about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: dseidman  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dseidman to your Buddy List
Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX IF HSM APO

100-300if_1_
Review Date: Feb 1, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $950.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, good range, solid build, fast and accurate autofocus.
Cons:
No IS/VR and the lens is a little heavy but that's to be expected.

I bought this lens a few years ago after reading lots of reviews. From what I had read, it appeared that this lens is comparable in image quality to Canon's telephotos of similar zoom range. Well after owning this lens for three years and using plenty of Canon's lenses during that time, I can say that this lens really is as good but at a much better price. I have been extremely pleased with its performance. So far it has survived three camera bodies (20D, 40D, and now 5D2) and it's still going strong.

I mostly shoot landscapes with the camera mounted on a tripod so the f/4 aperture is something I don't have to worry about but I can see it being of some concern for sports photographers. Also, the lack of image stabilization can make it a little tough to use handheld. Other than that, I have nothing bad to say.

Here is a gallery full of images I've taken with it over the years:
http://www.northwestcapture.com/keyword/100300


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Jan 25, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, lightweight, build quality, inexpensive for an L, weather sealed
Cons:
Corner sharpness, but it's not too bad.

When I upgraded to a full-frame camera, I had to find a replacement wide angle lens for my Tokina 12-24. After doing a little research, this lens appeared to be the best value out of all my options (which were pretty much limited to either this or the 16-35). Now that I've had more than 6 months to use it, I can say that I definitely made the right decision for the type of photography I do. I don't need to the f/2.8 of the 16-35 and I don't think the difference in sharpness justifies spending double the money. In fact, there seems be very little difference in sharpness at all judging by comparisons I've made between images produced with my 17-40 and a friend's 16-35.

Here are some samples of the work I have produced with this lens:

http://www.northwestcapture.com/keyword/1740