 |
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, IS, f2.8, built like a bazooka, colors, bokeh, the looks, ...
|
|
Cons:
|
Maybe the price, depends on your needs, looks like a bazooka :-)
|
|
|
Before buying this lens, I first rented the non-IS version a few times. While that is already a great lens, this one is even better. the question is not, is the IS worth the extra money, the question is: do you have the extra money to spend. If you do, don't doubt, buy!
The built of this lens is superb. With this thing mounted to my 5D, I am not afraid of being robbed. Like said before, this thing looks like a bazooka, and if you hit someone with it, they will know that it can feel like a bazooka too :-)
Another point is indeed the looks. This thing looks great, and impressive. this has both positive and negative points. People always come up to you when they see you shooting. This can result in new customers, but can be annoying at times too.
the sharpness of this lens is incredible, same for the colors. the IS is really a great help too, keeping pictures sharp at slower speeds (low light) that would otherwise be lost. This lens makes the difference between a good wedding reportage and a bad one.
Whenever I want to be sure of a good shot, I take out this lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light, cheap, sharp, small, L quality images, all rounder
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic build
|
|
|
I bought this lens 3 years ago, and have been using it non-stop ever since. If I can take one lense anywhere, this is the one I take. It is light, small, versatile, and takes great pictures.
I used this lens on my 10D, and now on my 5D, results are always great.
I did some whole modelshoots with this lens only, and use it extensively as a macro with a tube inbetween body and lens.
I don't only recommend this lens, I think it is a must have lens!
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Complete lack of sharpness, CA
|
|
|
I bought this lens the afternoon before I had an important evening shoot (I know, a stupid thing to do). I actually wanted to buy Canon's 17-40 f4L, but that one was not in stock. This was the only available alternative for my Eos 5D, so I decided to give it a try.
I used it plenty during the evening, having taken approximately 200 photo's with it, some with available light (at f2.8), but most of them with flash (f4 and f8).
The results where tearjerking, and I am not joking. I thanked the Lord for giving me the presence of mind to also take pictures with my 50mm f1.8 and my 70-200 f2.8 IS.
They day after, I decided to take the lens out for some serious testing. I used it all focal lengths, and all apertures up to f11 (I decided I don't have to test it at f22, as I will seldom use it), with and without flash. The results still was terrible. In total I shot about 300 pictures with it, and if 5 of them are sharp enough to show to a customer, I would be glad.
My advice: test this thing thoroughly before you buy it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
