 |
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $468.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp even wide open, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
some distortion
|
|
|
I got the lens when the price came down quite a bit, so I don't find it overpriced anymore. The image quality is very good, however I am a bit disappointed that is shows some distortion. If it were a zoom lens I'd say distortion is very well controlled. But it's a prime and for a prime I would have loved less distortion. For architectural photos the distortion of this lens (DXO says 0.6 %) is still a bit too strong. And correcting it destroys the otherwise excellent sharpness.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 22, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
weight, sharpness, no distortion, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
some say pricey, but I think it is worth it.
|
|
|
I still own the old 4/500 L and recently upgraded to this one (plan to sell the 500). The new 600 is superb in every aspect. I upgraded to have 100 mm more focal length at essentially the same weight. Also it is very remarkable that is has no distortion at all. You can photograph millimeter paper if you want to. (not important for most applications but I do gigapixel photography, where this feature is very usefull, because it adds to the stitching quality!)
Although the lens has no faults, I think that for most uses (no, I don't do BIF) the new 500 is the better choice, because of its lower weight. Performance with extenders of the new super teles is extremely good. But when I compared my old 500 to the new 600 I found that the quality difference is not that huge. My 500 already was extremely sharp, even with extenders. But it is with extenders where you mainly see the difference in image quality. Also, when using the 2x with my 5DII and 6D, I have to focus manually. This is easier with the new lenses due to the better IS.
If I could afford both, I'd take both (500II + 600II ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, lightweight, stabilized
|
|
Cons:
|
pricey, no hood included, not weathersealed
|
|
|
I ordered that lens after having tested the new Sigma 35 mm f/1,4 DG HSM. The Sigma can be a very good lens, if you get a good copy. Mine was very soft on one side of the frame and had a front focus issue, so I returned it. Also, it was quite heavy. The new Canon 35 2 IS is lighter. It feels solid, although not as solid as most L lenses. A quick test on a resolution chart proved that it is very sharp wide open, not worse than the Sigma @ f=1.4. Distortion is low, although more noticeable than on the Sigma. It lacks the 1 stop advantage of the Sigma but offers images stabilization instead. I doubt that it is as good as 4 stops, the IS on my 70-300L seems to be better, but maybe it is the weight of the latter that adds to the image stabilization. I find it disgraceful that Canon doesn't include a lens hood with this lens, especially at this price point. However, I don't know why, I like this lens more than the Sigma. I have the old EF 35 mm f2 and the 16-35L II, and the image quality of both (@35 mm) is the pits compared to this lens, so even at this price, I think I will keep the lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, weight, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Just bought this little cutie. Like it very much. Quality is exceptional on 5DII full frame. Puts my 16-35II @ 35mm to shame. Distorsion is also quite low. For an art project I have to take pictures of town clocks. Therefore for quite a while I will need to take along my EF 500 f4 L wherever I go, which is quite heavy and tedious. To save weight; I can now go with just the big tele, an extender 1.4x, the 5DII and this little pearl. If I need more wide angle I just take more pictures with it and stitch them together!
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, build quality, size
|
|
Cons:
|
distorsion, ca
|
|
|
When I bought this lens, I already owned the 4/70-200, 2.8/70-200 (I) and the 100-400. So I can compard the lens to those three. Apart from the different focal lengths, its overall IQ is on par or better than these. I tested two copies and they were identical. What is annoying however is the rather strong distorsion. Even for a zoom lens. The 100-400 performs betten in this regard. While this is not important for most people, for me it is. Architecture is a no go with this lens if you want to have the maximal image quality. Sure you can correct the distorsion, but you will notice the loss in IQ. The distorsion is so strong that you will have problems when stitching images together. Under the same conditions, I had no problems with the 100-400. But apart from that, the lens is wonderful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
