about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: my58vw  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add my58vw to your Buddy List
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

ef50mmf_14usm_1_
Review Date: Jul 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $339.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Normal Lens, very nice all around focal length on FF (1Ds). Nice and sharp stopped down (f/2.0 - 2.8+), Lightweight, Bayonette Hood nice compared to clip on on EF 85 f/1.8 USM, OK build quality for price, USM.
Cons:
Soft at f/1.4 - f/2.0, Needs serious USM to fix, Nowhere near L quality compared to 24 or 35 f/1.4L's. Will buy 50 f/1.2L or like in a heartbeat, but this is the best 50mm in town.

If you own canon this is the best 50mm that you can buy new in town. The only better is the discontinued 50 f/1.0L, but the price at over 3k is way too high, the 85 f/1.2L II is a better value to the 50 f/1.0L. For a walkaround lens on FF this focal length is the best, wide, full body shots, automotive, PJ, even landscapes are within range on this lens. For low light performance I go for the 35 f.1.4L, but for most uses the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 are with me. Until a 50mm L is introduced this will be on my camera 90% of the time.

 
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

1ef200mmf_28_1_1_
Review Date: Jul 17, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $699.99 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Lightweight 200mm f/2.8L lens, Very sharp, quite sharp wide open, Good bokeh, As sharp (if not more) than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS at comparable focal lengths, Discrete compared to while L glass... gets you in where white does not.
Cons:
No IS, meaning shutter speeds need to be a bit higher, more noise. L lens should come with Ring mount, extra 90 dollars.

I bought this lens as a replacement (with a 135 f/2.0L, the 200 f/2.8L sister lens) for my 70-200 f/2.8L IS I was using on my 20D, and not my 1Ds. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS was the sharpest lens I have ever owned, but I can say at comparable focal lengths both the 135 f/2.0L and 200 f/2.0L are actually as sharp, and maybe sharper without the weight associated with the 70-200. This is quite an acomplishment, as the 70-200 is probably the sharpest canon zoom lens ever made.

The 200 f/2.8L, like the 70-200 f/2.8L non IS is great over about 1/200, but 1/125 or so is obtainable with good long lens technique. On a full frame body (1Ds mark 1) this lens is a totally different animal. It is long but in actuality in many cases not long enough. It was not enough for example to reach from the middle deck for reasonale frame fill at most stadiums. With the 200 f/2.8L canon's good teleconverters can make this a 280 f/4.0L or a 400 f/5.6L with small IQ drops. In my opinion the lack of IS is not such an issue then with a 1.3 or 1.6x crop camera, the later being 320mm vs 200mm, in that case a near 1/300 shutter speed is needed for sharp shots.

The main thing I love about this lens is the weight and discreatness. I can take it to a baseball game and no one questions the lens... I call it the white syndrome, I was turned down more times with the 70-200 2.8L IS.

Overall this is a great lens for a FF or crop camera, each its own purposes anyway... if primes are for you, then go for it... the 200 f/2.8 and 135 f/2.0 are together about the price of the 70-200 2.8L IS, although missing the IS the low light performance is better.


 
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

1ef200mmf_28_1_1_
Review Date: Jul 17, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $699.99 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Lightweight 200mm f/2.8L lens, Very sharp, quite sharp wide open, Good bokeh, As sharp (if not more) than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS at comparable focal lengths, Discrete compared to while L glass... gets you in where white does not.
Cons:
No IS, meaning shutter speeds need to be a bit higher, more noise. L lens should come with Ring mount, extra 90 dollars.

I bought this lens as a replacement (with a 135 f/2.0L, the 200 f/2.8L sister lens) for my 70-200 f/2.8L IS I was using on my 20D, and not my 1Ds. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS was the sharpest lens I have ever owned, but I can say at comparable focal lengths both the 135 f/2.0L and 200 f/2.0L are actually as sharp, and maybe sharper without the weight associated with the 70-200. This is quite an acomplishment, as the 70-200 is probably the sharpest canon zoom lens ever made.

The 200 f/2.8L, like the 70-200 f/2.8L non IS is great over about 1/200, but 1/125 or so is obtainable with good long lens technique. On a full frame body (1Ds mark 1) this lens is a totally different animal. It is long but in actuality in many cases not long enough. It was not enough for example to reach from the middle deck for reasonale frame fill at most stadiums. With the 200 f/2.8L canon's good teleconverters can make this a 280 f/4.0L or a 400 f/5.6L with small IQ drops. In my opinion the lack of IS is not such an issue then with a 1.3 or 1.6x crop camera, the later being 320mm vs 200mm, in that case a near 1/300 shutter speed is needed for sharp shots.

The main thing I love about this lens is the weight and discreatness. I can take it to a baseball game and no one questions the lens... I call it the white syndrome, I was turned down more times with the 70-200 2.8L IS.

Overall this is a great lens for a FF or crop camera, each its own purposes anyway... if primes are for you, then go for it... the 200 f/2.8 and 135 f/2.0 are together about the price of the 70-200 2.8L IS, although missing the IS the low light performance is better.


 
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

ef_100_28_1_
Review Date: Jul 16, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Weight, Size, Sharpness wide open, Build is L quality, 1:1 macro
Cons:
Hood is a little long, DOF at f/2.8 even for normal subjects is very thin

I bought this lens as both a macro and a portrait lens for my 1Ds while I wait for the 85 f/1.2L. The camera states that it can be used for both applications and in most cases it is right. For normal subjects the DOF for f/2.8 is quite thin compared to the 24-70, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 at f/2.8 which can make focusing a challenge. Wide open is quite sharp, but usually needs a little USM in photoshop, very sharp from f/4.0 on.

Even on a FF camera 100mm is a bit long, and not the best for walk around, but excels at head and shoulder shots, and flower/insect macro work. In short this lens is nearly L quality, but not quite at the larger apertures, but for half the cost of the L macro it is very good. I can see why so many people say this is a great lens... and will be in my kit for a long time (until I get the 180mm f/3.5L Macro that is).