Nikoboyd's reviews

  • Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Inexpensive f/2.8 Normal Zoom, Good Construction, Good IQ from f/4-8
    Not sharp at f/2.8 especially at 60mm. Front focus(a few mm.)

    I use a 400D. I bought this lens last week. Testing every focal length at f/2.8-11 and found that IQ at f/2.8 is not good especially at 60mm.

    But from f/4-8 IQ is very good. Sharpest at f/5.6-8

    At f/11 begins to suffer from diffraction

    Good quality plastic construction. The zoom ring is very stiff (can say "too stiff").

    AF is fast! Not quiet but fast. No problem in low light. My copy front focus a few mm. so I don't think it's a problem.

    My conclusion, This is a very good lens at it's price. I'm happy with it. I've tried a lot of better normal zoom but this one is the cheapest f/2.8 one I can find in the market. Please remember that the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L is about 5 time more expensive than this one.

    You get what you pay

    After a week, the zoom ring looses quickly. When zoom somewhere between 24-28, I can hear a "click" sound. But the zoom ring still hold its position, no zoom creeping yet.

    I have no idea what will happen next.

    I still recommend this lens just because of it's price. If you're a serious user, don't buy this lens.

    reviewed March 25th, 2009 (purchased for $265)
  • Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF

    6 out of 10 points and not recommended
    If focuses correctly, it's very sharp
    Focusing Problem

    I use it with my 400D. It's very good if it focuses correctly. But for my copy, the accuracy is only about 50%. So, I think this thing is useless. Even the 18-55IS is much better.

    If you're a serious photographer, don't use this lens.

    reviewed March 29th, 2009 (purchased for $300)
  • Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Price, Very Good IS, Very Light
    Plastic mount

    Very good kit lens. IS works so well that I can hand held the camera 1 sec. at 18mm!!! Very good sharpness from wide open to f/8

    I prefer this lens to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 because this lens focuses accurately and quietly. Unlike Tammy, it's noisy and always missfocus.

    Plastic mount is OK but I prefer metal mount (at least metal looks better than plastic).

    If you look at the price, you can complain nothing.

    reviewed March 31st, 2009 (purchased for $55)
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Price, Decent optics
    Cheap material

    I owned this lens for 2 years. Excellent optics. Extremely sharp from f/4-8.

    Actually, I don't want to complain anything about this lens. It's so cheap that I can complain nothing.

    reviewed March 31st, 2009 (purchased for $117)
  • Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Excellent IQ; very very sharp from edge to edge from f/4 to f/11, solid built, very light weight

    Firstly, I bought the macro version "used" and have problems with the communication between the lens and my S5Pro, so, I returned the lens and I bought this old stock non macro version.

    I have an experience that any zoom lenses usually sharp at 18mm. So,I zoomed the lens at 50 mm. tried the lens with every f/ and see what this thing can do.

    At 2.8, sharp at center and SLIGHTLY soft at very far corner.

    It's extremely sharp from edge to edge from f/4 to f/11. So sharp that can compete with my vintage 50 1.8 AIS. Yes, it's that sharp.

    But from f/16, IQ drops because of diffraction.

    About the construction, it's very solid. I prefer this lens to Nikkor 17-55 because of it's very light weight.

    Very good lens, highly recommend.

    reviewed December 4th, 2009 (purchased for $360)
  • Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro

    7 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Constant f/2.8 , Excellent IQ
    Bad QC

    I bought the lens "used". Excellent IQ , excellent optics.

    Construction is very good.

    But I found that my copy never communicate correctly with my S5Pro; 1 stop underexpose, 2 stops underexpose with flash (SB800), never provide the correct focal length data so my SB800 never autozoom with this lens, front focus.


    Maybe, my bad luck. But this is my experience and my opinion.

    Sorry for my bad English.

    I returned the lens and got an old stock non macro version.

    reviewed December 3rd, 2009 (purchased for $265)
  • Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX AF-S Nikkor

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Extremely sharp, Light weight, very fast and near silent focus, f/1.8
    Nothing for it's own quality but should be a FX lens

    Excellent standard lens for DX format. I can't find any flaw so I can complain nothing. PERFECT is all I can say.

    I tried to use the lens in very low light and the subject was very far away so the AF assist can't help. I switched the lens to MF mode. The feeling of the MF was great, not as good as old timer MF lenses but much better than any AF Nikkor I tried.

    reviewed January 28th, 2010 (purchased for $260)
  • Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor

    6 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Useful zoom range, Very good VR
    Not durable

    I use this lens for half a year. It was a good lens; good sharpness, good VR, fair focusing speed, etc. I say "it was" because the focusing mechanism was broken a week ago. It worked at most zoom range but I felt like something jammed inside at 105 mm. and MF didn't work!!!

    I decided to sell it AS-IS on a local website.

    What's up Nikon. Your lens last only 6 months. I have been using many Nikkon cameras and lenses for more than 10 years. This is my first Nikkor that was broken. I don't believe it. My ancient manual focus Nikkors are still alive, they built to last forever.

    reviewed January 28th, 2010 (purchased for $300)
  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    Decent optics, superb construction, Light weight, Lightning fast focusing speed
    White color (I prefer black lens barrel)

    Use this lens for 9 months. I can't complain anything. This thing is too good. If you want a 70-XXX telephoto, it is a no brainer.

    reviewed March 11th, 2010 (purchased for $550)
  • Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

    4 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Decent optics, fast focusing speed
    Flare, sloppy construction, dust sucker, zoom creep, overpriced

    I think this thing is overpriced.

    It produce sharp image all over the zoom range. But, that's it.

    According to the very high price, it's construction should be better. I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which is better construction than the sloppy 17-55 2.8 IS. Now, my copy suffers from zoom creeping and it sucks a lot of dust inside.

    I recommend this thing just because of it's decent optics.

    (update May 1st,2011)
    The lens was dead, electronic problem (err01). Used many lenses, his one was my first Canon lens that was broken. Sold it and bought a 17-40 F4 L instead.

    Overpriced lens. Not durable.

    reviewed March 11th, 2010 (purchased for $735)
  • Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Very useful zoom range, fast and near silent focus, reasonably sharp from 18-80 mm.

    Very convenient lens. Get this one with my 500D is a nice combo. No need to change between the 17-55 IS and 70-200 L as before. I can leave the two lenses at home and travel light with only one lens.

    IQ is OK. ,reasonably sharp for this kind of lens, but not extremely sharp as the 17-55 IS and no sweet color as 70-200 L.

    OS works well. I can set shutter speed down to 1/60 at 250mm and get a sharp image without a tripod.

    I recommend this lens to everyone who want to travel light with only one body and one lens that cover very wide range from wide angle to telephoto. But if you're very serious about sharpness DON'T buy this lens it will surely disappoint you.

    reviewed March 27th, 2010 (purchased for $410)
  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

    6 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Very good built quality, lightweight,weather sealed
    Back focus randomly, barrel distorsion, no IS

    I use this lens with my 500D as a normol zoom. Replacing my old broken ef-s 17-55 2.8 IS with this lens.

    Compare the 17-40 L with 17-55
    17-55 win ; sharper, less distorsion, less CA

    17-40 win ; weather sealed, internal zoom and focus

    17-55 win ; the 17-40 doesn't have IS. IS is not necessary if you use this lens as a wide angle lens on FF body. But if you use as a normal zoom on APS-C body, IS may necessary in low light condition.

    I'm not a pixel-peeper. I use this lens in real life. I can say this lens has a very good built and that's it.

    reviewed May 25th, 2011 (purchased for $800)