 |
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp when stopped down a little bit, usable wide open, wide max aperture, good focal length for portraits when on a non FF DSLR, fast and silent auto-focus, solid construction, 58mm filter size common with many other lenses.
|
|
Cons:
|
None I can think of
|
|
|
I once owned a EF 100/2.0 lens, which I sold about a year ago. I later had regrets of doing so, and since 85/1.8 is very much alike the 100/2, I bought that. Already listed the pros, this is a great lens. If all the Canon non-L primes were as good as this, I sure would have more of them...
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, build quality, sharpness, AF, minimal flare
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens cap design
|
|
|
This fisheye lens is the other 15mm fisheye for Canon EF system. Canon has a similar lens as well. When I bought my Sigma, I chose it over the Canon because of the price. After the purchase I have tested the Canon as well, and would still choose the Sigma.
With a 1.6x digital crop factor the fisheye effect is not so strong. You can even take photos, which cannot be recognized as fisheye shots! Of course there is a way to digitally "defish" the images with tools such as PanoramaTools or similar.
Because of the lens design, the lens cap is little awkward to use. It is also so big, that it cannot be comfortably slid to any pocket.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $229.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
AF speed, price, size, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
Was hoping that it would be sharper
|
|
|
This lens is a good standard zoom and surely a great improvement over any kit lenses. Wide open it is rather soft, but stopped down a bit it is really good. USM makes the AF fast and accurate.
Since I often find myself pushing for the ISO800 and still ending up shooting wide open, I think it's time for 24-70/2.8...
|
|
|
|
|
Sigma 18-50mm F3.5-5.6 DC
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, good focal range on DSLR-cameras, fair picture quality, AF motor speed is ok
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as some more expensive lenses are, lens hood is impossible to detach or attach without turning the AF motor (may damage the motor), loud AF
|
|
|
For the price, this is an excellent lens. For a Canon user, this is a good replacement for the EF 18-55.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $279.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, small, inexpensive, 58mm filter size
|
|
Cons:
|
loud AF motor
|
|
|
There really isn't much negative to say about this lens. The design is rather old, ie. there's that small MF ring, AFD motor and no full time manual focusing possibility.
On the other hand, optically it performs very well even wide open and even better when stopped down. AF is noisy, but rather fast.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $419.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Large aperture, optical quality
|
|
Cons:
|
AF isn't as fast as it could (micro-USM only)
|
|
|
With a 1.6x crop camera this lens is a lovely portrait lens. Also great for photographing concerts, some clubs are so dark, that you couldn't do with an aperture of f/2.8 without the use of a flash.
I've owned the 50/1.8 Mk1 and 50/1.8 Mk2 before. I would say that 50/1.4 is better at f/1.4 than any of the 50/1.8s at f/1.8. Bokeh is better as well.
The AF is a little bit slower than I had expected, but it is quieter than the cheaper 50mm lenses. Sometimes the AF tends to miss a little bit with full aperture, but that might be my 10D also as well...
|
|
|
|
|
Tokina 20-35mm AT-X 235 AF PRO
|
|
Review Date: Jul 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $529.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, performance when stopped down, internal focusing, handling
|
|
Cons:
|
Performance at f/2.8, flare, focus clutch mechanism
|
|
|
Despite the AF/MF/Focus clutch kludge this lens is a joy to use. Performance with a 10D is good at f/4 and below. f/2.8 is a little bit soft.
Build quality and the feel of the lens in your hands is exceptional. Manual focusing ring feels well dampened, unlike newer Canon lenses.
In theory, the lens offers full time manual focusing, but the AF speed is quite slow when using FTM, so better use AF without FTM or plain MF.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Image stabilization, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom creeps, a little slow, AF slow
|
|
|
I was happily surprised with this lens when I first looked at the results. When reading some reviews I thought that the lens would produce much less sharp images than mine does. Especially below 200mm the lens seems to be sharp enough for me.
When zoomed to 300mm the AF sometimes hunts a while and once in a while the AF misses.
When the camera is held lens facing down, the zoom creeps. If I keep it at 75mm and then let the camera hang from my neck, the lens is zoomed to 125mm after a little while.
The IS feature is quite neat, although you should not expect miracles from it.
Overall, I like this lens and can recommend it.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $129.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, light, usable range on 1.6x crop factor cameras, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow (4.0-5.6), completely plastic, image quality is so-so
|
|
|
If they would sell 10D with a cheap kit-lens, it would be this one. This lens is a 35-87 lens on a 10D/D60/D30 camera. It's not as bad as I feared and takes very usable pictures (of course it depends how are you going to use your pictures).
As I stated, the build-quality is not very good (completely made of plastic), the lens is slow, and the image sharpness is not on par with more expensive lenses.
However, this lens offers a cheap way to reach even reasonable wide angle (35mm) with the 1.6x factor and while saving for a 17-40L I can take many shots that would be missed without this lens. Or if you do not need the focal range very often, it might not be in your interests to dish a $800 for a 17-40L or similar lens. EF 20-35 might be another possible choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM
|
|
Review Date: Apr 14, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, fast, good AF (USM)
|
|
Cons:
|
None I can think of.
|
|
|
I find the EF 100/2 to be the lens I like to use. It's fast, it's AF is
good, it has USM with simultaneous AF/MF, not too heavy or large.
It's a little sad, that it becomes 160mm lens on a 10D, which I don't find
as usable as the 100mm focal length. Overall, a great lens, which I will
hopefully find attached to my camera more often in the future (when full
frame DSLRs are reasonably priced).
Great for photographing concerts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
