 |
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VERY sharp. For a Zoom, you'd think it was a 200 prime. Good background blur, very fast autofocus...fastest i've ever used.
|
|
Cons:
|
not a single one
|
|
|
There isn't a single thing wrong with this except I wish i could change it's color to black with a flick of the switch so I can go unnoticed!!! Very sharp, even at 2.8 and the background blur on this thing is to die for. Great for motorsports and sports photography. A tad heavy, but very manageable.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VERY sharp, FTM, USM, Sharp at even F4, lightweight compared to the F2.8 version. Good Value for $
|
|
Cons:
|
Reaching for more than F4, and that's it, everythign else is great
|
|
|
This has to be a 10 lens. It is sharp just like any other 70-200L lens. It's about 1/2 the weight of the 2.8 series which is a bonus if you lug it around all day. ALso at a price of around 500-600 bucks (1/2 of the 2.8) it's a great value. I say this is a very good first "L" glass. However I think most will sell it and jump to the 2.8.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
has image stabilizer
|
|
Cons:
|
rattles a bit, not constant aperature, no FTM
|
|
|
I had this lens intended to be a walk around lens. using a 20D with 1.6, the 28mm end wasn't wide enough, and I didn't need the reach of the 135mm. The Image stabilizer was nice, but that's it. For paying $400, it does not have constant aperature, it does not have FTM, and the optical quality was good at best. For the money, i'd recommend the tamron 28-75 2.8 or the sigma 24-70 2.8. Or pay a little bit more and step to the L glass territory with the 70-200 F4.
After owning the lens for about 1 month and putting 1000 shots through it, I decided to sell it
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $275.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, worth of being "L" sharp. USM, FTM
|
|
Cons:
|
harder to master this lens with the shallow DOF. but that's not the products fault now is it!
|
|
|
Very good lens, and the sharpest in my bag. For the money it's an excellent value. The background blur is fantastic on this as well. At F1.8 you can take pictures in very low light settings, although the AF will hunt a bit. Build quality is good as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Bang for the buck value, sharp at 2.8, sharper when stopped down. Lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy autofocus, AF even hunts a bit in low light
|
|
|
Compared to the 50mm 1.4, this lens is not as sharp, but it's a good companion. The optical quality between the two is very close. The AF hunts a bit in low light, but it's fairly quick in better lighting. The AF is also on the noisy side. I can't really say it's worth $300. Compared to the 50mm 1.4, that is a much better value. mainly because it has FTM, and USM. Overall the 24mm F2.8 is very good lens, very sharp, and a better value than it's "L" counterpart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
