about | support
home
 
 Forum · Gallery Home · Search · Register · Login 


  Reviews by: dHitman  
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dHitman to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

ef_24-70_28u_1_
Review Date: May 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,150.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp Sharp Sharp!!! Beautiful colors, contrast and first class build quality. Fast, quiet and spot-on focusing. All apertures usable. CA and distortion very well controlled.
Cons:
None.

It's one of the great zoom lens ever made from Canon so don't miss it. It's incredibly sharp when it's well focused with good lighting. Don't be suprised when you can actually see facial hairs, skin texture, open pores and even nostril hairs very clearly on your pics with this lens!! Beware :o)

Some users complaint that it's not that sharp, I believe the reasons behind that are (1) when it's not focused properly, (2) not enough lights or flash lights and (3) camera shake. It's quite heavy for begginers to handle so that could be the problem.

Focusing is very fast and quiet, thanks to USM. Lovely colors and contrast. Very well build. CA and distortion is very well controlled. I find all apertures to be sharp even at f2.8 (which is reasonably sharp). I strongly recommend this lens to those who are still contemplating about it. Go for it, I'm sure you won't regret but you will regret if you don't!!
 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Apr 16, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Light and handles well. Fast and silent focusing thanks to USM. Smooth natural colors.
Cons:
CA and not as sharp as other Canon L zoom. My Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm proves sharper and better contrast than the Canon. Unfortunate but true.

I bought this lens after reading rave reviews about it and also wanted a walk around lens. Many claim this lens to be razor sharp and very contrasty but unfortunately my copy proves other wise. I believe the 16-35mm L gives better resolution anytime without a doubt but it cost twice as much. I owned a 20-35mm f2.8L before and the 17-40mm is nowhere near it.

I've sold my 17-40mm and replaced it with Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f4 and the Tokina really ROCKS! After the 1.6X on my 20D, the focal range of the 17-40mm is neither here nor there. I found it not very usefull unless on a FF body. Overall if you need to have only Canon lens and you crave for the L 'quality' keep your finger crossed and go for it. Good luck in getting a good copy.