 |
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD SP
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2013
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $950.00
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, good build, sharp, price, 5 years warranty.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus issues, after a week it is back to Tamron germay. Could not return it to the shop because I registered it.
|
|
|
It is hard to recommend a lens with problems. Not nice you first have to bring it to a Tamron technical service in Holland, they saw the issues but could not fix it. Now it is in Germany, let's hope it is coming back fine. That is no fun buying a lens of 1000 euro.
Never had any problems with my old Canon 24-70L F2.8.
On the other hand, I do not have to give up, I have 5 years time to get it fine. The lens has lots of good features, feels nice, is sharp when focusing oke and till now the service looks fine.
I would recommend a secondhand Canon 24-70L F2.8, although the price can be nearly the same as a new Tamron. The Canon 24-70L F2.8 mark II is way overpriced in my opinion.
Overall rating is not possible. May bey in a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2013
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
For me the most use zoom, relative small, very very nice IS, good IQ. If you chose an all-round zoom take this one
|
|
Cons:
|
Creep, after two years. For an all-round zoom bad. A construction failure.
|
|
|
I bought this zoom when it came out. Sold my 24-70 F2.8 and still I found the 24-105L the better zoom for my needs. For more I use a prime. Ideal for trips, with a small zoom with an ideal range. IQ is good.
I hate the creep, this spoils a lot. Especially for a walk around zoom, I think Canon made a mistake. No rocket science to make a lock button is it? Now I use the zoom with a strong elastic around the zoom-ring.
Normally you would say, oke this zoom sucks. But still I love it. If you have to chose one lens and not chose an a nice 50 mm I always take this one with me.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, very good IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
White.
|
|
|
In contrast with the 70-200 F2.8 IS witch I own also, this lens you can carry around with you. I bought this lens second-hand, like new, with a tripod colar (non Canon but good and I never use it anyway). My first 70-200 L was a non IS F4.0 and I loved that lens. Already very good. Used as a poor men's IS a small monopod with it, witch I rested on my belt. It worked fine and I still like the photo's taken with it. But IS is nice and this lens has a very good one. 1/15 of a second at 200 mm is no problem. IS is a tiny bit noisy, first I thought it was broken. I went to a photo-shop to make sure the sound was normal, it was. You quickly get used to it.
Like I said, this lens together with a standard zoom makes a nice walk around kit. But why has it to be white? It attracts attention, while it is such a nice relative small lens. I do not want attention for a walk-around lens. I am thinking off buying a black lens-coat. Well, nothing is perfect.
It is not a bargain any more, like the non IS F4.0. Every 70-200 L has a selling point and that makes it hard to chose. You can not go wrong, they are all very very good.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, nice color and contrast, cheap, small, consistent autofocus, a sun cap not necessary, keeps it small.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bokeh ugly very busy, vignetting
|
|
|
Amazing lens, sharp wide open, insane sharp from F4.0. Usable until F16. I bought this lens second hand for 100 euro, like new.
I was hoping this little lens would be a standard lens, with the possibility of 1/2 macro. The vignetting on my 5D mark II is heavy, but correctable. Not a big problem, sometimes even beautiful. But the big disadvantage for me is the bokeh. I simple do not like it, never smooth. So I still take my Sigma 50 mm F1,4 with me, witch deliver very smooth bokeh. But a little big.
But for the money a bargain and if you are looking for a cheap lens witch can deliver very very sharp photo's with nice colar and contrast. The build quality is comparable with the much more expensive Canon 50 mm F1.4, a lens witch I never liked.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2012
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice to see and feel. Sharper at F1.2 then I thought.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus is terrible, at least the copy I tried. Only at f1.2 the focus was good.
|
|
|
I bought a copy second hand. Was bought new in 2007. Looks like new. I was surprised by the sharpness full open. Not as good as the 85 mm F1.2L but better then expected. Some CA but nothing to be worried about. When the lens focussed the right way nice sharp pictures, nice bokeh. A little sharper at f1.4 then my Sigma F1.4. At F1.6 sames results, where the Sigma focussed 10 times better! I tested on to camera's. A Canon 1D mark II and a Canon 5D mark II. The backfocus was terrible. I corrected it on my 5D, but when I toke photo's at F4.0 the backfocus came back. I went really crazy with all the bad focussed photo's and I could give the lens back. Pfff, Canon must has makes the lens better, I can simply not believe the newer lenses are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Optics are top, sharp, color, no CA. Nice bokeh, you can compare this lens with the 135L. Takes the 1.4 extender with very little loss, múch better then the 70-200 zooms.
