John H Maw's reviews

  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Image quality, small size, large aperture
    No internal focus

    This is a very nice compact and light lens. Not quite as nice to use as my other Canon prime, the 85mm f/1.8 because unlike the 85 it doesn't have internal focusing, but very useful nevertheless. Optical quality is well up to making very saleable images (full frame), which is what counts.

    If you need a wide aperture lens that won't take up too much room in your bag, this could be the one.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007

  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Good optics, fairly compact
    None

    This is my favourite Canon prime lens. Fairly compact, very good optics (even wide open) and quick and quiet in operation. It is not heavy either, which is an advantage when carrying lots of gear for long periods. The only worry is that the little catches on the lens hood seem a bit small and weak, but I have had the lens and hood for quite a few years now so maybe the impression is unfounded.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007

  • Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Image quality good enough for most things even on full frame, compact, low price
    Not much, but wouldn't mind if the image quality were even better

    This lens never seems to get great reviews. I don't understand why. I have had one for about 10 years, and although I buy other lenses, this one always seems to get a lot of use. It's not the sharpest lens you can find, but it is still a good working lens if stopped down a couple of stops. On top of that it is small, light and has a range that makes it quite versatile. The zoom ring on mine has just started to stiffen up at the 28mm end (after 10 years), but apparently there is not sufficient wear to see what is at fault, so I will continue to use it. Not bad for what is now a very inexpensive lens.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007

  • Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Image quality, images stabilisation, good price
    Wish it were smaller

    I considered getting the DO lens, but went for this instead. The decision is between small size on one hand and better image quality (strange out of focus highlights on the DO lens) on the other. Add to that the fact this lens is about half the price of the DO and it seemed an easy decision. This lens is also a little lighter. I had one of the early ones with the sharpness problem at the 300mm end when held in portrait format. Canon fixed this very quickly and the lens is now one that I would use without any worry about its performance. Even wide open the centre sharpness is very good, and not bad at the edges (full frame). Best to keep it a bit under 300 if you need to use it wide though. Image stabilisation works very well, on or off a tripod.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007

  • Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Optically good, small, light
    None

    This lens seems to do everything that it should. Most important it is sharp and shows only moderate flare even with the sun in the frame. Contrast is also good. I am using one on a Canon 5D, and have not had any problems with ghosting, so wouldn't trade up for the DG version.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007

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

    6 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Moderately compact, useful zoom range
    Image quality should be better, and more consistalt from one lens to another

    Sigma lenses can be quite variable. The first one of these I got was truly awful. Very uneven sharpness across the frame. I sent it back and it was replaced, but the new one is not great. On a full frame camera even the wonderful DXO can't correct all its failings.Shame as it is a moderately compact lens with a useful focal length range. My advice would be to only buy where you can try the lens in the shop and see the images there and if it looks good take that same lens. Mine works best at f11, and preferably not set all the way to 12mm.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007

  • Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG Aspherical

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Reasonable image quality, and useful range
    Quite big and a bit heavy

    Not a bad lens. Not the sharpest, but not bad even on full frame. About an inch longer than the 12-24 so a bit bulky. I would be careful to only use it stopped down two to three stops. Better to increase the ISO (within reason) than use it wide open.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007

  • Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM APO

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Wonderful optics (really). Amazing zoom range.
    Too big to hand-hold if you want best results.

    I have the older version of this lens (non DG). Optically it was a huge surprise. Before buying I tested it against Sigma's 135-400 and prime 400 and this was the best (and by a considerable margin). Not what I was expecting at all. Don't even think of hand-holding in most conditions though. It's main drawback is its bulk, but you can't have everything.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007