chrisjoerg's reviews

  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    superb image quality - even wide open, IS, build quality, autofocus
    price, a little posh, white, makes you dislike other lenses ;-)

    Finally I grasped the nettle, spent a lot of money and got it! And? Wonderful!
    I upgraded from the 70-200 f4 IS and it's definitly worth the money.
    Backgroud blur / bokeh is amazing, images are pin sharp, even @ f/2.8 - and that's what I bought it for.
    Didn't have much time to leran using it properly, but here are some first impressions:

    First impressions of the new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM:

    The only problem is, that you really start to avoid other lenses (maybe except some primes). The image quality is so good, that I don`t want to use my 24-105 f4 L no more. I always think: "Can I do the shot with 70mm+ focal length?" But I can accept this... ;-)
    [email protected]

    reviewed May 20th, 2010 (purchased for $2,380)
  • Fujinon XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    light, small, sharp, unobstrusive;
    is not considered to be a pro lens, does not impress, no 2.8 (but we knew that before)

    My background is beeing a Canon shooter, who now completed selling all his beloved Canon gear because of a boring cheap Fuji X-A1 with this cheap and boring lens. And that means something. I had very good canon glass like the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk II and so on. Also bad Canon glass like the intolerable 24-105 f4 IS. This lens is in terms of image quality, lightness and price just stellar. Really, I sold my Canon gear because of this, and I loved the Canon gear, but this, over all, is better or on par for a fraction of the weight and price.
    Maybe you want to have a look at my articles about this lens mounted on a Fuji X-A1 on my website:
    There you can also find a gallery with samples:
    I really recommend this lens, see what you can do with it!

    reviewed January 27th, 2016 (purchased for $120)