10 out of 10 points and recommendedCheap, Small, Sharp, Good for BeginnersCheap Construction (But you won't really notice coz of the size)
Ok, before anything we need to be fair to the price range of the lens..reviewed January 6th, 2007 (purchased for $79)
Most of the people here are complaning against the cheap build, the so-so focus ring, etc.
But first of all, you won't be manual focusing most of the time because of the.. umm.. not quite sure what to call it.. "short focus twist"... to change focus from the closest to infinity takes only about a half turn so its quite hard to focus accurately especially when wide open..
Sharpness is VERY good (just good luck on focusing properly, use the center) and I would recommend this lens if you're a beginner and don't have that much experience with photography.. don't be a gearhead.. use this and your kit lens first to learn what you need and want... besides, IQ isn't everything.. so what if you an L lens if you don't even know how to compose a good image?
Btw stop it down for better image (like 2.8, and try to keep it there)
9 out of 10 points and recommendedGood working distance, Canon makes good macro lenses..I don't like the shape.. hehehe
Although relatively new (announced in 2000), for some reason, it feels like an "old design"... (for me)reviewed January 6th, 2007 (purchased for $440)
But aesthetics aside.. Canon makes good macro lenses.. Internal focusing, sharp, front element doesn't rotate during focusing, did I say sharp?
Anyway, the EF-S 60 and EF-S 100 are almost equal in image quality.. I guess the only thing that you need to consider is whether you want a:
Lighter, slightly-cheaper lens (EF-S 60mm) (crop body only btw)
Longer working distance, requires higher shutter speed because of focal length, and full-frame compatibility (EF 100mm)
Btw.. This is a fun lens.. you won't run out of things to photograph once you grab this one :)
And this could also be used for portraits :) (so maybe you can sell your 50mm f/1.8 II)
9 out of 10 points and recommendedIQ, Canon Macros are top-notch..EF-S only, No focus limiter
Oh Canon..reviewed January 6th, 2007 (purchased for $389)
Everything would have been better if this had a focus-limiter switch..
IQ is good, as with Canon Macros, the only major thing that differentiates them from each other is the working distance (60, 100, 180)..
All-in-all a good lens because of the small packaging but I would prefer the 100mm Macro because.. Well I would only need 1 macro lens in my whole life, why not make it full-frame compatible? And greater working distance... (and also that focus limiter)
7 out of 10 points and recommendedCheap, Good for First time buyers*Cheap... I'm a bit embarrased with this lens
Wow.. this lens already has lots of reviews.. I guess that's because this is a kit lens..reviewed January 6th, 2007
I would recommend first-time buyers to get this lens.. why? Aside from cheap, it allows you to learn important aspects of your lens.. Althought it is cheap, you can work around its weakness if YOU ONLY KNOW how.. :)
I almost hated my kit lens but when I learned how to properly stop-down, to avoid the extremes, force myself to be creative in composing the image, etc.. It allowed me to improve myself in photography..
Get over that "cheap quality" mentality and why not just make it a personal challenge to be able to get good images with this lens? (it is possible!)
Btw, I know one professional photographer who uses this lens and I asked him.. why use a kit lens?! And he said that he's using old school techniques instead (like drop-in filters, etc) I was amazed and was actually motivated to learn how to use this properly :)
10 out of 10 points and recommendedA wide lens for crop bodies!I wanted to list the non-constant aperture but read on..
I don't actually own this lens but had it for a week or so..reviewed January 6th, 2007 (purchased for $640)
Anyway.. finally a wide lens for crop body! Basically this is a 16-35 lens.. you won't know what you're missing until you get this one (either that or you'll realize that maybe you don't need a lens this *wide*)
Regarding the non-constant aperture.. Well.. as a physicist I realized that it'll be hard to construct with a lens of field view of 10mm!!! (the 1.6x crop happens because of the small sensor size, so i'm amazed that they were able to make a lens this wide with very low distortions! -- wider than some fish eyes)
So there... IQ is good, the UD elements are there.. almost L quality images, so stop thinking and grab one!
2 out of 10 points and not recommendedummm.. cheap?*cheap everything
*a good friend of mine got this lens as a part of the 400D kit, they said that it was being sold at a discounted rate.. but it seems that I actually paid higher than the other reviewer..reviewed January 7th, 2007 (purchased for $200)
This would have been a good beginner's lens if it was as cheap as the 18-55 kit lens. But no, I'd rather recommend a third-party lens than this one...
Yes it is usuable but I guess its better to invest in a better lens, the price vs. quality ratio is too low..
8 out of 10 points and not recommendedCheaper than Canon offering, Slightly cheaper, Black color? :)Zoom rotation is inverted, Poor maximum magnification
I would still prefer the 70-200 4L because of better IQ and built quality (and the fact that it's not a third-party).. Plus its cheaper..reviewed January 7th, 2007
Why? Well, The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 only gets competitive when you stop it down.. so.. most of the time you'll be using it as a f/4 lens..
I'm still trying to see if I can try the Macro version of this lens.. (and see the improvements made)
7 out of 10 points and not recommendedCheap alternative/upgrade path from kit lens.., IS for a cheap price (relatively)Too wide from crop, Wobbly double barrel design
Except for the IS, there is nothing really special bout this lens.. Well if you are a collector I believe this lens pioneered a lot of firsts..reviewed January 7th, 2007 (purchased for $440)
Anyway, back to the lens.. The IS is *still* effective, image quality is good enough.. on its own I LIKE this lens.. But when you start comparing it to others.. bah..
