Canon EF 24mm f/2.8

I was on the lookout for a good-quality autofocus wide angle lens for my Canon 5D MkII, and this seemed to be the best option. Canon's telephoto lenses are generally superb and they make some good zooms, but the company has traditionally had trouble with the wider focal lengths. I can't justify the expense of a 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24mm f/1.4, and the 17-40mm and 16-35mm seem either underwhelming or too specialised for what they are. The 28-135mm didn't appeal to me, ditto the 20-35mm f/3.4-4.5, the 24-85mm didn't impress me when I owned a copy. The non-L wide primes include the 20mm f/2.8, which no-one seems to like; the 35mm f/2, which lots of people like but doesn't seem great in the full-frame corners; the 28mm f/2.8, which I have tried and hated, and the 28mm f/1.8, which doesn't appeal to me at all. The 24mm f/2.8 seemed to be the dark horse, based on the tests I have seen, and so I found one cheap and snapped it up.

It is surprisingly good. Not excellent, but sufficient. I already have a very good 24mm, an old Olympus 24mm f/2.8 that I use with an adapter, and although Canon's lens isn't quite as sharp it's more practical to use, on account of it having autofocus and an automatic aperture. I don't have to keep checking live view when I focus closer than infinity. I like the 24mm focal length, and with a 5D MkII I can always crop down to something approximating 35mm without too much loss of resolution.

Physically it's a solid unit that doesn't rotate or extend. It doesn't feel weak and I have subsequently thrust it into bags and taken it out and about without breaking it. The autofocus is buzzy but the focus travel is very short, so it's not a problem. The manual focus ring is dire and I have only used it when shooting video. Canon gives you front and rear caps but no hood, the meanies.

Optically it's close to very good. At f/8, f/11 it's sharp across the frame almost but not quite into the extreme corners, far better than the 28mm f/2.8 that I briefly owned. There is CA, but DPP will correct this. There is some barrel distortion, but it's not very noticeable and not offensive, and this is one thing the lens has over the 24-105mm f/4 (the other being that it's much smaller and lighter - in the end I went on holiday with this lens and a 50mm, and the combination was smaller and faster than the 24-105mm). Vignetting exists and is inescapable on a 5D MkII, this is the major optical weakness. At f/2.8 it remains sharp in the centre. The background blur is busy and it's not really a bokeh-licious lens. You, sir, are no 24mm f/1.4.

Drawbacks? The very extreme outer corners are always mushy but, having said that, outside the world of Carl Zeiss every wide angle lens seems to have this problem. On an APS-C camera it would be sharp but redundant, because your kit lens is probably just as sharp and also wider and it has image stabilisation. The other problem is the price, which is too high. If Canon reworked the lens, added USM, sharpened it up a bit more, they could justify this price, but I suspect they will simply discontinue it in favour of the 24mm f/1.4. Which is a shame, because it is otherwise a bit of a hidden gem.

More Detail : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006I53R/tipfla-20


More Review : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=canon-ef-24mm-f-28-id69

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

The 100 f/2.8 macro is very sharp, even for general shooting, so it works great for portraits, too. When I'm not using a zoom, this is my walkaround lens for people, relatively tight scenes and even indoor sports. Think of it as a great lens that also shoots macro than the other way around. Hard to beat that versatility at the price.

But it comes into its own at close distances. If you've never had a macro lens, you'll run around shooting everything in sight because everything looks new from a macro perspective.

Canon has several macro lenses. I prefer the 100 mm over shorter lenses because I don't have to get quite as close to that bee or wasp. The 180 mm gives you even more distance from your subject, more background blur and amazing sharpness. But it's much more expensive and in most cases you'll need a tripod, and I shoot a lot of improptu macros as I'm hiking.

For extreme closeups with larger-than-life images, there's the MP-E 65. It goes up to 5X, compared to the 100mm's 1X, but you lose autofocus with this lens. In fact, you set your magnification and then move the camera until the object is in focus! As you get beyond about 2X, the viewfinder gets fairly dark. If you're doing still life macro work, it's amazing. I'll probably get one someday for shooting my mineral colletion.

