 |
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
tilt function, sharpness, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This lens does exactly what I bought it for. I use it for product shots (usually small items), the focal length is just right and the tilt function allows me to increase DOF without shooting at f22. I usually shoot against a white background, even with a reletively clean sensor that's a lot of dust to clean up in post.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp even at f1.8, weight, price, AF
|
|
Cons:
|
colour fringing in areas of extreme contrast at f1.8
|
|
|
This lens lives up to the hype. It's sharp, even at f1.8. The AF is fast and it's well built. The only negetive is colour fringing in areas of extreme contrast at f1.8. This greatly improves by f2.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $315.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, wide aperture, size, weight,
|
|
Cons:
|
purple fringing in areas of extreme contrast wide opin. strong vignetting wide open
|
|
|
This lens is better than I'd expected. It's sharp even at f1.4, the AF is fast and it's built well. The main negative is some purple fringing in areas of extreme contrast. It also has strong vignetting wide open (on FF body). This can be easily fixed in post and by f2 this is virtually gone.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, Focal length range on FF, IS, Weight, Build, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion at 24mm
|
|
|
I bought the 24-105L as a general purpose lens. The image qualty is excellent. The zoom range is excellent for events, as is the IS. It more than makes up for it being an f4 lens. I also tried the 24-70L, but it's 500 euro more expensive in Ireland and I find 70mm a little short for shooting events. I also prefer the lighter weight and smaller hood of the 24-105. The only negetive I have with this lens is the distortion at 24mm.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
weight, price, AF
|
|
Cons:
|
it's white, it takes 67mm filters, hood is huge
|
|
|
This lens replaced my Nikon 80-200f2.8 when I switched to Canon. I bought it because I felt it's lighter weight and lower price was worth loosing a stop for. It produces very good images, perhaps I would say excellent if I hadn't previously owned the 80-200. Despite that, I still feel it has been an acceptable compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, focal length range, build, weight, price
|
|
Cons:
|
distortion at 17mm
|
|
|
After switching from shooting Nikon to Canon, this lens replaced my 12-24DX. I have not been disappointed. It's more than a match for my old lens. It produces excellent sharp images. It's lightweight and well built. It's not perfect, but I wasn't expecting utter perfection from an ultra-wide zoom. Barrel distortion is strong at 17mm, but can be corrected in post, by 20mm it's very manageable. It vignettes at f4, but so what, it can be fixed in post too. Though I almost always stop down with this lens, I have no hesitation shooting wide open if the situation demands it. I also tried the 16-35L before buying. It is very similar, I couldn't justify the extra cost for an extra stop. I also prefer the 17-40 focal lenght range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