I guess its the cheapest in the general purpose bunch (17-40 f/4L, 17-50 f/2.8 IS, 24-105 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8) But you decided on whether buying this lens (and then selling it later on when you upgrade) is worth the hassle.. I mean, of course you lose money on the resale.. but it's your call..
If you're planning to get something better than the kit lens and then never upgrade again.. then yeah, this is good enough..
But if you are a serious shooter and plan to invest on better lens later on.. just skip this..
9 out of 10 points and recommendedI like the zoom range of this lens, for its intended purposesHeavy, Not that fond of push-pull design, older IS generation
A one well-built lens..reviewed January 9th, 2007 (purchased for $1,550)
Its white, has a red ring, built like a tank.. Aesthetically speaking, i'm impressed with this lens!
On the IQ, I have nothing new to report beyond what you can find online, But I would like to add that this lens performs well if you use it as it was intended..
First of all, given the aperture specifications, this is an outdoor lens! So normally, you would actually stop-down this lens..if you keep away from extremes then this lens performs well (sharpness-wise and contrast)
And c'mon, when using this on an outdoor even, you can almost expect a monopod to present to avoid from straining yourself carrying this HUGE lens..
So.. if i'll be fair to this lens... that 1.) its not designed for handhold ONLY 2.) that it really underperforms when wide open, plus given the fact that you can't fully set it manual because of non-constant apperture. Then it's one of the got-to-have glass in canon's arsenal!
Just try it!
9 out of 10 points and recommended*Great IQ for Price, One of the Sharpest Lens*Zoom turns the other way..
First of all..reviewed January 11th, 2007 (purchased for $500)
How can third-party lens makers construct this small (compared to Canon's 17-55 2.8 -- with allowance for IS) and still produce good quality pics?!
Hmm.. anyway, compared to other similar lenses (Sigma 18-50, and Canon 17-55 IS) this is best when you the price is important to you
First comparing this to the Canon..
It doesnt look as nice (heh!)
It doesnt have IS
Zoom ring turns the other way
But it is smaller!
And most importantly CHEAPER!
Now compared to Sigma, I would still prefer this lens (although I haven't tried the new Macro revision)
Because it has more consistent quality (left vs. right)
But the Sigma turns similarly to Canon lenses
A good buy if you ask me..
9 out of 10 points and recommendedSharpest Macro I've seen.. Sigma Coating...Sigma Coating...
A Very SHARP lens.. well.. something that is expected in a macro lens..reviewed January 11th, 2007 (purchased for $410)
Regarding the focal length.. it has its pros and cons..
of course the longer the length, the better the working distance, but it also requires a faster shutter..
I guess if you are going to use this to for walk-around macro shooting or portrait then this would definitely fit into your gear..
But with its sharpness, it shouldn't stop you from using this with product shoots...
9 out of 10 points and recommendedA bit cheaper than Canon's offering.. I like the built..Slower max aperture, zoom ring turns the other way compared to Canon's
I'm a Canon shooter so i'm comparing this to Canon's 10-22..reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $550)
Bout this lens: its has a nice built (at least for me), good optics (Canon performs a little bit better), cheaper but you don't lose that much value..
My only gripe is that in the second-hand market, the price of this lens is easly beaten by 2nd hand EF-S 10-22 (still in their prime quality)..
Fun lens but you need to first learn how to use wide angles before you can maximise its capabilities.. :)
Shoot a lot, if you notice that you want wider angles, then this lens is for you!
9 out of 10 points and recommendedGood construction (compared to 50mm f/1.8 II), improved optics, fastThe classic focal length (50mm) is ruined by the crop.. Huge jump in price from 50mm f/1.8 II
I think the review team (slrgear) got a bad copy of this lens.. it's NOT THAT BAD.. Why not take a retest of this lens? I mean you're doing that for Nikon (and i'm actually thinking why a lot of sites/magazines are biased towards them)reviewed January 14th, 2007 (purchased for $450)
Anyway, construction of the lens is not bad.. nice focus ring.. should have been a classic lens if not for the 1.6x crop.. Now its much more of a portrait, low-light lens.. oh well..
USM is a good thing, focusing speed is superb although at very wide apertures I have to take a lot of shots because its not that accurate and the shallow depth of field is unforgiving..
All in all, a nice lens.. would have been a classic if not for the crop..
Oh yeah, I'd recommend that you get the 50mm f/1.8 II first if you want to try if you need a lens like this.. As a bonus it also has a LD coating.. (from Canon museum)
10 out of 10 points and recommendedCheap, close to classic focal length (50mm) on a crop bodyUmm..USM please?
Its sharp, won't burn the bank.. focus ring is way better then the 50mm f/1.8 II (its closer to the Mark I model)...reviewed January 15th, 2007 (purchased for $250)
IQ is there.. its not L so no need to fuss with minor problems, fast enough.. heck, I love this lens!
One lens that I would recommend to a beginner.. why? because of the classic focal length and that he or she would be forced to mind the composition rather than just adjust the zoom when he or she wants to...
One lens that you should try at least once in your life :)