9 out of 10 points and recommendedRelatively light, sharp, low distortion.Maybe you should buy the updated macro version instead
Sharp from f/4.0. Low distortion. Pretty good build quality. Rated as topclass in Sweden's premier photo magazin (and they're pretty stingy with that label).reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $370)
Only concern could be that perhaps it would be better to buy the Macro version - same lens but focuses closer.
5 out of 10 points and recommendedsharp, cheap, lightgotta move those feet
Sharp from f/4.0. Light. Great for portrait on 1.6 crop DSLRs.reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $62)
Only problem: it's a prime and sees less use than convenient zooms.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedsharp, relatively fast, USMlarge and white
Beautifully sharp, even wide open. Fast focusing due to USM. Comes with hood (as do all Ls), meaning you don't have to fork out an extra ~$40.reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $500)
Only con: tends to draw 'pro' attention, which can be bad if you're try to be inconspiciuos.
5 out of 10 points and recommendedIS.Sharp at 300mm only at f/8.0
Canon's updated IS lens. I was disappointed with my 2 copies - none was sharp enough at 300mm. Needed to be stopped down to f/8.0. Pretty slow focusing too compared to those with internal USM motors.reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $550)
I ended up returning it for the sharper 70-200 f/4.0.
7 out of 10 points and recommendedSharpest lens I've ever owned. Cheap used ones out there.Tele primes not so useful for travelphoto.
I had the older version which wasn't as high-quality as the newer one. But oh so sharp. Lovely. My primary photo style is travel stuff though, and primes just aren't worth it for that stuff.reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $310)
But if you need tele and sharpness and can be ok with slow focusing (and perhaps short on $$$), this is your lens.
8 out of 10 points and recommendedFast focusing, nice range, nice build quality.Tad slow at long end.
Very nice kit lens. Sharp, moderate distortion (much better than Canon 17-85 IS), and light. Fast focusing too.reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $300)
Enjoying low-light photo, I found it slightly slow at long end (f/4.5). Also it's close-focusing capabilities are not so good (38cm/1'3 or something). If you like macro, look at Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 instead.
7 out of 10 points and recommendedConvenient travel lens. IS. Fast focusing.Slow aperture, distortion.
Decent sharpness. IS is great - gives ~3 stops. Fast focusing. Best for travel photo. Not so good for anything else.reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $520)
Poor, outright bad distortion (straight things bend horribly). Slow aperture doesn't freeze action or blur background.
I ended up getting rid of it for a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. YMMV.
7 out of 10 points and recommendedSolid build. Relatively fast aperture. Pretty sharp.Heavy. No USM focus motor.
Maybe the sharpest of the ultra-wides for 1.6 crop DSLRs (at least according to Sweden's premiere photo magazine, Foto). The Canon 10-22 has better distortion though. I ended up getting rid of because it is so difficult to shoot with in my opinion. Extreme wide isn't for me, I don't master it.reviewed December 5th, 2006 (purchased for $450)
5 out of 10 points and recommendedLight, cheap.Slow aperture.
Sharpness is ok. Main problem for me was that it was so slow - 5.6 at long end only makes it useful in the middle of the day (when photography tends to be least fun).reviewed December 5th, 2006
In its defense, it's light and easy to carry around. Focuses fast too for not having a USM motor. If you're more than a camera rookie, you'll probably enjoy a better lens (e.g., sigma 18-50 f/2.8; Canon 17-85 IS).