Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: Heechee  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Heechee to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Review Date: Jun 25, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: A great all-around lens for 5D. Image stabilizer works great. Very usable already at f4.
Vignettes a lot at f4. Distortion is pretty bad at 24mm.

I bought 24-105L IS and 5D as a kit, which IMHO was a great buy, kit pricing and Canon cashback on both items (Europe)..

Having 24-105L on 5D is a much more usable solution than the combination of 20D, 17-40L, 50 1.4, and 100 2.0 I previously used. Those lenses still have their uses, but I use them less often now.

As to the seemingly all-important question on sharpness.. It's good enough, but the actual sharpness depends on how much sharpening you apply in developing from RAW. 50mm 1.4 and 100 2.0 at same apertures are slightly sharper.

17-40L is better at around 24mm than 24-105L, except it doesn't have IS. No surprise there.

F4 gives usually a short enough DOF on 5D, and I have those faster lenses if I need them.

Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM

Review Date: Jun 28, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Image quality is already very nice at f2. Small size.
Doesn't focus very near.

If you want a 100mm prime, the choice between this one and the f2.8 macro USM is pretty hard. I tried the macro a while back, and decided not to keep it.

- Macro lens was too large
- I really need f2 for low light action shots
- I shoot macros pretty infrequently
- Did I mention the macro is too large :-)

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8

Review Date: Aug 26, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

Pros: Small, nice focal length
Soft at all apertures

I may have had a bad copy, but sharpness was clearly below 17-40L at 24mm f4, for all apertures of the 24mm 2.8 lens. And no, it wasn't misfocusing. The lens has very nice size on 20D.

Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye

Review Date: Jun 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: Sharp in center and corners, wide angle, good for distorting stuff, depth-of-field scale on the lens, excellent multi-star highlights when stopped down
Bad bokeh, focus ring in manual focus turns too easily, lens scratches easily

I use this lens mostly in manual focus, at f8 and above, manually focused to the hyperfocal distance. This works perfectly, except that the manual focus ring is a bit too loose and it's easy to turn it unintentionally.

My lens front focuses at close distances, and so far I've not yet got around to sending it for repairs as Sigma in Finland have only a non-Sigma representative. The f2.8 aperture is quite useless for me because I dislike the bokeh of this lens; in addition to the focus problem.

The focal length is relatively ok on 20D, however the 17-40L and this fisheye on a film body are a lot more *fun*.

If Canon made a fisheye similar to the Nikon 10.5mm, I'd buy it at once instead of this one.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Review Date: Jun 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Perfect image quality at f2.8, very fast focus on 20D, relatively small, black, a good focal length for handholding with 20D
None, except it doesn't zoom..

This is the perfect lens if you require a 200mm focal length with a fast aperture, fast focusing, and in a 'package' that's far less conspicious than the 70-200mm alternatives.

For my purposes this fits in well with the 17-40L, the 50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.8 macro USM.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Mar 6, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent focal length range on a film body, excellent build quality, excellent image quality
No 2.8 aperture, focal length range on a 20D is somewhat boring

I usually walk around with the 17-40L on a film body. If I had a 20D, I'd need the EF-S 10-22 instead.

The build quality is so good, I just need to FEEL the lens once in a while.. :-) The build quality of EF-S 10-22 is worse.

I get excellent 20 megapixel scans of the slides with my Nikon V ED scanner, but to get full shapness for that requires a fast enough shutter speed or a tripod, also probably stopping down a stop at least (not 100% sure on stopping down).

The len is just a bit large, not comfortable unless you have a battery grip attached to the body (EOS 33V or 20D), but if you have it's not that large.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Review Date: Mar 6, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent bokeh, small size, good handling, and good focal length on a film camera
Not too usable below f2.0, not a nice focal length on a 20D

I like the 50mm 1.4 on a film body. It's usable as a walk-around lens if you have the time to walk backwards and forwards a lot, and the resulting camera is very small. I tried it on a 20D, but I didn't like the focal length at all.

My 50mm 1.4, when shot with a 20D at 1.4 or 1.8 produces a slight soft-focus effect when viewed at 100% magnification, not good unless used as a special effect.

I bought the lens for the bokeh, which is EXCELLENT. When I want to get a nicely blurred background, I use this lens, otherwise I usually use the 17-40L, both on a film body.