Jon S's reviews

  • Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Image Stabilization, decent zoom range
    vignetting at wide end of lens, slow speed

    After reading the reviews on this lens, I did not expect much and therefore the lens ended up being what i expected.

    At the 17mm side, there is obvious darkening at the corners, moderate barrel distortion and some CA. All of this goes away as you zoom in a bit.

    I find the lens to be a bit on the soft side, not as sharp as i thought.

    The lens is a lot bulkier and heavier than the standard 18-55mm kit lens. The IS is probably the best feature of this lens. My prior non-SLR digital camera had a F2.4 28-200. In a way, the IS compensates for the F4 on the lens. But the XTi can be exposed to ISO800 with no objectionable noise compared to my older camera. So overall, I can take more usable shots with this lens than i could with my older setup.

    reviewed November 15th, 2006 (purchased for $500)
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Fast lens, perfect size for portraits....
    soft when open, some abnormal image issues under special condition....

    I like this lens when used for portrait shots. The softness actually helps somewhat in this kind of situations. With a 1.4 aperture, it is a lot more versatile than using the 17-85mm IS Zoom lens. The 8-bladed aperture helps the bokeh compared to the Canon 1.8 II lens. Focus speeds seems variable. Sometimes the lens "hunts" a bit. The lens build quality is nothing to write home about, but it does seem a bit better than the stock 18-55mm zoom kit lens.

    Stopping down to 2.0 or higher improves sharpness. The lens is quite compact and is a useful prime lens. The odd thing is that when taking pictures of Christmas lights, there are ghost lights on one side of the image.

    reviewed December 12th, 2006 (purchased for $250)
  • Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

    5 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Cheap basic no-frills zoom lens....
    mediocre image quality, but you get what you pay for....

    For $100, this is a superb example of you get what you pay for. The lens feels cheap, the image quality suffers unless you stay in the middle of the zoom range and don't use the lens wide open. My suggestion is save the bucks and go for a Sigma or Tamron lens with a 2.8 spec. You will be a lot happier for it.

    The only reason to buy it with the lens is in case you decide to sell your camera and the buyer wanted a lens with it.

    reviewed December 12th, 2006