 |
Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, inexpensive, fairly fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
none with lens, but task specific
|
|
|
I got this when I got the 200 f/2.8, about 3-4 years ago. I had upgraded to the 'new' 5D from a 300D and was trying to start upgrading my lenses. I actually returned the 200 (a great lens) and got the 70-200 f/2.8 for a number of reasons. However I kept this lens since it was f/2.
But I never really used it. It seemed to be the 'poor lens' that always got left behind when I filled my bag. So about a year ago I was going to a small B'Day party and took my 5D and only this lens for fun. I was very happy with the results. Like any prime, foot zoom and positioning were key.
And back into the drawer it went for the most part.
Last fall I got my hands on a new 50D the week they came out - and this was the first lens I put on it. And I have used it a number of times since then on the 50D: compact, decent AF, and while an odd FL @160, it works great in a lot of situations where a little reach is needed, especially stopped down to f/2.8.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,199.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp even at 1.4, really sharp at f/2,great bokeh, light but solid, great on my 5D
|
|
Cons:
|
hunts a little in low, low light - need something for it to 'grab' onto
|
|
|
I shot some indoor concert pix with and without flash. All were great, but the non-flash stand out. Those are the ones folks go 'whoa' when they see. Obviously @ f/1.4 -f/2 DOF is shallow, but that is why you get a lens like this. With more practice, I'm sure I'll have even better shots.
On the focusing issue, when using AF and you have focus, it tracks very, very well. But I had a couple of instances where in admittedly very low light using center focus aiming at a stationary object, AF just couldn't get it.
Overall a great lens. I had wanted to get it several years ago when I got my 5D, but went for the 24-70 instead. The 'L' collection just keeps growing...
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $660.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp even at f/2.8, price, weight, length (not including hood)
|
|
Cons:
|
non-IS = faster speed required, but not great for low light no-tripod situations,
|
|
|
Excellent lens. Build is great and very sharp. I wanted something in the 200 range, so I read this forum and others at length and decided to get this over the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It was $1K less and didn't need anything in the 85 or 100 range (I have primes). First experience outdoors was great: great bokah, DOF was nice, color very rich.
So why did I return it? I took it to an indoor event with mixed low light and was disappointed with about 1/2 my images, for 2 reasons. While I try to position myself, turns out I do need a zoom if only because I need to backoff just a bit sometimes (if only to 150 or 175). Also couldn't get decent images at 1/125 or slower, but light required that or 1/60 (all handheld).
Great lens & higly recommended- just make sure it fits your shooting style. BTW, while it is black, you are anything but unnoticed once you put that hood on ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
