Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: twistedlim  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add twistedlim to your Buddy List
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS

Review Date: Jan 14, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp throughout the range. Compact. Uses 77mm filters. USM and IS.
None within the paremeters of the lens. Priced high but then again this is Canon.

Purhased to replace my 24-70 2.8 MK1. My 2.8 is one of the good ones, very sharp from 2.8 out. Problem is it is so heavy I tend not to have it in the bag. 4.0 is really fine for me. 2.8 is not fast enough to leave the flash at home so the stop I am giving up does not mean that much.
I found the lens to be sharp at 4.0 and only slightly better at f8. The extreme right edge and bottom left corner have only the slightest softness which is much better than the 17-40, and 24-105 I have used. All and all a fine lens which will be nice to have in the bag for travel and paired with a flash a good event lens.

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM

Review Date: May 15, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp across the board. By 4.0 everything is usable. Focus is fast and accurate. Very portable. Very little distortion. Lines are nice and straight. Really and engineering marvel.
None within the designed use of this lens, only the price but anything else approaching this focal length has far, far more distortion. You get what you pay for.

Opening up a whole new area of photography for me.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

Review Date: Feb 14, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great colors and contrast thoughout the aperture range. Usable shap at 1.2. About equal in sharpness with the 50 1.4 at 1.4 but with much more constast. Solid feel, like a baby 85L.
When comparing with the 85L it comes up short. On the other hand compared to other "normal" and wide primes it stacks up pretty well. Focus is adequately fast. Accuracy stumbles in flourcent light. Usually back focusing in this type of lighting.

Very nice lens. Really functions well except under flourecent lighting which seems to bring out the dreaded back focus.

More than solid build. Probably the best in canon's lineup. The feel and balance are perfect with a 5d.

Compared to the 50 1.4 it has more color and contrast. The sharpness is pretty much a draw which is not a bad thing since my 1.4 is very sharp.

Overall, as others have noted, the lens falls short of the 85L. But then again, what lens does not. The color and contrast at 1.2 is better than the 35L at 1.4 but it may not be sharper. Bokeh is all that you would expect.

Price is a tad high but pretty much in line with most L lenses. There are no bargains with a red ring around them.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

Review Date: Feb 7, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp wide open, incredible separation of target from background. Solid feel, made for the 5D. Color and contrast amazing throughout the scale.
Heavy (read solid feel). Slow AF compared to the 1.8 but there is a lot of glass to move but accurate.

Bravo Canon! The perfect lens...what else is there to say. Worth every ounce and penny.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Review Date: Nov 26, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: All it should be. Reasonably sharp at 2.8, good contrast. IS works well.
Had to look at 3 or 4 copies to get one I felt was acceptable at 2.8. Some were very, very soft at 2.8. What I would consider unusable.

As noted above and in a previous review, the first one sent to me was a dud. Soft at 2.8 and front focusing. Went to a local brick and mortar store and went through 3 or so to get one acceptable. By acceptable I mean at least as good as the sigma 70-200 I had. This one is actually better at 200 than any of the sigmas I tried. Not quite up to drainpipe quality but close. The IS is welcome for low light candids.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Review Date: Nov 15, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,575.00

Pros: Well built, well packaged.
Soft at all focal lengths but did get acceptable at 4.0. USM got noisy for some reason after I tried to focus with the lens pointed 45 degrees down.

Soft at all focal lengths until f4, and it seems to front focus. When I tilted the lens down and focused on the ground the USM started to make a noticable noise when focusing. It eventually went away. Image quality is really no better than the 18-55 kitg lens. This lens is being sent back for a replacement. I am glad I bought it new, otherwise I would have to pay to have it fixed or just toss it. I will post again with the replacement and we will see how it goes.

I expected a lot more needless to say. The sigma was sharper and the draipipe blew it away. Hopefully the replacement will be better. I know there are limits to zoom lenses but this is not acceptable.

Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM

Review Date: Oct 28, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp wide open, Fast focus, nice size, comes with hood (get it comes with a hood!)
corners are soft until about 5.6 but that is not what I got it for anyway. Had to send it in for calibration---dreaded front focus, but it came back perfect.

Good, nice sharp lens. Balances well on a 40d. Focus is fast and silent. As sharp at 1.4 as the canon 24 and 35 L's. Only complaint is that it came front focusing. Sent to sigma and they had it 2.5 weeks but it came back perfect. Dead on. Colors and contrast are above what you would expect at 1.4. It is really hard to tell the difference in the center from 1.4 to 4.0. The problem lies in the edges. Pretty soft until 5.6 but then again I did not get this lens for its corner sharpness at 1.4. ( what does that matter anyway).

