about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: hagejsh  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add hagejsh to your Buddy List
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM

Screen_Shot_2014-07-21_at_8_05_15_PM_copy
Review Date: Jul 19, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,199.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Excellent IQ. I mean at all focal lengths. For this 16-35 range it is the first time Cannon has not let me down. Lighter than the predecessors.
Cons:
None really. It is quite a bit less expensive than the 16-35 F 2.8 11 and a much better performer.

Excellent IQ. I was very very disappointed with the 16-35 F 2.8. I was more than disappointed with the 16-35 F 2.8 11. Both were very soft at almost all distances. After reading some reviews I traded in the latter for this version. I am not disappointed. It may not have the waterproofing of the previous issues, but they were not worth carrying in my bag. I am using it on a 5D Mk !!!. Heaven! With the 5d Mk 3 the ISO adjustment more than makes up for this being an F4. I do not shoot high speed sports events.
However--if I did--I would not use either of the predecessors due to lack of IQ. I now feel quite complete with this lens, the 24-70 F 2.8 Mk 2 and the 70-200 F 2.8 Mk 2. I feel these lenses to be on par. Good job Cannon.


 
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

Screen_Shot_2013-11-16_at_5_30_13_PM
Review Date: Aug 1, 2013 Recommend? | Price paid: $2,299.00

 
Pros: Very sharp at all settings, even 2.8 wide open. The low light attributes of ISO up to 5000 are undeniable. Much lighter that the previous version--more importantly much sharper. Excellent Brokeh.
Cons:
I was afraid of the plastic components of this body, but after one year of significant abuse this has not been a problem.

Since my original review in October, 2012 I have had 10 months to work with this lens. I reiterate my original feeling. This lens more than adequately replaces the previous workhorse --the version 1. Lighter weight. Better Brokeh. Much sharper images. It has essentially replaced all of my primes in the 24-70 range. (I still like the 35 mm EF-L prime.) It has been through some significant abuse on several high altitude hikes. Stunning images make me again give this piece of glass a 10 rating.

 
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

Screen_Shot_2013-11-16_at_5_30_13_PM
Review Date: Oct 1, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $2,299.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: It is 20% lighter than the EF 20-70 f2.8 I USM. The sharpeness is clearly superior to the Model I version. I evaluated this lens over 3 days with over 600 shots. The previous reviewer brought trepidation to my decision to purchase. Initially I planned to trade in the old version. After the previous review I kept version I, which has been a great workhorse for me over the last 7 years. It will be added to my 5D Mk II as a permanent camera in my vehicle to use for unexpected opportunities. I have the new lens on my 5D MK III. It is a sweet piece of glass with excellent sharpness and excellent Brokah. I am very happy with the quality of the photos. It is weather protected. I personally feel the lighter weight makes this a great balance with my 5D Mk III. No " jitter shake" as reported by the previous observer. In fact, I am able to use the camera and lens combo with one hand.
Cons:
The front element for attaching filters is made of plastic. The filter size is 82mm-- not a big deal--just an adjustment. Since I already have an 82 mm for my 16-35mm Mk II it was not an extra expense. Of interest is that when you zoom higher, the front element moves out from the camera. With the old EF 24-70 EF 2.8 USM the lens retracted when zooming higher. The lens hood may give more coverage under the old system.



 
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

70-300mm
Review Date: Jan 23, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Lens not yet used
Cons:
Lens not yet used.

I use the FM website to help me determine future purchases. I was considering the Cannon 70-300 EF f4-5.6 L IS. I love the 70-200 EF 1:2.8 II. I doubt the quality of the 70-300 could improve on this lens. I shoot with a Cannon 5D MK2 and a 7D. There is a travel niche where I could see a place for the 70-300. The 70-200 EF1:2.8 is a bit heavy for a travel lens. However, the review by Markhbfinday made me take heed. Does he have a duff, or perhaps could one be a bit daff? I will be waiting and reviewing the site and taking a test run before making any purchases. That certainly is a very outlying review. I can't thank FM enough for this site as it has been of immense help in making previous purchases.