Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Good Filter Size. Good Range With IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lousy Build Quality. No Lens Hood.
|
|
|
I just got this lens to replace my 17-40 on my 7D.
The lens is just as sharp as my 17-40 was, perhaps even a bit sharper. IS seems to work fine.
However I am pretty disappointed in the build quality. I didn't think it would bother me as much as it does, but after using Tokina lenses, and my only Canon lens being the 17-40, I had forgotten what plastic lenses felt like. The focus ring seems okay, but the zoom ring has quite a bit of 'give' to it, and does not zoom smoothly, it's quite chunky actually.
This is acceptable in a cheaper lens, but in a lens that run over a thousand dollars and costs more than several L lenses, I think it's unacceptable. On top of that Canon does not even include a lens hood with your 1,000 lens.
Frankly this just confirms to me why I usually opt for 3rd party lenses these days, but the Canon lens was the only one that fit the bill for my needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX SD
|
|
Review Date: Aug 2, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality. 77mm filters. Reasonably sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Corners still a bit soft. Iffy quality control. CA
|
|
|
I had to send my lens in for service after a few months due to a decenetered element and the inability of the lens to focus clearly on infinity. However to their credit the repair was done very quickly and the lens appears to be much better now.
This lens is of course built like a tank, the feel of the zoom and focus rings are nice and smooth. The lens is reasonably sharp across the frame but I have noticed the corners still exhibit some softness, especially corners that are near infinity. Possibly field curvature? The foreground elements still seem to be sharper than distant elements, even when focused on infinity, this seems to be a problem with a lot of wide angle lenses. Overall the IQ is very good considering the extreme wide angle nature of the lens, probably about as good as you are going to get.
CA is pretty bad, but this is easily fixed in post.
|
|
|
|
|
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X 535 AF PRO DX
|
|
Review Date: Aug 2, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Constant f2.8. Great guild quality. Great range for 1.6x camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
Won't work on full frame. Tripod collar doesn't come off.
|
|
|
After reading so many great reviews on this lens I picked up a brand new copy of this now discontinued lens on ebay. It's a tokina so you know the build quality will be outstanding, and it is. From my initial tests this lens is razor sharp across the frame at all zoom focal ranges. It's the only lens I have used on my 7D that I think gets the most out of the sensor. Focus is reasonably fast, good enough for me anyway.
My only beef is the built in tripod collar doesn't come off, in the default position it gets in the way of turning the focus rings, I have found I adjust it to sit on the right side of the camera and it works pretty well.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $540.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Build Quality. Size.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
After reading all the great reviews on this lens I decided to give Sigma a shot. I am not dissapointed. The lens is sharp. I was most suprised to see how sharp it was stopped all the way down to f22, where it was almost as sharp as it was at f11. Wide open at f2.8 it is pretty soft but usually wide open I am doing portraits and the little softness actually work well and flatters the subject. Focusing was suprisingly fast for a macro lens, as long as you were somewhat close to where it needed to be and not on the complete opposite end of the focusing scale.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $670.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp on a 1.6X camera. Amazing colors. Fast focusing. Build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Corner sharpness. Soft wide open.
|
|
|
I first got this lens when I only owned a film camera and was always dissapointed with the results. The corners and edges were amazingly bad. However on the 350d I have been very happy with the results. I did some comparrisons with my 50mm and while the 50mm definately had an edge in sharpness this lens blew it away in the color and contrast department. I had to boost the saturation 20% on the images shot with my 50mm to get the same color coming straight out of this lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good colors, cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
focusing speed.
|
|
|
This was the first lens I bought aside from the el-cheapo kit lens that came with my camera. this lens is sharp, and very usuable even wide open. the build quality is decent, not L quality but a huge step up from the cheap kit lens. focusing is slow and LOUD, it sounds like a grinding machine or something. I don't see the focusing speed as much of an issue though since this is a macro lens and I typically focus manually with macro stuff anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