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX SD

Review Date: Oct 20, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, fast, well built
none withn the limits of the lens

Initial impressions are the lens is as sharp as reported, as sharp as the canon 17-55 and 24-105. Focus is sharp and appears very ccurate. I will update after some additional time with real life situations but the initial tests and shots show it as the sharpest UWA for canon crop cameras.

Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

Review Date: Oct 9, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp at 2.8. Good contrast wide open. Edges are the best I have seen in this zoom range.
Had to go back to tamron as it was soft on one side. Came back perfect. Can misfocus in low light.

Over all a very nice lens. After being sent back it came in sharp (sharper than 17-55) the entire zoom range. Excellent edge sharpness after fix. Reasonably light and compact. A very nice value.

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

Review Date: Oct 9, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Fast accurate focus. Good center sharpness and contrast at 2.8. Solid enough build.
Edges don't really get good until F8. Not to beat a dead horse but this lens should come with a stupid hood!

The lens performs as reviewed by most. Sharp at 2.8 in the center and good contrast. It is somewhat weak compared to the tamron 17-50 on the edges until f8 where they equal out. IS works well. Build is solid enough. Not quite "L" quality but close. I think if they added a rubber gasket in the zoom mechanism they could get rid of any dust complaints. It is large but their is no free ride when you want an image stabilized lens.

Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM

Review Date: Oct 2, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, light, inconspicuous, fast accurat focus. F/2.0
Wish it could focus a bit closer.

Outstanding lens. Sharp, accurate, fast focus. Image quality on par with the 135L at less than half the cost. A great bang for the buck.

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM

Review Date: Mar 18, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, colorful, and very fast
None within the physical limits of the lens. Pricey, but then again it is f1.4.

I had one of these a while back that was OK but not anywhere near the sharpness and contrast of the 35 1.4 even after calibration. After going through a couple of copies at a local store I found a gem. It is every bit as nice as a 35 1.4.

Canon EOS Rebel XTi (400D)

Review Date: Aug 30, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Small, lightweight. Much, much improved features over the 300D. Kit lens was suprisingly good.
None within the limits and design of the camera.

I am very impressed with this little camera. Bought as a backup and travel camera I was very pleased with the improvements over the 300D. Canon thought this camera out well. Controls are very well laid out and easy to use. The XTI will save me from having to lug around my 1D2 for travel and family events and will double as a nice backup for shooting sports. If it only had spot metering it would be perfect. The viewfinder is small but what would you expect with a 1.6 sensor and a tiny little camera.
Adding the grip will add comfort. I would not want to shoot all day with this body and a heavy lens. The balance and grip is just not there but for what it is intended Canon has nailed this one.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Review Date: Apr 24, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, wide open. Fast focus, lightweight, a joy to use.

This lightweight telephoto is near the top as far as I am concerned. I have the MK1 with the built in hood that does the job just fine 90% of the time. I can get some ghosting on occasions if I am not careful. I had an 80-200 2.8 and found myself shootin at 200 most of the time so I made the switch. I shoot mostly sports with this lens and almost always wide open. Very sharp at 2.8 and rarely misfocuses.

Canon EF 20-35mm f/2.8L

Review Date: Jul 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Very solid build. Sharp throughout the aperture range with very nice contrast and colors. Every bit as good as any 17-40 I have shot.
Slow auto focus with some noise, but it does not really bother me at this focus length.

Replaced a 17-40 with this lens. I had to determine if 2.8 was worth the extra length and wideness of the 17-40. To me it was. The 17-40 is a great lens but I found myself leaving it in the bag too often (or leaving it at home) because when I took it I would have to have a flash with me. I was surprised at how sharp the 20-35 is wide open. Very nice contrast and colors. As good as the 17-40 at 4.0. Not quite as good at 2.8 but zoom is? I don't really mind the slow focus at this focal lenght as I am usually shooting people at close range or landscape. In either case an ultra fast focus is not necessary to me.

Canon EF 35mm f/2

Review Date: Feb 22, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Light, fast, sharp, accurate focus
none within the limits of the lens

This lens is very sharp at all aperatures. Color and contrast are adequate wide open and geatly improve as the lens is stopped down. The auto focus is very accurate and usually a miss is my fault. At the price and weight of the lens everyone should have one stuffed in their bag. A favorite for indoor low light shooting at family get togethers.


Page:  1 · 2  next