 |
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
