Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: didierv  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add didierv to your Buddy List
Canon EF 20-35mm f/2.8L

Review Date: Dec 10, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Good quality, sharp, good colors smaller, lighter than te 16-35, fast autofocus, price
I wish it was wider...

For a third of the price of the 16-35 mkII, you give up 4 mm on the wide end.
I would of course prefer the 16-35 because it is wider, but for the price it is a lot of lens. Very well built, fast, with great colors and contrast.
I use it both on a 5D and 50D, it is much better on the 5D.
I use this lens for travel street photography, and it works very nicely.
If you can find one and do not want to spend over $1500.00 on a new 16-35, it is a no brainer.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Review Date: Oct 17, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp, great build, small and inconspicuous

I really like this lens.
It is very sharp from 2.8 on...
Because of the focal lens I do not used it all that much, but every time I take it out I love the results.
I like it better than my 70-200 because it is smaller, lighter and inconspicuous.
I have the Mark I version, bought used on FM almost 5 years ago, it is a pretty old lens but works perfectly after all these years.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: Nov 26, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros: Extremly versatile, perfect range for 1.6 crop format
not quite fast enough

I already reviewed this lens well over a year ago and gave it a 9.
I feel compelled to post another review now that I have used it extensively and put thousands and thousands of shots on it.

I do not understand why people trash this lens so much.
You read so much bad reviews on it, that I had convinced myself that I needed an upgrade and went and got the 24-105 L.
Well I kept the 24-105 exactly 2 days and returned it to keep the 17-85.
Yes the 24-105 was a little better, just a little better when I tested both of them wide open and looked at 100% crops. Other than that I could not tell the difference. May be I have a good copy of the 17-85 and had a bad one of the 24-105, but I did not want to try another copy of the 24-105, no matter how better it could have been, I felt the huge price difference could not possibly be justified.
Instead I got a 35 mm 2.0 and a 100 mm 2.8 macro, and kept over $400.00 in my pocket.

The 17-85 might not be the best lens out there but it really is a jack of all trades.Yes there are sharper lenses, there are faster lenses, but it still takes great pictures and unless you are a pixel peeper or an "L" snob I can't possibly see ant reasons to spend an enormous amount of money on an "L" zoom.
If you want fast lenses, great bokeh, sharper images; then I guess you've got get yourself some primes. As far as walk around zooms are concerned, the 17-85 will keep doing it for me.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Review Date: Jan 31, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, no CA, excellent color rendition, build quality, and a LOT of fun
Price if bought new, no hood , soft on the edges, EFS

This is a pretty sharp piece of glass, and it is so much fun to use. It makes you change the way you shoot, it opened a whole new world to me. The width and the huge DOF make it very interesting to use, I can spent hours shooting without feeling the need to swap lens, thing that never happened with my other lenses.
Quality wise it is very good, better than my 17-85 IS in terms of color rendition and sharpness, but not as sharp as my 70-200 f:4. As others have said it is a little soft on the edges but it is not a major issue. It is very resistant to flare and very useable in harsh lighting conditions, and best of all it is pretty much free of CA unlike the 17-85 IS. All this was achieved without filters, nor hood.

I recently bought this lens used on this forum so I avoided paying full price for it. I probably would not have spent the $$$ if I had to buy it new, but I now that I own it, I feel confident to say that whatever you end up paying for it, it is worth every penny.
This lens will spend a lot of time on my camera.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: May 1, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $565.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent walkaround, will stay on my 20D 90%of the time. Sharp and fast lens. Image quality, though not L, far exceeds my kit lens. For a zoom with this kind of range quality is excellent and IS really works
Price is a little steep, but you the 17-85 could replace 2 other zooms with less range, so in the end it's a good investment.