (with 1.4 extender attached), I probably would have been fine with the f/4 IS as well.

I don't regret buying this lens by any means. It is tack sharp as others have attested to. But IS would be nice to have and I don't want to spend another $600 for it, so I may end up getting the f/4 instead.

Here are some recent shots:http://bergquist.smugmug.com/gallery/3722672/1/213599728


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $575.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Rugged build; image quality; price
Cons:
None for the money

I can't compare this lens to the 16-35 since I can't afford it, but from the landscape shots I've taken, I'm more than happy with it.

I've seen the reviews of people complaining about corner softness, but for landcapes, I'm always stopping it way down anyway, so the fact it's an f/4 intead of 2.8 doesn't matter to me and I'm much happier to save the $1000 for the replacement of the 5D.

I have this mounted on a 30D and it definitely is not as wide as the 10-22 I had, but the color rendition does seem to be better, especially for blue skies.

This shot is with no PP: http://bergquist.smugmug.com/photos/211842109-M.jpg



 
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

EF10-22
Review Date: Aug 12, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $575.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: True wide angle for cropped bodies Reasonable price Excellent Price
Cons:
None Really

I bought mine used on Craigs List, so was naturally nervous about spending $575 for a used lens with no warranty!

But it looked and tested OK, so I took a risk and it has paid off for me. Build is not L quality (and not as expen$ive), but certainly much better than the f/1.8 50 prime.

I see that some reviewers have complained of softness when wide open, but my experience so far is that this is a common issue with many lenses. If you don't need to shoot wide open, then don't.

I've shot a lot of landscapes with this and have been very happy with the results. I typically stop it way down for max. DOF. Images are very sharp and I can get true wide angle with this lens on my 1.6 cropped body.

All of these were shot with this lens: http://www.pbase.com/bbergquist/north_cascades

The only regret I have is that I have no warranty in case something happens to it!


 
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

ef50mmf_18_1_
Review Date: Aug 12, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $80.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Not expensive Good image results
Cons:
Cheap build (but expected)

Since I've spent a lot of money between acquiring my 30D and the excellent 10-22, I couldn't afford the 70-200 I want (would prefer to wait until I can afford an IS version), so I decided to buy this for $80 and for the money, I can't see how I could be happier.

Yes, it's cheaply built, but at least I have something I can shoot in low light and stop action with. Plus with my 1.6 crop body, it's essentially an 80mm prime!

Here's a pic of my son in action taken with this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/bbergquist/image/83112092

Although I've not shot with the 1.4 version, the only difference I can tell between the two besides build quality and price is that it has better bokeh. Some may find the blur on this one to be more harsh, and it is, but I don't think it's so bad it stands out or ruins the picture. I'd rather save the $200 to go towards my 70-200 tele...