about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: evisione  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add evisione to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Dec 14, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,150.00

 
Pros: IS, color, focal range
Cons:
price, a bit weighty

THis is my favorite walking around lens. Every picture I take with it is sharp and the color is superb.



 
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,050.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: sharp, color, IS
Cons:
weight, price

My second favorite lens. Always dependable - w/ sharp colorful photos.

 
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

ef100_400l_1_
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,350.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: color, sharpness, IS
Cons:
weight, price

This is my all time FAVORITE lens for animals. The 70-200, while being an excellent lens, just didn't have the reach that I wanted/needed for animal shots. THis lens does. It's crisp and sharp -- w/out fail. And the color in extraordinary.

 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: relatively inexpensive
Cons:
not sharp enough, nor is the color rich

I went through 2 copies of this lens and thehy were both missing that little something called sharpness. I sent both copies back to where I bought them from (2 different camera places) and got a 16-35. I haven't looked back since.

 
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

ef_16-35_28_1_
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,150.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: color, sharpness, fast
Cons:
price

Like everyone else, I debated and debated between this and the 17-40 f/4. In all actuality, the 17-40 won out, but I was sorely disappointed in the results of the lens. It wasn't sharp enough. I thought it was the lens so I sent it back and got a replacement. But the results were the same. It was just missing that *oomph*

So, I sent the 2nd 17-40 back and broke down to spend the extra and get the 16-35 and OH MAN could I tell a difference immediately in the sharpness/crispness factors of the images. ANd there was a world of difference in the colors.

IMO, the 16-35 f/2.8 is the clear winner in this debate.