photofanatic's reviews

  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    cheap, sharp, light and small
    none... you get what you pay for

    Very sharp lens. Autofocusing not very accurate, especially in low light. Colour is decent. However, for $100 it is a very good lens!

    reviewed December 16th, 2006 (purchased for $114)
  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    Clean colour, sharp, fast focus, non-extending barrel

    I love this lens! It gives beautiful vibrant colour and sharpness across the full frame when paired with a 20D. Very fast and accurate focusing, even in low light. A joy to use!

    reviewed December 16th, 2006 (purchased for $1,000)
  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Sharp, good focusing, light.
    Colours seem slightly muted

    This is a good lens, sharp, light and nice colour. I do not find the colours as bright as with the 70-200 L, however they are still good. Very nice for landscape and architecture. Even on a20D, I do not use this as a walk around lens... too wide to give pleasing photos of people etc. Well built, feels solid in the hand.

    reviewed December 16th, 2006 (purchased for $950)
  • Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF SP AF

    5 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Cheaper than the equivalent Canon L lens (24-70L); light; f2.8.
    Colours muted; terrible autofocus especially in low light.

    This lens has been nothing but trouble for me. I bought it because I read reviews saying it was a good, cheaper alternative to the Canon 24-70L or 24-105L. When I first bought it, I noticed that a very large proportion of photos were out of focus... with both back and front focusing. Something wrong with the camera's autofocus. Thus I had to send it for Tamron recalibration. 4 months later the lens returned... In apparent working order. Now most of shots are sharp. One still must switch to manual focus in low light. It is slow to focus under all conditions in comparison to Canon L. However, my biggest complaint with this lens is the colour. Always muted and less intense than through my Canon L lenses. meaning more post-processing to achieve similar looking results. Also the barrel extends when focusing- irritating with a polarizer etc attached. To sum up. This is not a cheaper lens that gives similar results to Canon L's. It is a cheaper lens that gives inferior results. I wish I had the money to buy the Canon 24-70L. For now, I am stuck with it. I should say that some people have had good experiences with the lens sharpness/colour. Quality control at the CHinese plant(where the lens is made) must be an issue.

    reviewed December 16th, 2006 (purchased for $300)