about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: peanuthead  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add peanuthead to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

24-105lisusm
Review Date: Feb 16, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $980.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp wide open, good build, handling, compact
Cons:
distortion at wide angle

Great all-purpose lens. Sharp wide open at all focal lengths. Fast and accurate focusing. Great color and contrast. Good build and handling. Good size and weight. My only complaint was distortion at the wide end - I realized I was subconsciously avoiding the wide end, effectively making this lens 30-105mm for me. Ended up trading this lens in for 24-105mm. I do miss 70-105mm and IS now though.

 
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

ef_24-70_28u_1_
Review Date: Feb 15, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,060.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: fast and accurate autofocus, sturdy build, handling, hood performance, sharp wide open
Cons:
Heavy, big.

This lens replaced my 24-105mm 4L IS which I also loved. This lens is very sharp wide open at all focal lengths. Focusing is very fast and accurate as expected. There is slight distortion at 24mm, but much better than 24-105mm. I really like the build and handling. Hood design is excellent - I like the fact that it attaches to the main body rather than the zooming part - feels much more sturdy and sure.
Overall, a great serious lens that performs at the highest level in every aspect.


 
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

l217_efs1755
Review Date: Nov 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,021.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Very sharp F2.8 + IS great for indoors
Cons:
Build quality lacking for $1000 lens Dust build-up

I've had this lens for 2 months now, and it's been a joy to use on my 30D. Sharpest zoom I've ever used, even sharper than 24-105mm 4L and 24-70mm 2.8L that I've owned/used. Color and contrast are pretty much identical to the L zooms I've used.
However, I returned my original copy recently after noticing significant dust build-up inside. Every Canon lens I've ever owned (including zooms and primes) eventually had some dust, so I expected to see some dust inside this lens eventually, but to my chagrin, the 17-55mm was collecting dust at an alarming rate that would've required cleaning every year. I've returned my original copy for another 17-55mm hoping that the new copy will not be as dust prone. If the new copy also turns out to be a dust magnet, I'm going to return to 24-104mm 4L.
I also wish it had better build quality and handling for the price. It feels so flimsy for a $1000 lens.