pz's reviews

  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    light, sharp, low priced, L quality
    no IS ;-) not as good for full frame

    It was my first L lens. I loved it. Really. I used it with 10D, 20D, 5D. For 10D and 20D it was almost perfect. But for full frame it is - of course - less good. Using 5D at 70 mm its picture was always blurry or less sharp than I used with my old bodies. Once upon a time it was my best lens, but when I bought a 20-70 f/2.8 L I became think that I need a better telezoom, so I sold it for its new IS version. At the same time the IS also seemed to be a must for me.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    very very good picture quality
    heavy, IS might be useful

    I bought it because after years I really am convinced that a good objective is much more important than the body. I used several different objectives in this range on my 300D, 10D, 20D and at last I did have to buy this one to achieve the desired quality of my photos. On 20D it is (almost) as good as a prime, on 5D it is the best canon zoom in this range. Using a full frame body its picture quality is excellent, much better than I hoped. The 2.8 aperture on a full frame body gives beautiful background blur. It is heavy, but well balanced on 5D.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    picture quality, price
    no

    I used it on 20D, 5D. I was really satisfied with this lens.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

    4 out of 10 points and not recommended
    IS
    terrible picture quality

    I bought it for my 20D. I regretted it very very much!!! I have never used a 'digital only' (or EF-S) lens before. I used 28-135 IS and I was satisfied with it. The IS is very useful, but the picture quality of this lens is terrible! Every lens has got optical defects - of course - but the defects of a good lens can be corrected easily. The vignetting of this lens was as disturbing as I did have to use at least aperture 8 for a good picture! In the end I bought DXO for the correction. But for RAW it wasn't the best (I didn't like the RAW converter of DXO). I sold it at the first time. Do not buy this lens! Buy 17-40 instead of it for the same price! 17-40 is a shorter zoom but its picture quality is incomparable with 17-85!!!!!!!!!!

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    for its price it is a very good lens
    24 mm is not ideal for a digital body

    On my 300D it was a very good objective, I used it a lot, I liked it.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

    5 out of 10 points and recommended
    its price, picture quality for its price
    construction quality

    It was my first lens. I used rarely. It gave relatively good pictures but its construction quality was terrible. For this price it is a good - but change as soon as possible - lens.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006