about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: white  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add white to your Buddy List
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

16-35II
Review Date: Apr 2, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: A notable improvement over the previously very decent lens. The improvement in the corners is more noticeable at the wide end. The best ultra-wide I have used.
Cons:
We always want more.

I perform my testing in the real world of hyper-focalized compositions that occur in landscape photography. Some lenses fall apart more in these situations as they try to control aberrations on near and far distances at the same time. Some lenses that are great on a flat surface fall apart more in landscape work. This is the best retro-focus wide I have seen for landscape work, zoom or fixed focus. This looks better than my Blad 40CF and 50CF.

 
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II

1dsmarkii
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Image quality exceeds my Hasselblad with film and blows away 35mm film. Impressive 24x36" prints on an Epson 7600 with very smooth tones. The ergonomics feel good.
Cons:
Some banding in the even toned shadow areas at times.

This is my first digital camera so my experience to compare to other digital units is limited. I scan 35mm and 6x6 pos/neg film on a Coolscan 9000 and make my comparisons to the output I can get on an Epson 7600 wide format printer. I did not believe statements that 35mm based digital could rival medium format until I did my own comparisons. The only thing I do not like is the banding I can see in some images, and can see in some of Canon's own sample images for download. It can show in some shadow areas of even Raw files, (wether converted in Capture One, Photoshop Raw, or Canon's own utility), even if I do not push the shadows much. As this is my first digital experience I do not know if other models/brands have this as well. The color is more realistic but not Velvia like right out of the can.