|
|
Cons:
|
IS would be nice, but the alternative , the EF 200L F2.0 IS cost somewhat more :) and does not have the nice low profile.
|
|
|
Overall a very nice prime, with a lot of value for your money. Not a prime you use all the time, like a 50 or 35 mm, but I use it more then I thought I would. This prime has a lot of competition of the range of 70-200 L zooms from Canon itself, which are already are very good. Biggest reason to buy this lens secondhand was the size, weight, the nice black color. You can walk around town with this lens, I do not try that with my 70-200 L F2.8 IS. Cheap for the quality you get.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp from F1.4, fast, nice rich color, nice bokeh. Little vignet on FF. Cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little big in comparison with the Canon f1.4
|
|
|
I love this lens! I would not dream to trade it in for the Canon F1.2. 4 times more expensive. No CA, no autofocus problems. It is a normal priced lens with all the goodies you can dream off. It is nice that Sigma comes with such a killer.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,050.00
|
|
Pros:
|
You can use this lens from F1.4. Lens is normal sharp, good color, nice weight and size. Nice bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lots and lots of CA. Even at F8.0 I had green fringing in the corners. Not so very nice.
|
|
|
I use this lens very much and I love it and hate it. The CA is a real problem and sometimes simply ruin's you photo. I love 35 mm, if I should have to chose I chose 35 mm. And there is no alternative so you pay big money for a lens witch is far from perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2010
|
Recommend? ja |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
The sharpest prime I have, beautiful bokeh, I think the best lens I know of Canon.
|
|
Cons:
|
The only thing I can think of is a little vigenttering at F2.0, but to little to fuss about. None for the rest.
|
|
|
This lens is perfect in all respects. Do not let you fool you that 135 mm is not something you use much. On a FF it is very nice, for making all sort of photo's. For travel take a 35 mm F1.4L, a nice Sigma 50 mm F1.4 and the Canon 135 F2.0L. You even can put an 1.4 extender in a corner of your back.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide, Color and sharpness in the middle. Good at F2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Not very sharp at the edges on FF.
|
|
|
This is not an easy lens, it force you to be creative. Go close to your subject, then it is also very nice that the lens is good at F2.8. The color is really amazing. It is a very nice lens to own, but rather expensive because the use is limited. A Canon 35 F1.4L is more value for money for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Aug 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
L build, Useble right open. Very Sharp and beautiful color.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some purple fringing sometimes, diappears above F2.0. Easy to correct. A little barrel, but still, you have to correct it.
|
|
|
Not a barging, but the quality stay's long after the price is forgotten. In comparising with the money you lose on bying a DSLR, it's an investment.
On my 1.3 crop the 35 mm is very nice, on a FF is must be even nicer.
The results you have to see to beleve, F2.8 is só beautiful.
I own the lens for 2 day's now and I love it already.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small and light compare to the 24-70L. Fantastic IS, f4 is already very very good. Very nice allround lens, range is very nice.
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion at 24mm, but not a big issue for me, PT lens corrects it.
|
|
|
I already had the 24-70L, the weigth did not bother me that much, but it atract attention. The 24-105L is much smaller,lighter, the IS is só good, very nice to use in musea etc. The perfect walkaround lens. I use it one a eos 1 markII.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Wide, no alternative.
|
|
Cons:
|
Need to use a smal diafragma for reasonable result, colors do not match a Canon L zoom
|
|
|
I use it on a 1.3 crop camera, the EOS1 D mark II. There simply is nothing else with 12 mm. It does the job oke, never used a diaframa greather than f11, f16 is even better. The color is nothing like the 17-40L but with some postprossing I can come along. Build quality is really fine, the feel is nice. I only use it for the 12mm, so this is the only zoom I own that I rather see as a prime. I have not tested it on my EOS 3, but will do that soon. The 12 mm is stunning and that makes up with the cons I mensionend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
