Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: drfrank  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add drfrank to your Buddy List
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

Review Date: Feb 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,149.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp, Fast auto focus,IS, Retains AF and IS with 1.4x Converter, Built in hood

I spent many hours reading reviews and comments about this lens as well as the 100-400 L. I borrowed a friends 100-400 L and a 1.4x converter to try out. When all was said and done I decided on the 300mm F4L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter. I did not like the slide action zoom of the 100-400 L.

The lens focuses very fast on my 20D (similar my 70-200mm F4L.). The 300mm F4L IS is sharp as a tack and has excellent contrast, color, and background blur. The IS modes work really well and I like the built in hood. The lens works really well with the 1.4x II extender. Auto-focus and image stabilization are maintained.

Build quality is excellent. Made to last a long time. All in all, and excellent investment.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

Review Date: Jun 11, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $330.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very Sharp, Fast, cost

I rate this lens right up there with my 70-200 FL4 and my 100mm 2.8 Macro for quality and sharpness. It has become one of my favorite lenses. The best low cost lens from Canon. A must have.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Dec 14, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $679.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Lens is extremely sharp, images are 3D like in appearance, USM is very quiet, auto focus is fast and accurate, construction ó built like a tank, on my 300D the balance is very good, colors and contrast are excellent.
None to date.

This is my second L series lens. I purchased the 70-200 F4L and based on the excellent performance of it decided to go for the 17-40 F4L. I can say it was a good investment. These two lenses are the best that I currently own. I find the 17-40 F4L to be pin sharp from 17mm to 40mm.

The 17-40 F4L has replaced my 28-135 IS for 90% of my walk-around shooting. Except for low light conditions where the IS can make a difference, the 17-40 F4L is my lens of choice.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Nov 8, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: It has been stated many times. Sharp, balanced color, very smooth operation and fast focusing.
No tripod ring. Its an option.

This is my first piece of L glass and definitely will not be my last. ! The only lens I have that comes close to the quality of photo produced by the 70-200 F4L is the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I would have no problems recommending this lens to anyone looking for a zoom at this focal length.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Review Date: Oct 30, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $414.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Its all been said.
None for me.

This lens is the sharpest lens I currently own . I use it for more than just Macro. It is often compared to ďLĒ lenses for photo quality thatís why I just ordered a 70-200mm F4L. If the quality of the 70-200 is anywhere near the 100mm 2.8 macro, Iíll be satisified.

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: Apr 28, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $414.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Image Stabilization canít be beat. Color and contrast are very good. . A good lens for the price.
Sometimes slow AF

After reading about this lens and all of the problems people were having, I was somewhat concerned when I ordered it. However, now that I have the lens and have used it for a few weeks I am very happy with it.

I am getting sharp photos at 300mm that have very good .color and contrast. I cannot afford an L glass lens at this time and the 75ó300mm IS is a a fine substitute. The image stabilization is worth the extra $$ .. I have a a Sigma a 70-300 APO super macro that I no longer use because of camera shake. .

I really like the 75-300 IS and find it a sound investment until the time comes when I can afford the 70-200 2.8 IS L.