 |
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Sep 29, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
outstanding image quality, very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
can be slow to focus up close
|
|
|
Obtained the lens from Canon refurbished (and on sale! 10% off!). Have now taken 1000+ pictures with the lens using a 5DII and it has performed extremely well for flowers, butterflies and portraits. Image are as sharp as the TS-E 90 which is pretty high praise and sharper than the 70-200 f/4 IS. The IS on the lens has been quite useful for some indoor, low light museum use.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It does what it is supposed to do and has great color, IQ and you can get quite close due to the short minimum focusing distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Metering can be a challenge but this is more of a tilt-shift thing than a problem with the lens.
|
|
|
Have been using for a variety of shots but mostly for flowers and some portraits. The ability to move the "focus wedge" anywhere you want allows for added depth and perspective. Shifting allows getting the angle on the existing light just so.
Each shot takes time to set up and this "feature" makes you consider composition even more than usual.
Also, it works well with extension tubes.
Mine is a B&H used, rated 9, and seems flawless.
|
|
|
|
|
Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 Tripod Legs
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $170.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
stable, easy to use, weight is ok
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
as near as I can tell the 3021 is now the 055XPROB and the 3001 is now the 190XPROB
use the 055X with a Canon 5D2 and the largest lens I use is a 70-200; it is fine- nice and stable; the weight, now 5 lb, is ok and it fits snugly in the Manfrotto MBAG80 bag, use it with the 488RC2 ball head
not as nifty or as light as the Gitzo but fine for my purposes, have had this combo for about a year and it all looks as good as new
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, IQ, IQ, relatively low noise
|
|
Cons:
|
metering could be better
|
|
|
received an early one in 12/08 so have had this for about 5 months and many 1000s of pics..
IQ is great, view finder is bright, manual focus is sharp, consistent metering, shoot about 95% AV and about half manual focus, does the color red very well, remote was only $20 and works, overall very happy with this camera
the 5D2 and 70-200 f4 IS are a nearly perfect match
weakness: metering could be better but at least it is consistent, many outdoor shots are taken at +/- 1 ev or more
high ISO sensitivity is quite good but the noise is there at 1600 and above
other: menu/LCD are fine but rarely use other than for a histogram glance; AF is fine with a reasonably well defined subject- good enough for most candids even while holding the camera at arms length above the head or at the side; haven't used video, picture styles or any jpeg function enough to comment; microfocus is nice but none of my lenses seemed to need it
next up is a tilt shift 90 with tethered shooting of landscapes
curious feature: 17-40 works much, much better with 5D2 than 20D- almost like it is a different lens; not only is the focus better but the contrast and color are much better as well; the other lenses showed the expected improvement with going to FF etc
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
5D2 + 17-40 a lot better than 20D + 17-40
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
originally used this with a 20D mostly for garden/landscape photos and rated it a nine in a prior review
now use it with a 5D2 and the 17-40 is just all around a lot better on the 5D2: color, contrast and IQ; have even used it for a few portraits; no other lens showed as much improvement/change between the 20D and 5D2 (and the changes are not focus related)
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EOS 20D
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
quite versatile, excellent image quality, this is the camera I learned what I know about photography on
|
|
Cons:
|
the color red
|
|
|
have had for about 3.5 years and the prior cam was a G3, for the first year or so only used with a 50 1.4 as this seemed to be a good way to focus on the composition, light, subjects and all that rather than on the pixels... in good light this takes high quality pics and the 8 MP is not that much of a limitation for candids and portraits and shots of flowers, the 20D does very well with the longer lenses (70-200 4 IS, 85 1.8, 200 2.8) and not quite as well with the wider ones (17-40, 35 1.4) probably because these are used mostly for landscape type pics which are somewhat limited by the 8 MP..... the color red is this camera's weakness, the Adobe ACR profiles have helped a lot but bright red flowers, some red dresses etc just don't turn out well without some (or a lot of) tweaking in PS.. otherwise this camera has been great, no problems whatsoever (that weren't operator induced), took it in to get cleaned a couple of times and it only needed a few puffs of air... have a 5D2 on order so the 20D will be going into semi-retirement as a backup soon and so it seemed time to give it a strong review
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very good for garden/landscape
|
|
Cons:
|
not so good for isolated subjects
|
|
|
bought off of Craigslist for $500, it is excellent for what I use it for: pictures of the garden to keep a record of how it is doing with most shots at 20-30mm both at around f/8 or above (usually at hyperfocal focus) on a tripod and some at f/4 handheld, color is fine as is the "IQ", pics could be a bit sharper
overall the 17-40 does what I got it for.... have shot some of isolated subjects (flowers, kids..) but the 50mm 1.4 is much better than this is at 40mm for these kinds of pics
had tried out the 16-35 L and while it is a bit better the optical difference, for my purposes, didn't justify the price difference
the consensus review of the 17-40 seems to be that it is a lot of value for the money and I concur with that
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
consistent, has a very high percentage of keepers and is quite versatile
|
|
Cons:
|
not 2.8
|
|
|
like most of the others I have found this to be a superb lens.... went through the usual 2.8/4 comparison and rented both and went with the 4 since I found that the weight of the 2.8 more than overcame the extra light.... the 4 is consistent, has a very high percentage of keepers and is quite versatile and use it for the kids' baseball & soccer as well as for flowers and some portraits... works well with the 1.4 Canon teleconverter as well (in good light)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
