DaveJDSP's reviews

  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    very useful zoom range, image stabilization, good image quality
    still needs better image quality to match today's full-frame cameras

    Update:
    When I bought it new, the image qualtiy at some focal lengths was professionally unuseable - even at f11. I shot targets, wrote a nice, detailed letter, returned it to Canon for repair. They returned it no better. I repeated the whole process (it takes a long time to shoot a test chart series with a zoom lens). They returned it again. No improvement. I repeated the whole process AGAIN.
    This time they sent me a different lens. This one is a very good, professionally acceptable lens! What a difference. Based on the test results I see on this site, the slrgear tested lens is probably about like my first one.
    This experience is typical of most of my experiences with Canon lenses. I did get an excellent 100 macro and an excellent 100-400, both on the first try. That is an exception.
    When you get a Canon lens, assume it is junk, test it rigorously, continue to return it until they give you a really good one. Canon CAN make good lenses. INSIST that they give you a good one.

    Original review:
    It is very disappointing that Canon doesn't offer high quality apochromatic lenses. This lens doesn't perform any better (or even as well) as some of the better lenses on digicams <$1,000. And it is no better than the image quality I get from my 28-135 IS. Yes, its gives ok image quality for a hobbyist and casual user, but not good enough for true pro use. Its image quality is significantly inferior (mediocre resolution and too much chromatic aberration) to that of my view camera lenses. So where can I go for a truly good lens for my FF Canon cameras? Nowhere! PLEASE Canon, please start making and offering some lenses of true pro image quality.

    reviewed November 22nd, 2006 (purchased for $1,200)
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    If you're a photographer, this may be the best lens of all time.
    For the gadgeteer and equipment collector, this is not your lens.

    I am hypercritical about equipment and especially lenses, as they determine my entire income. This lens has superb image quality at 5.6-16, and even very good at 22! If you are a snob about image quality, this is your lens. If you are a snob about things that don't matter, this lens is NOT for you. It is fantastic from 5.6-16, VERY low CA, is very lightweight, feels cheap, sounds cheap. The absolute ideal lens. One of Canon's all-time best lenses. And disposable to boot! (You may want to test a few to be sure to get a good copy.)

    reviewed February 22nd, 2007 (purchased for $75)
  • Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

    3 out of 10 points and not recommended
    light, small, reasonable price, unobtrusive
    horrible performance except at 100mm @ f11 and f16

    I just got this lens brand new a few days ago, and just finished testing it tonight. Its center performance is excellent at all focal lengths and apertures - slightly better than my 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM. And this 70-300 gives an acceptable full-frame image (for pro work) at 100mm @f11-16. But at all other focal lengths and apertures, this 70-300 is unacceptable with significant "smearing" in the corners, and especially on the left side of the image. I simply cannot use this lens for work. It is totally unacceptable. I am very disappointed that the performance of my copy of this lens is NOTHING like what I see on SLRgear's interactive test results!

    I just contacted Canon Tech Support to ask them if I should return it to the dealer, or send it in for repair.

    Update 11/27/2007:
    I chose to send the lens to Canon for service because they said "If you send it to us instead of exchanging it, you'll know that when you get it back that it will be right."
    It took about 10 days to get it back. Its performance after service is no better. I should have just exchanged it with the dealer where I bought it. I retested the lens with 2 different bodies and against 2 other lenses. My testing is good. The lens is bad. And Canon wasted 2 weeks of my time and jeopordized my ability to return it to the dealer in exchange for a good one. Canon has caused me to miss a shoot in Seattle. Canon sales shipped me a bad lens. And Canon service has totally let me down. If you feel brave enough to buy one of these things, TEST, TEST, TEST. And immediately exchange it with your dealer if it doesn't test out properly. Do NOT trust Canon service to make it right.

    Other observations:
    This lens is a little slower and louder in focusing than my 70-200 2.8L, but I bought it only for use in stock travel and landscape photography. All the controls work properly and smoothly and it feels like a good quality lens. I prefer that it is small and black and plastic and lightweight and somewhat invisible. I do not like the big, light gray "pro" lenses, as they are too big and heavy and call too much attention to themselves. And I have never needed to use my lenses as weapons to fight off wild animals!

    If I could get a copy of this lens with image quality as good as the one that SLRgear tested, it would be one of the world's great lenses. But, alas, the copy I got is only useful as a paperweight, and Canon sales and Canon service are doing nothing to make it right. The one year warranty is worthless.

    reviewed November 2nd, 2007 (purchased for $550)
  • Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    good long zoom range, useable image quality, IS
    needs better image quality, especially for today's FF cameras, push-pull

    Got a good one, first try. Unusual.
    Tested it rigorously. Amazingly good image quality, almost as good as the 70-200 2.8 IS. Based on what I've read, my copy is probably unususally good and better than the slrgear tested copy.
    I prefer the brighter image of the 70-200 2.8, and its slightly better image quality and slightly quicker focusing. But my 100-400 is so much more versatile and so close in performance that I will probably rarely use my 70-200. I shoot stock landscapes and people.
    Put a good copy of a 24-105 on one 5D body, and this 100-400 on another 5D body and you have almost everything covered with IS and very good image quality from 24-400mm with only 2 lenses. With the only downside being that both lenses are rather optically slow F4-5.6 for low-light situations.
    I'd prefer twist zoom rather than push-pull, but it is not a deal-breaker.
    Now Canon needs to get busy and update these two lenses to do justice to the 1Ds3 and 5D2 sensors.