One thing to keep in mind with any macro is that because of the close distances, you're often in lower light conditions. Althought it's fairly pricey, I'm using the MT-24 EX, which lets you adjust the direction of the twin flashes. The MR-14EX ring light is a couple hundred dollars cheaper but will produce a slightly flatter image. And you can always use one of the standard flashes, though the closeness of your subject may cause some odd shadows.

More Detail : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004XOM3/tipfla-20
 
More Review : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=Canon-EF-100mm%20f-28-Macro-id69

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

I am an amateur photograher and was looking for a lens to capture sports pictures of my kids that are in a gym with low light and fast action. If that's what you're looking for then look no further, this is the lens for you. I was struggleing with my current lens that only went to an f4 - 5.6. After much reading and asking questions I was told it wasn't necessarily my camera but the speed of my lens. This was the only lens that was somewhat within my price range.

This lens takes great pictures, you will not be dissappointed. Any bad pictures are because I'm still learning what settings to set the camera at and to stop moving causing some pictures to blur. I know the lens is good because when I set everything right the pictures look outstanding. It took some getting use to because I always used a zoom lens. So some basketball pictures I was actually too close to the action. With more experience I'll know exactly where I want to set up to be within the 85mm range. I use this camera for basketball and volleyball.

More Detail : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007GQLU/tipfla-20
 
More Review : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=Canon-EF-85mm-f-18-USM-id69

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Exceptional images are definitely not the exception with this lightweight, affordable, L–class ultra-wide zoom.
I must admit that, when I first purchased this lens, I expected it to see limited use. I had only occasional need for an ultra-wide so, exercising great fiscal responsibility, I chose this model over Canon’s 1-stop faster, 3-times pricier 16-35mm f/2.8L. Since I would mostly use the lens for the occasional landscape or architecture shot—two disciplines requiring good depth-of-field—I wasn’t too concerned about the f/4 aperture. I would, in most cases, be using it at f/8- f/11 and, as I already mentioned, it wasn’t like I was going to use this lens all that much, anyway…
Yeah, right. In 2008, I took more photos with the lens I “wasn’t going to use much” than with all my other lenses combined.
What I didn’t know, when I purchased this glass, was that the bulk of my 2008 photographic income would come from landscape and architecture work — two areas that, until 6 months ago, were only hobbies for me. Instantly, this lens rose from “novelty” to “bread and butter” status, and not once did I ever think, “I wish I had purchased the 16-35.”  In fact, it was quite the opposite — spending a summer climbing mountains and hiking many rugged and steep trails made me appreciate every ounce I didn’t have in my backpack, and the 17-40 is one of the lightest lenses in my kit. Stopped down and mounted on a tripod, this lens is both an architecture and landscape-capturing machine. Handheld at f/4, it’s still surprisingly terrific, though a little softer in the corners than I would like. On the new breed of 21+ megapixel bodies, cropping away unwanted width (or softness) actually becomes a feasible alternative to swapping lenses. Never before has “thriftiness” actually worked out so well for me.

Sample Images

The following are just a few photos shot with this lens:



More Review : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=53

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM

I am not a professional photographer, or make living with taking pictures. I am just a person who loves to take pictures & enjoys good pictures. And, I know how expensive this lens is, and YES, I am very aware of "Back Focusing" issue with this lens that others worry. I have been using this lens for 3 weeks now, and have been experiencing good & bad about this lens. (I believe "back focusing" issue was way too much inflated.) I have EOS 5D, and wanted to take full advantage of FF factor, and this was why I took a plunge instead of getting acclaimed 35MM or 85MM.

Good:
Picture quality - from f1.2 thru f2.8, the lens works superbly. AF is fast & faster compared to 50mm 1.4. Above f2.8, the pictures become a touch soft, but it exceeded my expectation. In low light condition, this lens is virtually unbeatable.
Weight & Feel - Anoth factor that sold me to this lens is its overall feel. Very balanced & well weighted. And, its build quality is good.

