ckhorne's reviews

  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    Good walk around lens. Very sharp compared to other lenses in same range
    Slightly heavy. Some barrel distortion at the wide end

    This is my first "real" lens, to replace the kit lens that came with my XTi; my photography experience is limited, so I can only draw on so much for comparison.

    It works perfectly for what I want - a very good, mid-range zoom lens with some of the best glass available. It has a great zoom range for walkaround photos, and the IS makes up for the f/4 apeture.

    It makes my relatively lightweight body (XTi), into something that requires a bit more handholding. I'm not sure if I'd be willing to go hiking with this lens because of the weight. However, it's lighter (by about 10oz) than the 28-70 f/4L that it competes with.

    I did some side-by-side comparisons between this lens and the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM at various focal lengths and f stops, running the raw output through DxO for final conversion. This lens is definitely sharper and had better color rendetion at all points, however, had more barrel distortion at the 24-30mm lens.

    Overall, I'm very happy with the lens and would highly recommend it to anyone.

    reviewed January 2nd, 2007 (purchased for $1,060)
  • Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Fills the ultrawide gap for cropped-sensor cameras
    Not an L lens

    I was looking for a lens that I could use for both underwater work and for land work for my XTi, and this was a perfect fit. Underwater photography excels with a wide angle lens, and this lens is perfect. For land work, this lens is the perfect fit for landscape photography (in certain situations, of course).

    Build quality is very good- almost L class. The fact that it uses the highest quality lenses simply makes it that much better. The weight is perfect for carrying around, and the FoV is incredible.

    I'd highly recommend this lens; it's only useful for certain shots, but excels at them.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $680)
  • Canon EF 24mm f/2.8

    8 out of 10 points and recommended

    This lens is very good for walk around indoors, where the subject is tight, and there's plenty of casual portrait shots. I really enjoy the ability to take pictures using natural light (to maintain the lighting/mood), and this lens lets me do that. Otherwise, I'm relying on my f/4 IS lens, which can't quite seem to bridge the gap.

    This is a good lens for the price - the build quality is ok, but usable - it doesn't feel cheap. It's a useful lens to keep in your bag for those times when a lower f stop is required.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

    3 out of 10 points and recommended
    Inexpensive. 300mm
    Cheap build and poor quality

    This lens is inexpensive, but you get what you pay for. The focus system is a little slow and the images are not very sharp and do not have much contrast.

    However, it is a good, cheap, beginner lens. At 300mm, you will need a tripod (as with most any 300mm); if you want a 300mm without using a tripod, look for one that has Image Stabilization.

    Overall, I wouldn't recommend this lens unless you need a very cheap lens for "just in case".

    reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $225)
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

    6 out of 10 points and recommended
    Cheap, decent quality, relatively large apeture
    Poor build construction

    This lens fills a very specific need - a 50mm "portrait" lens with a relatively large apeture. The build quailty isn't all that great, but it is lightweight and does the job decently well. For the price, it's really hard to match.

    If you're looking at getting a body + kit lens, I'd highly recommend saving your money and just getting the body + this lens for the same price.

    reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $69)
  • Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro

    3 out of 10 points and recommended

    Wow- I'm not sure how this lens ever got out of the engineering department. The build quality is ok, and the price is good, but the image quality is just downright poor.

    Most people with this lens will try to use it at the 300mm end, which has the worst image quality of the range, even stopped down a bit. The rest of the range is ok, but overall lacks contrast and color saturation.

    Macro is a bit misleading as well; to use macro, switch into manual focus and use the 1/4" left on the focus dial to set the focus; hardly a useful range.

    I'd recommend looking elsewhere for a telephoto zoom...

    reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $200)