Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VERY best wideangle I've ever used. Sharp from corner to corner at every aperture. Flare and ghosting very well controlled.
|
|
Cons:
|
You can't use filters! Pricey!
|
|
|
Sets new standards for Canon wideangles!
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, full frame, resolution, iso performance, build quality, screen, auto sensor cleaning, operation speed, center point AF performance
|
|
Cons:
|
none for landscape photography
|
|
|
Being into landscape photography everything is just perfect from my point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $616.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp and lightweight, very resistant to flare
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy AF
|
|
|
My copy of this excellent lens is sharp wide open in center and sharp from corner to corner at aperture 5.6.
The only con is a very noisy AF when compared to USM.
Very recommendable.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, great contrasts, great colors, fast focusing, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
needs to be stopped a bit down to be sharp in corners
|
|
|
I'm really happy with this lense. It's a wide angle lens, it's a zoom and not a prime, so don't expect it to be as sharp wide open as a prime.
Upgraded from the elder 17-35 L USM - and this is a tad better.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP, SHARP, SHARP. Image Stabilizer amazingly effective.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
very VERY amazingly sharp wide open and from corner to corner. IQ couldn't be better. Expensive but worth the price.
The IS is the best of any IS lens I ever tried, four f/stop for handheld shots is real and I do not have the steadiest of hands.
Highly recommended for anybody who is looking for a lightweight, very high performance tele-zoom.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 14mm f2.8 EX Aspherical
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $315.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open. Fast AF. Build quality. Fast aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare, lens cap system annoying
|
|
|
This is a very special lens - focal lenght 14mm! And as such it has very special characteristics.
My copy of the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 Aspheric lens is great! It's built beautifully and focuses fast. On 1dMkII I've found this lens' image quality outstanding from it's F/2.8 full aperture till the diffraction limitation of it's smallest apertures which is an inherent flaw in practically any lens. But my Sigma 14mm f/2.8 Aspheric is very good at full aperture and with a unique Bokeh when focused on (very) closeup subjects.
This is clearly one of Sigma's success's. If you need or desire a 14mm superwide for Canon mount then this gets my best recommandations!
NB: Bought it used!
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Oct 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $985.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp wide open, contrasty, good color, relatively lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
flares a bit, but not more than you would expect on a wideangle
|
|
|
Very good available light wideangle. Got it used and is very pleased.
See pro and cons.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good range. Sharp at all apertures. Contrasty with good neutral colours. Nice Bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Very good allround on 1DM2.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8 from wide to long, fast AF, L build quality, light, sharp at ALL focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
Closest Focusing Distance 42 mm.
|
|
|
I seem to be lucky getting a very sharp copy of this lens. It's tack sharp in the center at all focal lenght, though soft in corners wide-open which is to be expected. Sharpness is very much better than shown in Fred Miranda's review in the articles section of this site.
Optical performance is better than my old Tamron 17-35 and par to Canon 17-40L. I haven't had opportunity to try Canon 16-35L.
The only cons is that the closest focusing distance is 42 cm and that distortions wideopen at 17mm are significant.
Considering the price i'll rate it a 10.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap. Good range
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft. Very noisy AF
|
|
|
Bought mine for the Rebel XT, but returned after a week. Way too soft and very noisy AF.
|
|
|
|
|
Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast at the wide end. Very sharp. Excellent colour and contrast. Comparable to Canon 17-40 L but faster and cheaper.
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the price
|
|
|
I bought the Sigma 18-125 for my Rebel XT, but returned it because it was way too soft and the AF noisy.
I decided to go for the Canon 17-40 L (which a friend of mine own), but found a used copy of the Tamron and decided to try it because of the price and faster aparture at the wide end.
I strongly recommend the lens. Its sharpness, colours and picture uniformity is as good as Canon's 17-40mm L.
|
|
|
|
|
