 |
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, focus speed IS , size.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price focus and zoom rings are reversed.
|
|
|
When my 35-350L broke I took a long time trying to decide what to replace it with. The 28-300 is a nice range, a heavy expensive beast. The 100-400 is a popular lens that I have rented twice and both times not really satisfied with the results. I had a 70-300 DO which was nice but not quite sharp enough and for a bout the same price the 70-300 L turns out to be good enough for me to give up my 300F4LIS. A solid performer that has given me sharp handheld shots that usually I would need a tripod to get. finding one on the used market tells you a lot, they just cannot be found used.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatility, Range, Build, IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Discontinued, no IS.
|
|
|
I wanted a good zoom since my husband took over my 70-200mm F4 IS, I found a recently Canon refurbished 35-350mm. The push pull aspect is great, since I my old film zoom lens was a push pull it is easy to work worth. Now to test it out. It is about 4 ounces lighter than a 100-400mm, still a little heavy but not so that I could not use it while hiking. First effort I left the tripod in the car... While at times I wished that I had it since there is no IS but then i t forces you to use good technique and not to rely on IS. I was amazed to find that most of my shots was as sharp or far sharper than the 100-400MM lenses that I had tried in the past. Pop it onto a good tripod and it gives very sharp images. Ok I lose 50mm at the long end and I am ahead 65mm on the wide end. Certainly gives me a lot to work with as far as framing. It is a keeper for me.
Not sure why some think the hood is big... it isn't it is a petal hood no longer than on the 70-200 a bit wider because the filter size is 72mm not all that huge It is built like a tank as it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $996.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything that is great about the non IS version, sharpness, IQ etc. With the IS L version better focus speed with IS the ability to hand hold more shots.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price. but quality isn't cheap
|
|
|
I have used the non IS version for nearly 2 years and have loved it. My decision to move to the IS L version was due to increasing difficulty with hand holding a 50D with the 100mm non is. This is a physical issue related to arthritis not the set up. I found the lighter weight and supurb balance very helpful in being able to handhold for close-up shots again. High grade plastics very often have better stress and impact resistance than metals ( the exception being the mount system metal is preferred because of the tabs and twisting). Thus by using them in a lens of this sort it allows for a lighter and better balanced lens that works very well with the lighter crop cameras. I have been delighted with the lens. Color, sharpness, IQ etc have been equal to or better than my old 100mm 2.8 non IS.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, weight, image quality, versatility Telephoto to close up in one lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Size packs easily in a carry on or my vest. Weight, light enough to hand hold and carry all day. Image quality is outstanding. After Renting a 100-400 twice and finding them lacking in sharpness and versatility I researched lenses for 6 months looking for something to photograph birds with that was withing my budget. The 300mm f4L kept coming up as a very good wildlife option for a crop camera. Since I like to photograph birds , flowers and insects this lens is ideal for me. The 400mm lacks IS and does not have the ability to perform as a close-up lens too. After a week in Florida I am very happy with the results, razor sharp images, with great color. I may just let the 70-200 F4IS go since this spends as much time on the camera as my 100 F2.8.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 20-35mm f/2.8L
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, sharpness, and color all are excellent. Light weight and compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
For me None really. No longer in production The Photo quality is what is important. Focus speed is not an issue nor is sound.
|
|
|
Very Sharp and more than wide enough for my use. I was looking for a decent wide that would not break my bank account and still would give me the sharpness I wanted. This little gem fills that requirement to a "T". I was amazed at the color and sharpness. As far as color it beats my 70-200F4 IS L . It is a lens that will see some use.
Focus is fast enough for my use, landscapes do not move and since I am hard of hearing motor sound is not an issue either.
Build, construction, size all make it a very handy lens and the quality you come to expect from an L" ( and sometimes do not get in an "L" )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
