 |
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I have had this lens for more than two years and have used it for macro, portrait and landscape. I use it more for portraits than I do for marcro, and am very happy with it. It is tack sharp and gives good color rendition.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy when focusing, slow to focus.
|
|
|
This is a good utility lens at 50mm. It is good for macro, although I get better results using other prime lenses with extension tubes. I use this lens more for portraits and landscapes. If you want to travel light, and 50mm works for you, this lens is versatile. It is very sharp and has good IQ. The build is OK, but not robust.
The drawbacks to the lens are its slow focus, and the inability to go from close focus to distance focus quickly. For example, if I focus on something very close, then want to focus on something at a distance, I must focus on some intermediate object -- typically my hand -- to get the lens "started" on the way to a distant focus. The lens is not quick focusing, so it would not be good for action pictures.
Overall, for stationary objects, I think that this is a very good lens for the price.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp focusing as I expected it to be.
|
|
|
I got his for a general purpose lens. As an L lens,I expected it to be very sharp. However, it is nowhere as sharp as my 70-300 or 70-200 on the long end, and o better than my 17-85 on the short end. I sent it to the factory for calibration twice, but it still disappoints me. It focuses about like my 28-135.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, sharp, good color. L quality pics, but not build.
|
|
Cons:
|
None. I'm happy with mine.
|
|
I really like my lens. It is sharp and has good color. Images compare favorably with my 70-200 2.8L and 24-105L. It is possible to get some interesting effects with this lens if you have some object positioned in the near foreground. It's a fun lens to use. It's light and easy to tote around as a second or third lens. A few pics at: http://fenwick.smugmug.com/gallery/1448801/1/72241530
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EOS 30D
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Ergonmics better than the XT; seems to focus quickly; better range of ISO settings than the XT; ease of making settings (after some practice)
|
|
Cons:
|
Seems to have a slight problem handling bright day light, but I think this is a characteristic weekness of Canon consumer grade cameras. So, I have gone to bracketing.
|
|
|
I traded up from the XT. I like the size and build of the 30D -- it has a good feel to it, is easier to hold and balance is better with big lenses such as the 70-200 2.8IS. The dials take a little getting used to, but settings come easier and faster with practice. I like the view window and the larger LCD. However, the LCD makes all pictures look contrasty and bright, which might not be the case when I see them on my computer. Therefore, I'm not sure whether to retake a picture or not. I'm starting to pay more attention to histograms.
As noted in previous comments in this thread, the on/off switch is a little bizarre. According to Canon, an explanation for the two position on switch is, "If you were hiking with your camera but wanted the camera to stay on you would leave it set to the ON position so the dial on the back would not operate. If the camera brushed against you while set to ON, no settings will change. If the camera brushed against you while set to the position with the line, settings would change." Hmmmmm.
The 30D will be my main camera, but I'll probably use the XT when I want to travel light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
