Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: slamdesign  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add slamdesign to your Buddy List
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Review Date: Aug 8, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: is, 2.8, kudos

ok, just got this lens yesterday to replace my 135mm f2L. I will be using it for mainly for weddings and did my first wedding with it also yesterday... it went well.

all reviews you read are true and accurate! Although shockingly large (compared with my 135L and 70-200 F4) I carried it around with a lens belt, and 2x40D's all day it it wasnt too heavy, maybe i am just used to carrying alot of gear? But dont let this put you off, size and weight its not a problem in my opinion.

The main reason for choosing this over my 135L, is that i need a zoom at weddings as you cant always use your feet. Also immediately noticed alot of my shots do not need cropping which saves time.

Quality is at least on a par with 135L, blokeh probably not as creamy, but still good. But the IS and zoom makes it much more versitle lens, I can now shoot the wedding breakfast indoors, adverage-poor lighting, hand held, 200mm, F2.8, 1/30sec, iso 800.

A lot more of my shots are keepers now. IS is a must, just remember 1/30 sec is great for sharp shots as long as subject doesnt move. This lens is a diffrent beast from 70-200 F4, probably just as sharp but nowhere near as usable for weddings, forget indoor work even with a monopod.

Alot of dosh, but if your serious about your photos or are a professional making a living from your images, just close your eyes, bite the bullet and hand your money over, (you will soon forget about the holiday you could have had with this money once you see the quality).

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Review Date: Jul 30, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: IS, 2.8 throughout all zoom range
price, not quite as well built as L, no hood.

I bought this to replace my 17-40 F4 L, the main reason was for my low light wedding work.

I intially got sucked into the 'gotta have L lenses', but the proof really is in the pudding so to speak. This lens kicks the 17-40 L in the arse! Its more money yes, but image quality is superb (i have test shots with both lenses if you want to see, email me). F2.8 which I dont think is that fast, creates nice creamy background, which 17-40 isnt great at at all, also has greater zoom range and the bonus IS. I wasnt sure about IS but having used it, its fantastic. Cant really demonstrate it working, but switch it on the head down to 8th or 15th sec and it just works, dont as me how, it just does.

Works that well infact that i will be upgrading my 135 F2L (best lens i ever owned) to a 70-200 f2.8 IS very soon.

Downside, not as smooth as L series with focus rings and build quality, but you soon forget about that when you see the pics it produces.

I hope this helps someone out in their decision, alot of money but buy one asap.