about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: hijkim  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add hijkim to your Buddy List
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

70-300_isusm
Review Date: Apr 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: IS, Sharp and in some situations it is as good as "L" lens.
Cons:
Build, not a solid lens. Focus ring makes noise.

I took this lens and my other L lenses to my son's school concert in their auditorium. The ISO was at 400 and took pictures at max aperture and the sharpness, contrast and saturation was almost as good as 17-40L and 24-105L at same settings. It was slightly soft at 300mm but not that noticeble from 70mm and 160mm.

But in other situations like taking pictures of trees and big open fields at bright day light it was really soft at 300mm than at 70mm.

This lens is almost as good as L lens when it comes to the glass but the build does not even come close to L lenses. It is really flimsy build. And rotating front element makes it really hard to use polorizer filters.

Overall I really like then lens and I can recommand it to non-professionals who don't really require super build lenses.


 
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Mar 17, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: IS, Sharp, Fast AF and Range. Good bulld quality.
Cons:
F/4, but for L lens with IS at this price, I can't complaint.

I now have two Canon L lenses this and 17-40 and they both are supurb lenses. I got this lens as a christmas gift and I opened it before the christmas and took it out and started to test out the lens. The IS is just amazing, I was kind of dizzy at first, my hands were shaking but the view finder was showing something different and I could not get use to it at first. The 99% of the pictures were all sharp which I could not say with 17-40L and colors were about the same as 17-40L. I don't know if it is just me but both of my L lenses have little warm tone to it especially when taking photos of people the skin tone comes out softer and warmer than my other lenses, but then it could be just my computer monitor settings.

This lens is on my camera 90% of the time. For me it is a normal to telephoto lens on my 350D. I could not say it is a wide lens on 1.6 crop. It is perfect for portraits, I would not use it for taking wide angle photos unless it is on a 5D or 1D. I'm saving up for 5D at the moment so that I don't have to buy the digital only 10-?mm lenses but this summer I might have to get 10-20 unless I get a bonus from work.

Anyway, I'm really happy that I have 24-105L and if you can afford it I can recommnad this lens. Even though it was a gift, basically it was out of my pocket. I need permissions form 'the other one' to buy anything.


 
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

ef17-40_4l_1_
Review Date: Dec 28, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $669.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Build. Sharp. Fast AF. No hunting. Full time manual focus. Light weight.
Cons:
No IS. Big Hood. F4

I got this lens to replace my EF-S 18-55mm kit lens for 350D and to be my walk around lens but it is not a good walk around lens even on 350D, not long enough. But it is soooo much better than 18-55 I had it on my camera all the time until I got EF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM. Noise is way down and CA is much better. The sharpness is about the same as EF 24-105mm IS USM but with no distortion and little CA. I use it as my Wide Angle lens now, only on my camera 10% of the time.

The hood does not fit in my camera bag so I never get to use it unless Iím shooting at home. Iím getting a backpack just to carry around the hood of this lens and hood for 24-105mm. Truthfully Iím getting the backpack to carry around my laptop with my camera gears.

After getting 24-105 and EF 70-300mm IS USM, I rely on the IS so much I wish 17-40 had it also I think all F/4L lenses should have IS.

Overall I really like the images from this lens. The color is little on the warm side. It is like my EF-S 60mm Macro with warming filter on but I like it


 
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

efs60_28macro_usm
Review Date: Nov 21, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $390.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Very sharp, fast when in good light and light weight.
Cons:
AF hunts in low light or when there is not enough contrast. EF-S.

This and EF-S 18-55mm was my first lenses for my 350D. I did not know how sharp this lense was until I got my self a Flash (Sigma EF 500 DG Super). After that I really started to use this lens and my sigma flash even on bright day light and the details on my macro shots were amazing. I did not know before how most of FMers were taking such a finely detailed macro shots. I thought my camera was bad.

Since then I got my self a 17-40L and the EF-S 60mm is still way more sharper and takes better over all quality photos then 17-40L but I shouldn't be comparing two totally different type of lenses.

Only thing is working distance is not enough for some macro shots and for that I think I'll look into Sigma 150mm Macro.