Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: lenyoso  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add lenyoso to your Buddy List
Sigma 24-70mm f3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF

Review Date: Nov 11, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: $129.00

Pros: inexpensive light sharp and good contrast esp at shorter focal lengths
70 mm soft - very

Revised rating to 8 or even 7 (at 70mm)

After fooling around with this lens some more, I felt I had to revise my rating for you.

Sharp and very good contrast at the shorter focal lenghts esp 24mm. The far right side of the image does have some softness and aberration although I don't think it is noticeble until you are at 100%. As the focal length increases to 70 this gets somewhat worse with it most evident at 70mm. And at 24 it really is a good sharp contrasty lens as good as I get with my othe lenses. At 70mm I would be only happy with snapshots and 4X6 stuff so I shouldn't use it for something that is important to me. For the $$ I remain happy with the lens but yes I will replace it someday (I hope). I am an amatuer.

Oh yes - Crow is very tasty.

I will post shortly some comps that are better for you to see at:

Sigma 24-70mm f3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF

Review Date: Oct 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $129.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: High contrast, very sharp, light and very inexpensive
slow f-stop, and AF is slower than my two other lenses 70-200L f4 and Tamron 17-35

I have only had this lens a bit and have to say that it exceeded my expectations. The lens has high contrast and is really sharp for most of the frame (1.6X). I shot some into the sun looking for flare and it performed very well. Some full rez examples are at:

Depending on where you are in the zoom range seems to affect the sharpness on the edges that you see at 100%. Most manufactureres seem to be going for faster lenses. I needed a shorter and smaller diameter lens for my in camera (10D) flash to work - see hemip ant mimic. So far so good, and I am extremely happy at this point. Maybe one day I will be able to afford something even faster. Sharper? This lens performs perhaps as well as my 70-200 f4 L in terms of image quality. It does seem to have a bit more contrast. Mind you no tests just looking at the RAW pics straight from the camera in RSE.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Mar 3, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $580.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: light, easy to use, sharp, and definitely fast enough
No tripod mount ring

Everyone has already said everything there is to say. It kicks the bootey. I don't take many people or performance pics (none) and I used this lens at a 8th grade theater show with the 10D. I used 1600 and 3200. I had a great time shooting and the pics were more than acceptable. I impressed myself. Yes if I had the 2.8 and IS then I would have a greater success rate. Man for the price you cannot beat this lens.

Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical

Review Date: Mar 3, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $470.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Very sharp with good contrast. Punchy. It feels sturdy enough. good feel to the zoom and focus rings. Very light. Low distortion. (I actually miss it).
No depth of field window

I first used this with Superia film and had it developed at the pharmacy. Wow! Very sharp with great contrast. I was taken aback by the lack of distortion which was severe on my FD 24mm compared to this lens. I actually miss the distortion on the especially wide angle end. I used it extensively in Big Bend NP over the Christmas/New Years break and I am very happy with this lens. You do get some distortion on the edges and it is evident in the prints and slides.

I recently purchased the 10D 1.6X and I am still learning with this camera buit my initial reactions are the same (I don't know why they might be different but some posts state that the combination of camera and lens may be different between digital and film..?? Its just light correct?)

I was somewhat dissappointed with the lack of a depth of window. I can adjust. They do provide a very good DOF chart with the lens.

I chose this lens after looking at a test between it and the 17-40 L and there was not much difference in the test. It used a digital cam.

I am so impressed with this lens - It has definitely raised my opinion about third party lenses.