louisjaffe's reviews

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

    4 out of 10 points and not recommended
    superwide non-fisheye
    poor edges on full-frame

    I got this to go wide on a Canon 20d. It does a pretty nice job on that camera.

    After upgrading to a Canon 5d, when I saw the edges that the 20d had been cropping out, I concluded this lens is not good enough for full-frame use. Chromatic aberration toward the edges is severe. Too many expensive 5d pixels would go to waste.

    reviewed April 8th, 2006 (purchased for $550)

  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    fast, sharp, great for portraits
    none

    This is a remarkable value in an inexpensive lens. Great for available-light shooting and portraiture. Bought it to use on Canon 5d, and its image quality seems to be a good match for the full-frame sensor.

    reviewed April 8th, 2006 (purchased for $375)

  • Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    Optically excellent
    Heavy and bulky

    Expensive, heavy and bulky. But this lens has two great strengths. 1) Wide open, it's great for available light coverage. 2) At critical aperture, like f11, it's wonderfully sharp. On a Canon EOS 5d, this is the first lens I've seen that can really take advantage of every pixel.

    reviewed July 1st, 2006 (purchased for $1,100)

  • Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    light, compact, quick focusing, sharp
    limited zoom range, geometric distortion

    I purchased the lens over six years ago to use with my first DSLR, the Canon D30 (3 megapixel). Have continued to use it with a succession of Canon bodies. Am still using it with a Canon 5d.

    I purchased a Canon 24-105 f4L lens to use with the 5d. On comparison it was very little better than the 24-85, which is smaller, lighter, and 1/3 the price. The 24-105 was slightly sharper wide open at the edges of the full frame, but I found no advantage in center sharpness, and the 24-85 cleaned up nicely when stopped down. It also held up contrast-wise. I didn't compare for chromatic aberration.

    Decided to stick with the 24-85, and returned the 24-105 for a refund. Am just getting the 5d mkII. I'll be surprised if the 24-85 is sharp enough for the added pixels. But this lens has surprised me before.

    reviewed December 3rd, 2008 (purchased for $350)

  • Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* SEL55F18Z

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Optically excellent
    Not the best focuser on Sony a6000

    This is a superb lens optically. I compared it with the Sony (non Zeiss) E-mount 50mm f1.8 OSS on a Sony Alpha a6000 in various shooting situations. The Sony lens is 1/3 the price of the Zeiss, or less.

    Surprisingly the Sony (with rev 02 firmware) focused quicker in low light than the Zeiss, and could lock focus in some situations where the Zeiss only hunted. The updated firmware for the Sony lens takes advantage of fast hybrid autofocus on the a6000 (NEX-7 doesn't have this feature). The Sony 50mm also grabbed more frames that were sharp at low shutter speeds, thanks to optical image stabilization.

    The Zeiss lens is superior in contrast, color rendition, sharpness, and flare resistance. It makes some of the prettiest color you'll ever see. Yet the difference from the Sony lens isn't what the 3x price difference led me to expect-- on the a6000 anyway.

    Admittedly, I had to try three samples of the Sony lens to find one that didn't have sharpness issues away from the center of the frame. That probably wouldn't happen with Zeiss. Too, comparing these lenses is apples-and-oranges, because the Zeiss 55mm covers full frame, the Sony 50 mm only APS-C.

    You could say I took the Zeiss slumming by comparing it to a much cheaper Sony lens on a camera it's not optimized for. Still, I was surprised by how well my cherry-picked sample of the Sony 55mm f1.8 OSS performed.

    reviewed July 31st, 2014 (purchased for $999)

  • Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS SEL50F18

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Sharp, optical image stabilization, affordable
    sample-to-sample variability

    I compared the Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS to the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 on a Sony Alpha a6000 in various shooting situations. The Sony lens is 1/3 the price of the Zeiss, or less.

    Surprisingly the Sony (with rev 02 firmware) focused quicker in low light than the Zeiss, and could lock focus in some situations where the Zeiss only hunted. As observed by another writer in this thread, updated firmware for the Sony lens takes advantage of fast hybrid autofocus on the a6000 (NEX-7 doesn't have this feature). The Sony 50mm also grabbed more frames that were sharp at low shutter speeds, thanks to optical image stabilization, which the Zeiss doesn’t have.

    This Sony 50mm is inferior to the optically superb Zeiss 55mm in contrast, color rendition, and flare resistance. But I had to look closely and repeatedly on a well-calibrated 27-inch monitor to see the difference.

    Admittedly, I had to try three samples of the Sony lens to find one that performed to full potential. The first two were sharp at center, but fell off towards one side of the frame or the other at wider apertures.

    Comparing these two lenses is apples-and-oranges, because the Zeiss 55mm covers full frame, the Sony 50 mm only APS-C. You could say I took the Zeiss slumming by comparing it to this much cheaper Sony lens. Still, I was surprised by how well my cherry-picked sample of the Sony 55mm f1.8 OSS performed.

    reviewed July 31st, 2014 (purchased for $350)