 |
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
by clarkjames
a review in one paragraph: it has a good range and is a good lens for lots of situations, but get rid of it as soon as possible if you want to take really good photos or make large prints.
a slightly longer review: Now a days probably 90% of digital images are never printed, and stay on websites like flickr or facebook- if you ... don't look too closely (people call this pixel peeping) even a cheap lens can produce ok images when viewed on a screen, even a modest sized print (A4) will expose the flaws of a lens, and that's where a cheap lens like this can start to let you down.
If you pay a load of money to go on a photo expedition, say you go to the arctic circle, or the grand canyon, once in a lifetime opportunities- this lens will let you down. If you're a casual photographer who's images are let down by their abilities rather than their gear, this lens will be ok for you to learn with, until you stumble across a fantastic photo opportunity and the lens then decides to let you down.
The AF isn't driven by an ultra sonic motor (USM) so it's noisy, much slower and to manual focus you have to switch from AF to MF mode. Given the typical use of this lens it's not inappropriate.
It also has some of the worst chromatic aberation I have ever seen, you'll want to avoid shooting against high contrast edges such as trees and buildings back lit by the sun.
Yes I have seen great photos taken by this lens, and yes I have taken great photos myself with this lens- but when I am comparing it to better lenses with faster apertures and better glass, you get what you pay for, and with the better lenses you don't have to be so limited as to what you can shoot. With an f5.6 lens you're relegated to shooting with flash or shooting in good light only, IS is useful for shooting in lower light, but if your subject moves then IS isn't going to help as it only lets you shoot at a slower shutter speed- so if you're shooting a children's party and the kids are moving around the kids will be blurry but the background will be sharp- I think a wider aperture is always more useful than an IS lens.
Perhaps I am a lens snob, I am a professional photographer and I must have about 15k worth of lenses and cameras, my main lens cost £1600 and weighs about 30x as much as this lens- so of course it's not going to impress me.
It's difficult to say what you should get, as this lens only costs around £50 on ebay, so there is no real competition in this price bracket, it is also one of the lightest and smallest zoom lenses you can buy, but if IQ is your priority then you'll want to step up to the 17-55 2.8 IS, or even the tamron 17-50 (with or without vibration control), both lenses are a cut above in terms of IQ, handling, build quality, and with both lenses being 2.8 then let in a lot more light and you can start to blur the background, making them great for portraits.
But if you're a casual photographer, and think you can live within the constraints set by this lens, then go for it- it's so cheap that you really can't loose.
Read the complete review |
 |
Canon 7042A003
by staceyspiers
canon make 4 70-200 lenses, they know how to make a great telephoto zoom lens.
the 70-200 f2.8 is an essential lens for professional photography- covering everything from close range sports, photojournalism, weddings, portraits and more.
it is a heavy lens, so unless you have strong arms you probably wouldnt want to take ... it on holiday or use it for fun, this is not a fun lens to use, but if image quality is your priority then you can handle the weight. It works best when using a monopod or tripod
with a fast 2.8 apperture it creates great background blur, it is a perfect lens for portraits. Being 2.8 it also works well in dimly lit churches, so combined with Image stabilisation means that you can shoot telephoto in really low light, it is easier to handhold this lens than it is to shoot with f2 primes like the 135L.
The construction quality of this lens is fantastic, it really is such a joy to use, nothing moves when you zoom or focus. focussing speed is blazingly quick, the quickest i've ever used.
it is also weather sealed, and i've dropped mine into a mount of snow before and there was no ill effect. Just watch out for the dust seal at the back of the lens if you buy an older one, sometimes they can get torn. the non IS version is not weather sealed
my only criticism is that the switches are easy to knock out of place- so that's why professionals tape up the switches because they can't afford to miss shots.
compared to the newer mk II version, the mk II is sharper at 2.8, the switches are less easy to change by accident and has a one stop better IS and works better with teleconverters- all are fairly minor improvements though
a fantastic lens and if you don't need the 2.8 apperture the 70-200 f4 IS the the one to get
Read the complete review |
|
|
Sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5 EX DG
by clarkjames
I wish I could love this lens, maybe i'll try another copy and give it another chance.
On full frame a 15mm lens is very wide, and gives a great range- a surprising amount wider than the 17-40.
People say it's a bit slow at f3.5 to f4.5, but realistically it's no slower than the 17-40 L, and when you're shooting ... stopped down it doesn't really matter.
There are 4 major problems with this lens:
1- you can't use filters, which limits your creative freedom- apparently you can use real mounted filters but I have never seen them for sale or heard of anyone using them. The nikon 14-24 has the same problem but it is popular enough that someone came up with a solution
2- it's not sharp, especially in the corners where it's not sharp at all. The 17-40 gets a bad rep for corner sharpness but compared to the canon the sigma looks broken- maybe I had a bad copy as I've read good and bad reviews about the optical performance of this lens
3- the AF is loud, and slow. I use my 17-40 for photojournalism, and quick silent Af is useful- less so if you shoot landscapes
4- there is no AF override. With the 17-40 you just grab the focus ring and go, the 15-30 has some weird clutch system where you pull the tab forward and then you can manual focus, it's slightly intrusive and can be annoying in situations where you need to respond fast.
if it helps the lens looks amazing, and feels very well made- but when I dropped it I could see some cost cutting inside- the canon lenses are much more sturdy, although I have seen a 17-40 break in the same way my 15-30 did.
Despite the mostly negative review I did enjoy this lens, and despite yearning for the 17-40 from canon I didn't upgrade until I knocked over my tripod and smashed the lens, I then realised the although the lens is mostly metal, it's actually plastic where it matters, it was made to look tougher than it actually was.
for the price though it's pretty hard to beat- the 17-40 was more than double the price
Read the complete review |
