about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: canfraggle  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add canfraggle to your Buddy List
Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX

2144NAS_180
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $860.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: AF-S, quick and silent Non telescoping Pretty fast for an ultra wide angle Good sharpness, even at f/4. Extremely sharp at 24mm (true to Mr. Roslett's review) Good contrast
Cons:
Inevitably, the corners suffer, especially at 12mm f/4 A lame complaint, but it is quite pricey given that the Canon version is at least 100 less if not more

I shoot candid photojournalism and some landscape. 12-24 is a great range for this purpose. The lens matches my D200 well and since its mostly enclosed and non telescoping, I even take it out in heavy rain with just a tightly screwed on UV filter, a pierced ziploc bag and a bunch of rubber bands to secure it. No regrets on this purchase.

 
Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical

sp-af17-35
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: A better deal than the Canon 17-40 Sharp Compact Good build (better than the 28-75)
Cons:
No USM

Of the three wide angle mid price lenses available: Canon 17-40, Sigma 17-35 EX DG and Tamron 17-35 DI, the Tamron gets my pick for being well priced, well built and capable of greatness. It's the lightest and smallest of the bunch which means you are more likely to keep it on your camera, and Tamron give you a 6 year warranty.

 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Quick USM Autofocus Good build quality Good image quality
Cons:
Expensive f/4

Everyone raves about this lens, but I prefer the Tamron 17-35 or the Canon 16-35 f2.8L. The Tamron is better value. If you need absolutely better performance, the 16-35 is the only choice.

f4 is a drag when it comes to low light shooting.


 
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

ef_16-35_28_1_
Review Date: Dec 20, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,150.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp Excellent Build Close focussing Very little purple fringing f2.8 USM
Cons:
Expensive Long Heavy

I am completely blown away by this lens. I did a wide-angle lens roundup of all the 16/17-35/40mm lenses available, and this one was so far ahead of all the others it was really quite ridiculous. Check it out here:
http://www.whichlens.com/index.php?blog=5&title=canon_17_40mm_f_4l_usm_vs_sigma_17_35mm&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
It is pretty pricey but I am definitely going to sell my 24 and 28mm 2.8 primes as well as anything else I have in this range. They simple pale in comparison. Reading the other reviews in this thread, you get the impression that there is quite a lot of variation from lens to lens. I'm definitely very pleased with mine and the crops on the website linked above show just how good it is. The lack of fringing (one of my pet peeves) and the excellent performance at f2.8 really make it an essential lens if you can afford it.


 
Sigma 17-35 mm f2.8-4.0 EX DG HSM

sigma1735
Review Date: Nov 2, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $480.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: HSM, F2.8 at 17mm, good build
Cons:
A bit big and heavy.

This is a great alternative to the Canon 17-40. It's not too long but it's quite heavy and chunky. The pictures it puts out are pretty reasonable, though I don't have a very critical eye for sharpness. I have a few samples here though:

http://www.markcho.com/gallery/album175