Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: louis__  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add louis__ to your Buddy List
Tokina 24-200mm AT-X 242 AF

Review Date: Jul 25, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Build, price, image quality
Lens cap, focus, not wide enough for an APS-C size DSLR, bokeh

I bought mine after reading reviews from here and checking out other people's work in pBase.

The lens is difficult to find in HK. Most shops don't have it and I could only find mine in a small camera shop (with a bit of luck).

I found the image quality OK, in the wide-end 24mm and tele-end 200mm, I found the images a little bit soft when wide opened. But improves when stop down to f8. In the range 50mm to.. say 170mm, it can give you sharp pictures.

I also noticed corner sharpness is less than centre sharpness.

Color and contrast is good.

I cannot get good bokeh until I zoom to 170mm+ and have aperture wide opened. But with these settings, I risk getting soft images. However, I suspect all travelling lenses are no good in this aspect. So... if I want good bokeh, I would bring on a weighless 50 1.4.

I really like the construction of this lens. It looks professional than it costs.

The lens cap is a joke. When you have your lens hood attached, it is almost impossible to take off / put back your lens cap.

Don't use this lens in low light (as for other travelling lens).

Overall, I enjoy this lens as a travelling lens.

For people using a APS-C size camera (eg 20D), they should seriously consider the sigma 18-200 or tamron 18-200 (I don't have these lenses so I couldn't compare their optical performance. But as a travelling lens, they weigh less and give wider end).

But for people using full frame or 1.3 crop camera, it is a good travelling lens.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Review Date: Dec 29, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: WIDE. Lightweight. Sharp. Build quality.
None, except it looks like a 18-55.

I owned a 17-40 f/4L before and sold it because a friend of mine, who owns a 16-35 f/2.8L, sneer at me of his lens's better lowlight capability when we were shooting inside a Thai temple. I was then all set to buy the 16-35 f/2.8L.

I was aware of this lens at that time but have had 3 (common) concerns:
1) It's an EF-S - It may lose its usefulness when a full frame becomes more affordable in the future.
2) It's not an "L" - It also implies that the resell value, build quality and optical quality not as good.
3) Expensive - being priced almost as an 17-40 f/4L

But after doing some researches and seeing other people's work. I have decided to go for this lens instead. My comments are:

1) It is wide. You simply can't get the same perspective with an 16-35 f/2.8L or 17-40/f4L.
2) It is sharp. But I think it is (very) slightly behind the 17-40/f4L.
3) Build quality is good. But it is not built like a tank as an L lens.
4) Lightweight.

Overall, I am very happy with this lens. Using this lens is totally different experience to a 17-40/f4L. The 3 concerns i mentioned above will become irrelevant when you start enjoying what this lens can do for you.

Wish list:
1) A bigger aperture
2) Comes with a hood and bag