 |
Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS APO
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
good but was replaced by the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus Lens which is a much much better lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
slow focus
|
|
|
Is there any way to add new lenses to the review section. This section doesn't keep up with the times.
This lens was replaced by the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus Lens which is a much much better lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Finally brings Super-Wide-Angle Lens to the 1.6x Cameras such as the 20D. This is an L-Lens without the L designation. It is very sharp. Distortion is very well-controlled. Fits 77-mm filters! It's so small and light!
|
|
Cons:
|
None. It's meant for 1.6x cameras.
|
|
|
This lens is so good, I am selling my 17-40 mm L. It's the lens I've been waiting for. It is better than the 16-30 mm L in sharpness. Distortion is amazingly well-controlled. I love it. It's so small and light. Highly, highly recommended. Run, don't walk, to buy this lens for your Canon EOS 20D. When I get my Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, I'll still keep this lens for the 20D. Of course, I'll purchase the 16-30 mm L for a wide angle. Canon knocked one out of the ball-park with the EF-S 10-22 mm lens. I was amazed.
|
|
|
|
|
Bogen / Manfrotto 3001- Pro Tripod
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $90.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
19.5 inches long when you remove the center column - you can pack both separately in a carry-on suitcase. Very sturdy. Inexpensive.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy at 3.5 pounds, if you prefer light weight at the expense of stability.
|
|
|
I've had this for a decade. It's a great tripod. Much less expensive than Carbon Fiber. Amazingly, Bogen/Manfrotto's Carbon Fiber tripods are just as heavy as their aluminum ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight. Good focal length range for Canon 10D - equivalent to 27-65mm full frame. Sharp. Great color and contrast. Silent, quick focus. Fun to use! Inexpensive for an L lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of larger f/2.8 aperture may detract some people - but this is not as necessary for a wide-angle zoom.
|
|
|
I was expecting a large heavy lens similar to my 24-70 L. Much to my surprise, this is a very small, light lens, similar in size to a consumer zoom. It has high quality construction. I love the sharpness and color of pictures. I don't miss f/2.8 since I usually take pictures of groups of people or landscapes - where f/2.8 would have too shallow a depth of field.
It's fun to use. It's not as attention getting as the 24-70 L and 70-200 L, thus comes in handy for street photography. Focusing is fast, swift, silent, accurate even indoors and in low ambient light. Other reviews I've seen show how it is better in contrast and resolution than the 16-35 L in the range 17-24 mm - the primary reason for purchasing an ultrawide lens. The 16-35 L beats the 17-40 L at focal lengths longer than 24 mm. But who cares? For those focal lengths, the 24-70 L beats both wide-angle lenses, and would be the lens of choice. The Ultrasonic motor allows full-time manual focusing. This lens is fun, sharp, has great color, is affordable, and is a pleasure to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
