 |
|
|
Dave Tong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 5, 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $80.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light, wide enough.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF, cheap build, rough zoom ring, vignette, flare.
|
|
|
Got this lens to "start off" with a used 10D I purchased a week earlier.
First of all, my copy had some sort of internal chip problem that only registers my focal length at 55mm, meaning, I can't adjust my aperture any larger than f/5.6, so essentially this lens became a 22-55mm f/5.6 lens... Making it even slower.
From time to time the focus ring feel rough and gritty, must be dust entering the zoom mechanism
Flaring is horrendous, even indoors!
The lens is really light and cheap, though. Good enough for most day-to-day snaps, but it's certainly not crisp and sharp even at f/6... You need to stop down to f/8 or higher to hit its "sweet spot"... needless to say, not really that good indoors and poor lighting.
Can't complain, though, it's really cheap for a zoom... But wished I threw my 80 bucks on a new nifty 50 instead (50 f/1.8 MkII).
Most shots in my flickr (www.flickr.com/photos/davidleetong) are shot with this lens on a 10D (unless noted otherwise in the image tags).
|
|
 Feb 19, 2007
|
|
mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7596
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
small cheap and wide (on FF)
|
|
Cons:
|
not that sharp and tends to flare
|
|
|
Ok, I bought the lens for use on film cameras a while back when it was still offered new. It was a whim purchase based on the unique zoom range it offered. There were no other lenses with this range. It goes quite wide to past normal (on FF)... and I like shooting with a normal perspective, so a 16-35L didn't interest me... it would just mean more lens changes. For an outdoor walkaround lens I found this to perform pretty good if you didn't pull out a loupe or pixel peep it... and it's a really fun range on a FF camera. The few times I shot it on my 10D it was more than adequate for very nice snapshots (outdoors or inside using bounce flash). 22mm isn't exactly ultra-wide, but it feels close... so if you just want to play around with the FL you might want to consider this lens. Yes, I did a lens test on it once and it didn't score well, but you can't see that in most of your photos... I don't really use it much, but I like it enough that I can't bring myself to sell it (what is it worth anyway?)... also, since I don't have a 17-55mm EF-S kit lens I might consider this on my crop camera for snapshots at Disneyland or something when I don't want to lug my 24-70L... but really, the way to think of this lens is almost-ultrawide on the cheap. It does vignette and flares, but I don't always mind a vignette... I think they go for about $50 on ebay in mint condition and I think they are worth that easily.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2006
|
|
marty01_uk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 15, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
small light cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
vignetting poor contrast soft edges
|
|
|
The lens came with a second hand camera i bought i thought it would be interesting to use.I hear it was designed for the eos ix7 and the 24-85(good lens) was designed for the eos ix.
I havn't used it on a ix or ix7 but the cameras i have used it on it was poor.
On my eos 3 it was terrible.poor contrast vignetting soft around the edges...The west results i had were at f8-11 and even then it was still soft at the edges...
on my eos 10d the vignetting had gone with it having a smaller sensor but the sharpness and contrst were even worse ...
I only hope it did the job on the ix7....
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006
|
|
tstrauss
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good zoom range, nice contrast and colors.
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels cheap, distortion, rotating front element.
|
|
|
I bought the lens on a trip to Australia in 2001 when i realised that i need a wider angle to capture the landscape. It served me well for some years with really great shots. Regarding the price i would by it again.
The lens was orginally designed as the standard zoom on the SLR-APS cameras of the IX line. But it performs well on a 35mm film body.
|
|
|
May 17, 2006
|
|
rudiger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 554
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
A small, light, cheap, reasonably wide starter lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic, no FTM, doesn't have real USM, image quality...
|
|
|
I bought this lens shortly before I bought my D60 - sold it not too long after... I found this lens to be pretty decent considering it is a variable aperture consumer zoom.
Some of my favorite pictures were taken with this lens (http://www.serifin.net/port/images/06.jpg) and I even have a 20x30 of this image (http://www.serifin.net/port/images/03.jpg) taken with this lens.
A good starter lens for those that can't use the EF-s consumer lenses.
|
|
|
May 12, 2005
|
|
mbze430
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 324
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, great price
|
|
Cons:
|
slow, poorly constructed, image quality so-so. No FTM Slow focus
|
|
|
I had this since I originally bought in to the APS SLR format. The lens works fine for occasional shooting with the EOS IX. However when used on the 35mm or even digital SLR it became apparent that the lens lacks sharpness and contrast. Can't FTM, and it hunts when it's trying to focus.
I have tried this lens on EOS 3, EOS 7e, EOS IX, and 20D they all exhibit the same issue.
However I think it might be a great starter lens, because of the price point. But you will soon grow out of this lens faster than you know it.
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2004
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, small and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Flimsy construction, feels very cheap, so so optics.
|
|
|
For the price one can't complain. I do not own this lens nor do I intend to buy it. I borrowed it one evening for fun. It felt cheap and crummy compared to the mid range 28-105 and the likes. The zoom ring felt loose and the zooming action did not feel substantial. Focusing was quite slow, not like a real USM motor. When I got back my results I got what I expected. Optics are OK for the price, sort of average. This is an OK lens if it comes as a kit with a camera but I wouldn't ask anyone to buy this.
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2004
|
|
btjohnston
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 20, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1083
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap and light
|
|
Cons:
|
image quality is so-so, all plastic, fairly slow.
|
|
|
I've been using this lens mainly on eos film cameras where it performs ok. I find it a little soft on my 10D. This is a good lens if you want a reasonably wide angle at 22. If you need something to take professional shots with, I'd save up for the L lens of similar focal lengths. All in all for what I use it for, it does the job. Would I buy this after having used it? probably not.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2004
|
|
spartan123
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3683
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Don't care if my son breaks it.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheaply built.
|
|
|
I bought this lense for when my son uses the 10D. (which is not often). If he were to break this lens I would not care. But at the same time he can get some decent pictures from it. Good learning lens for him.
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2003
|
|
Mike Eckstein
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $109.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Small and very light. Surprisingly good for a lens that sells for $109.
Very sharp stopped down to f 8.0
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as good as more expensive lenses.
|
|
|
I have made 20 x 30 prints from D30 and 10D bodies that have been very, very good and are also very sharp. One of the best zoom lens buys dollar for dollar. On a 1.6 factor digital it is a relatively good walk around landscape lens. If money is a factor consider this lens until you can afford to spend more dollars. I take mostly wildlife images so my major dollars have been spent on the telephoto end of the lens spectrum, but the lens serves it's purpose very well for me and I would recommend it to those on a budget who need a wide angle zoom.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2003
|
|
trsqr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 24, 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $129.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, light, usable range on 1.6x crop factor cameras, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow (4.0-5.6), completely plastic, image quality is so-so
|
|
|
If they would sell 10D with a cheap kit-lens, it would be this one. This lens is a 35-87 lens on a 10D/D60/D30 camera. It's not as bad as I feared and takes very usable pictures (of course it depends how are you going to use your pictures).
As I stated, the build-quality is not very good (completely made of plastic), the lens is slow, and the image sharpness is not on par with more expensive lenses.
However, this lens offers a cheap way to reach even reasonable wide angle (35mm) with the 1.6x factor and while saving for a 17-40L I can take many shots that would be missed without this lens. Or if you do not need the focal range very often, it might not be in your interests to dish a $800 for a 17-40L or similar lens. EF 20-35 might be another possible choice.
|
|
|
May 20, 2003
|
|
stan_g
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 232
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
12
|
100803
|
Feb 19, 2007
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
75% of reviewers
|
$117.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
4.20
|
8.40
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
