mu55ster's reviews

  • Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    nice range, PT lens profile - Fast and detailed on K10D
    very slow auto focus on my Pentax DS

    I didn't think much of this lens when I first got it with the Pentax ist DS, the auto focus is slow (I can do better manual), but you can get some good results with it. I got this one because PT lens (photoshop plug-in) has a profile for this lens and the DS, and since i tend to shoot alot of architecture it makes a really good versatile lens (PT lens fixes lens distortions). It is alittle heavy for the DS, but it is a pretty small camera. I am usually very happy with the results and as with any digital photo you can usually make it alot better with some post processing. The petal lens hood is a pain when trying to use a polariser, but it's good that it's included with the lens, very useful. I do like the lens and find it's wider angle very useful (although if sigma made the 10-20 in pentax mount I don't know how often I'd pick this one up, except maybe travel).

    UPDATE: Well, a few things have changed - Sigma released the 10-20mm in K mount - Fantastic lens - and as I thought - i didn't touch the 18-125mm again. BUT - that was on the DS, I put the lens on my new K10D because as christmas day moves along i get very lazy with the whole zooming with my feet idea. Just looking at the photos has prompted this immediate update - the lens performs really well on the K10D. Auto focus is quite amazing compared to the DS, and the image quality is much better - it actually seems sharper, dispite the extra demands placed on it by the 10mp sensor - very weird, but makes me glad I didn't sell the lens - so it deserves a new score - well done.

    reviewed October 20th, 2005 (purchased for $350)

  • Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Super wide and full frame
    No filters :(

    This is an amazing lens - the widest rectiliner zoom. The best thing about this lens is it's full frame, so works on my film body as well. it is large and the front element really bulges out - which leads me to my only gripe with the lens - no poleriser... i use them all the time, and although on a lens this wide it would not be as usefull as on a 40mm or even 28mm (in terms of its effect on the sky) it would still be nice to get rid of reflections off water etc. image quality is great for such a design feat, fantastic.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

    6 out of 10 points and recommended
    good basic telephoto range
    slow apature, and needs to be stopped down

    A good second lens for beginners - light, lets you experiance the range and decide if you need a better zoom - other lenses are better/sharper (thinking of most 70-200mm lenses). lens is fine for most users but if you do shoot primarily in the telephoto range there are better ways to go. Ok as a travel lens but again - it's always better to save up alittle and get one good lens rather than getting cheap ones to fill out your lens range.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    Very wide, perfect for digital
    if only f1.4 was possible :)

    This lens has paid for it's self many times over - it's great for interiors and give me the occasional shot that nobody else got at weddings etc (although tends to dwarf people as wideangles do - so be careful). Construction is great - metal would be nice but as if thats ever going to happen - the best thing is being able to put a poleriser on. the hood is good too. image quality is great - gets better around f8-f16 and this is really the range you should be using it in anyway for best depth of feild for tripod mounted shots - wide open needs the occasional USM - a point for pixel peeppers - this is a WIDE lens, you use it to capture a scense of space, if you zoom in expecting to read the lable of a bottle of wine in a shot of a 5x3 meter wall you shot from 4 meters away you'd really be pushing it (4 meters away with a 50mm - no problem, but you'd only have a few bottles) so while it is sharp - remember it's wide as a priority, so you might be dissapointed at first if you veiw at 100% rather than veiwing the whole shot. there is a tiny amount of distortion - easily removed in CS2 or PT lens but i rarely bother - the 12-24mm has less distortion but is much bigger (full frame though) - i put this lens on a film body for some fun - creates a circular image cut off at the sides, this creates a fisheye effect while keeping most of the image rectilinier - great fun, i'd love to try in on a full frame digital. I love this lens - one of my favorites and i'd buy another in a heart beat.

    reviewed November 17th, 2006

  • Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2 AF

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Cheap, cheap, cheap
    Cheap (sorry three out weigh one)

    This lens suprised me. On the 6mp DS i was ready to throw it away after no interest on ebay - I put it on the 10mp K10D - whole new lease of life - MUCH sharper - very strange...

    Autofocus is still alittle slow and noisy but the quality of the lens is quite amazing for the price - sharpness on the 10mp sensor is amazing considering the price - although it is still quite prone to fringing - some of which is not fixable, even with lightroom.

    If your after a budget tele-zoom I can recomend it for sharpness but expect some fringing.

    reviewed December 16th, 2006

  • Samsung 30mm f/2 NX

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    SHARP - small - SHARP
    doesn't fit on my 5D ;(

    GET IT GET IT GET IT

    This lens was my reason for buying into the NX system, Sharp at F2 and tiny, perfect focal length for me at 45mm eqv, size is great, I have yet to find a reason to need a hood either.

    Love it - Highly recommended

    reviewed July 12th, 2011

  • Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Small, Light, Better than expected
    would it have been better if it was just alittle bigger?

    After realizing that i was constantly shooting my 24-105L at f8 or f11, and at the same time leaving my 100-300 f5.6L in the car rather than taking it up to the 24th floor apartment where it would have been good to have for some quick snaps I decided to look into the dreaded field of superzooms.

    I wasn't expecting the best image quality but i'm pretty demanding of all my other gear - so i was willing to accept soft corners and pretty ordinary quality at 300mm - this lens surprised me.

    At 300mm, yes, the quality doesn't blow you away, but it's about the same as my old 100-300L was at f5.6, plus it has a lightroom profile and stabilization. Between 28 and 200mm on my canon 6D i get sharpness into the corners at f8 and f11 - i'm yet to test it properly wide open, but thats not why i bought it anyway. There is a good amount of CA/fringing but lightroom cleans that up and i have noticed that flare of bright objects isn't as nice as from my other lenses. i have a feeling it's backfocusing at 300mm but is spot on at wider lengths.

    Build quality is great, although for the price i was kid of expecting it to be this good. I would have been happier if the lens was just alittle larger (taking 72 or even 77mm filters, it takes 67mm) if it meant that the quality at 300mm could have been just slightly better or the aperture f5.6 instead of 6.3. It would also have been nice if the zoom ring turned the same way as canon lenses for the canon version - it's going to take some getting used to, but i'm never going to be using this lens in a high pressure shoot where that's going to become close to an issue.

    There aren't many reviews out there, this is a good lens, possibly the best in it's class from what i can figure, and miles ahead of Tamrons older offerings in this segment - i'm quite happy and still alittle astonished by this lens - it actually comes close enough that it may replace the 24-105L and 100-300L in my kit

    reviewed April 20th, 2015 (purchased for $879)