    One caveat. Canon ships lots of junk lenses. Assume you'll get a junk copy and allow about a month to return it 3 times till they fix it right or just give you a replacement good one. (see my 24-105 review)

    reviewed July 17th, 2009 (purchased for $1,400)
  • Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor

    6 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Well built. Pretty quick focusing.
    Mediocre image quality, especially poor in corners. Must stop down to al least f11 to have any chance at full-frame quality. Susceptible to flare. No VR. Manual focus ring is too quick which makes fine focus adjustment impossible. WAY too expensive for th

    I'm returning this one for exchange.
    At $500/hr for helicopter time, you want your lens to be sharp. All the way out to the corners. And without VR (this lens doesn't have it) you need all the speed you can get to fight the helicopter vibration. This copy is unusable below f11. For a $200 kit lens, that might be ok. But not for this lens @ ~$1800! Also, on the 36MP D800, you want a lens that is up to the task. This copy of this lens is not.
    According the test at SLRgear (industry benchmark!), this lens should be dynamite from f4 on up, and even very good at f2.8. But the one I'm returning is not.
    The one I rented a few months ago was better but not great. I'm disappointed in Nikon's quality control.

    update 2013-01-24:
    I ordered another copy of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and also 2 copies of the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, all from B&H (they are always great).
    I tested all 3 lenses scientifically and rigorously. Studio shooting with flash, architectural, landcapes @ infinity. One of the Tamrons was the clear winner. The other copy of the Tamron and both copies of the Nikon were unacceptable for my work. None of the lenses give truly sharp corners at any aperture or focal length. But the one Tamron was close enough to get by (I hate just "getting by") (f11 is the only aperture that gives tolerable results at all focal lengths on the best Tamron).

    Anyway, the better of the two Tamrons clearly beat out both copies of the Nikon. Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus! The Nikon does focus a little faster, especially in low light, but in my studio people focus tests, I got more hits with the Tamron than with the Nikon. And of course the Tamron is about $1200 and the Nikon closer to $2000.
    I would be GLAD to pay $2000, or even more, for an excellent lens. Nikon needs FAR better quality control - they should be ashamed.

    Get the Tamron.
    But whatever lens(es) you get, be sure to order at least 2-3 copies and test rigorously (if you care at all about image quality), as there can be huge variation from one copy to the next.

    reviewed December 14th, 2012 (purchased for $1,887)
  • Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD SP

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Simply Better than the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and much less expensive. Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus!
    Image quality unacceptable in corners, needs to be better. I need better image quality, even if I have to pay more to get it. Bokeh can be objectionable in some situations.

    I saw this lens reviewed and advertised and it seems to be the only alternative to the Nikon 24-70 f 2.8. I really want/need VC (VR), but I doubted that the Tamron optical quality would be acceptable. Up till now, I have only bought Canon or Nikon lenses (not including my view camera lenses).

    I ordered 2 copies of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and also 2 copies of the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, all from B&H (they are always great).
    I tested all 4 lenses scientifically and rigorously. Studio shooting with flash, architectural, landcapes @ infinity. One of the Tamrons was the clear winner. The other copy of the Tamron and both copies of the Nikon were unacceptable for my work. None of the lenses give truly sharp corners at any aperture or focal length. But the one Tamron was close enough to get by (I hate just "getting by") (f11 is the only aperture that gives tolerable results at all focal lengths on the best Tamron).

    Anyway, the better of the two Tamrons clearly beat out both copies of the Nikon. Better center sharpness, better corner sharpness, better resistance to flare, better micro-contrast, better color, and of course it has VC as a bonus! The Nikon does focus a little faster, especially in low light, but in my studio people focus tests, I got more hits with the Tamron than with the Nikon. And of course the Tamron is about $1300 and the Nikon closer to $2000.
    I would be GLAD to pay $2000, or even more, for an EXCELLENT lens. Nikon needs FAR better quality control - they should be ashamed.

    Get the Tamron. It is not perfect, but is the best option available.
    But whatever lens(es) you get, be sure to order at least 2-3 copies and test rigorously (if you care at all about image quality), as there can be huge variation from one copy to the next.

    reviewed January 24th, 2013 (purchased for $1,300)
  • Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Amazing clarity and IQ
    Corners not acceptable till you get to f5.6 or f8. Needs VR.

    Amazing zoom lens.
    The image quality has a superb clarity that is hard to describe. It takes quite a good lens to impress me, but this one does.

    Unfortunately, the corners are not tack sharp until you get down to f 5.6 or f8.
    Also, this lens (all lenses) needs VR if you're going to hand hold it and want the exceptional IQ that this and the D800 are capable of.

    I'd rather pay $2500 for better corners and VR.
    Still, all in all, this is the best wide zoom I've ever used, by far!

    reviewed January 24th, 2013 (purchased for $2,000)