Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: imeod  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add imeod to your Buddy List
Canon Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX

Review Date: Aug 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Wireless capabilities, modeling lamp, included carrying case
Need step down rings for larger lenses

I made the mistake of buying the POS 60mm macro lens from Canon; the lens can't focus worth-a-darn in low light, but the modeling lamp on this flash more than makes up fo it.

The only thing that could make this flash better would be to make it wireless to get rid of the cord all-together. Regardless, this flash rocks.

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Review Date: Aug 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,149.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: f2.8, IS, 77mm
Telescoping Zoom, Limited Focal Lenght (55mm)

I have owned every wide-angle zoom that Canon has to offer, and this is the closest I've come to being happy. My only major complaint is that I don't like telescoping zooms. To me they always are prone to dirt and moisture, but we'll see; I'd like to see Canon put this baby in the same type of housing as the 16-35mm.

The price?
Anyone who complains about the price should compare its features with all the other canon lenses. How can any one expect to pay less than $1000 for a wide-angle, f2.8, IS lens? Heck, I would like to have only paid $20, but let's get real people.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Review Date: Aug 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $689.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Internal Zooming, Super wide angle
EF-S, I can't get mine to take a good indoor picture.

I love the super wide angle, especially since I have been shooting with a 24mm + for the last year. Too be completely honest though, I'm selling this lens and going to try the 17-55mm. I just can't get my 20D to take a half decent indoor picture that doesn't look like it came from a fisheye lens. Maybe I have a bad copy? Either way I'm getting rid of it.

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Review Date: Aug 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $385.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: lightweight, super sharp
Cannot auto focus worth-a-darn, EF-S

I bought this lens to use as a portrait lens and to introduce myself to the macro world. I was originally impressed at how sharp the pictures were, but was quickly disappointed with its inability to focus in any normally lit room. I couldn't even use it in my studio without first turning on every light and opening every window! I cannot recommend a lens that costs almost $400 and can't focus in a normally lit room. I can't believe that this is a 2.8 lens; it acts like an 8.0!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Review Date: Jan 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,129.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: sharp as a tack! f2.8 superfast on Canon's newer digital cameras.
Reverse telescoping zoom. (24mm at full extension and 70mm fully retracted)

This is a great overall lens. However, I'm not a big fan of telescoping zoom lenses. The external moving back and forth tends to suck dust and dirt into the lens (even L series lenses). The reverse telescoping zoom makes it even more retardedly odd, but it didn't take long to get use to. I think that this is Canon's best cost-to-performance L series lens.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

Review Date: Jan 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,369.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: build, weatherproof, 2.8 and wide!
The lens hood is absolutely ridiculous! I have never seen a larger more impractical lens hood.

I love shooting with this lens. My only problem now is that I have to switch back and forth between this lens and my 24-70mm. I just wish that it had a little more reach so that I could leave it on as my everyday lens. Oh yeah, did I mention the ridiculous hood?

Canon Extender EF 1.4x II

Review Date: Jan 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $289.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great build, weatherproof, image quality
one f-stop loss

This is a great way add that extra boost to your telephoto lenses. I use it with my 70-200mm IS 2.8 lens on my canon 20D; it add the conversion factors together and I get a 156-448mm f4 IS lens! How can I complain about that? The image quality is also great.

Canon Extender EF 2x II

Review Date: Jan 18, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $289.00 | Rating: 5 

Pros: A cheap way to get super-telephoto range. Strong weatherproof build.
Makes all of my pictures too soft to be used for anything other than to scrapbook.

Everyone raves about this extender, so maybe I have a bad one. I'm use it on my 70-200mm IS and the pictures are disgustingly soft. Unfortunately the 70-200 is the only lens that I can afford to try it on.

My biggest disappointment is that the picture quality difference between the 1.4x and 2x is huge. I'm going to keep my 1.4x and sell my 2x.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Review Date: Jun 6, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $579.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Build, Picture Quality, Price
Only a f4, a little long for me

This was my first L series lens and well, it got me hooked; I'm a L series snob now. The pictures were great and I liked using the lens, but I hated the speed of the small f4 aperture.

I loved this lens and everything I read said that this lens was the best. The only lenses better were the 2.8 and 2.8 IS. With that in mind, I waited until the right rebate and bought the IS version. They were right, it is a better lens. However, it is a lot heavier and bigger. It also costs three times as much; I'm an armature and still can't justify the cost.

The bottom line is that this lens is a bargain L-series lens and won't disappoint anyone looking for a great telephoto lens.


Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Review Date: May 30, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $630.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: Solid Build, Non-Rotating Front Element, Great Image Quality
Only f4, Huge Lens hood, Limited Focal Range

A nice lens that takes great pictures, but I had to sell mine; I traded it for the 17-85mm IS.

I liked the stronger build of the 17-40mm and the fact that the lens is built super tough, but the loss of light with a f4 lens was a major draw back. The size, weight, and huge lens hood didn't help either.

I chose the 17-85mm for the extended focal range and image stabilization. The lens has a telescoping zoom and isn't built a tough, but it is a much better everyday lens.

$629 was to much for a limited focal range and f-stop of only 4. Someday I will buy the 16-35mm and have the best of both worlds.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Review Date: May 13, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $599.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: IS, 17-85mm focal range, and small size for IS
No hood, telescoping zoom

I decided to replace my 17-40mm with this one. I liked the lens build and quality of the 17-40mm, but the size, limited focal range, and f4 made me switch. I have no complaints yet, but I realy do miss the solid feel of the 17-40mm. I too am a L series snob and hate lenses with a telescoping zoom. I will use the 17-85mm as my everyday lens and will buy the 16-35mm when/if the price comes down.