Bad:
Back Focus - Yes, it does back focus in very (very) close distance. Within 20 inches, you may experience back focusing more than half of the time. (Others say within 30 inches or so, but I never experienced more than 20 inches far.) I asked myself how many times (in reality), I would try taking pictures within such distance.
Cost - Yes, this is expensive lens. 4 times more than very good 50mm 1.4.

I love to take portraits (especially for my new born baby) , and this was my main reason that I upgraded from 50mm 1.4 to 50mm 1.2. I would recommend this lens if you are into portraits. If you want more than what I am into, you may be disappointed. Did I make a good investment? Yes, I believe I did.

More Detail : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000I1YIDQ/tipfla-20
 
More Review : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=48

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM

If there is one thing in this universe that is more rare than gold, it is a positive review of this particular lens. Now I don't know if I just got lucky and got a good sample. But this has been a GREAT lens for me. Sharpness is actually REALLY good. Now one of the BIG complaints of this lens is poor edge sharpness. But I have not found this to be a severe problem - especially when stopped down somewhat. And, since a lens of this focal length is more likely to be used for scenics or arcitectural use than action shots, this isn't the end of the world.

But there is more going for this lens than sharpness. Distortions are VERY low for a lens of this focal length. You are NOT going to get anything nearly as good from a zoom. Also, color saturation and contrast are EXCELLENT - FAR better than, say, an EF-S 17-85mm lens. Colors REALLY come alive with this lens compared to most zooms. And chromatic aberrations are all but non-existant.

Construction also seems to be solid on my lens. The materials seem to be of good quality. The focus ring doesn't wobble much. And nothing external actually extends during focusing. This last fact is a REAL plus in outdoor environments, since an extending element creates low pressure in the lens (which can suck in dusty air).

I really have only two complaints about this lens. One it the price, which is somewhat on the high side. I personally got mine used for less. But $400+ is kind of alot to pay for a consumer grade lens. On the other hand, price is maybe not too bad, given the good overall quality of this lens. My other complaint is vignetting at large apertures. Simply put, vignetting is VERY noticeable at f/2.8 - even on an APS-C camera. I can only imagine how it might look on a full-frame camera. In fact, the vignetting makes this lens virtually unusable at f/2.8 in many situations. Of course, this gets better when you stop the lens down. At f/4, vignetting is no longer a problem. But the fact that f/2.8 is not nearly as usable as it could be is somewhat of a downer.

Of course, much like the edge sharpness issue, this is not the end of the world. And at the end of the day, you can still take some REALLY good pictures with this lens.

More Detail : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00007GQLT/tipfla-20

More Review : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=47

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

What can I say? Yes, it's a bit expensive. And yes, it weighs about a ton. But the quality of this lens is absolutely great. If you own a DSLR like the D30, D60 or 10D this lense effectively becomes a 25.6-56 mm zoom. Which is great since there aren't that many high quality moderate wide-angle lenses available for these DSLR's. If used on a 1Ds or a film SLR then the 16-35 suddenly becomes the stuff that dreams are made of. This is one hell of a lens! If you are planning to buy a wide-angle zoom lens for your EOS camera and are considering the purchase of a non-Canon lens, don't do it! I used a few of those before buying the 16-35 f/2.8L USM and regretted it almost from day one. Yes, they are cheaper, but if you're serious about photography in the long run you'll end up buying the real thing anyway. So better wait and save up a litlle longer.

Pros:
1) With the 1.6x crop factor of my 20D this is really a 24 to 56mm lens. This makes it quite a bit less of a wide angle and more of a midrange lens. Consequently, it stays on my camera all the time and covers most of my daily needs. I bought this lens fully expecting it to be 24 to 56 as I wanted it to be multi purpose and at 24mm its still pretty wide.

2) I try to avoid flash as much as possible given the type of photography I do and at f/2.8 I can take some great ambient light pictures that I would not be able to do otherwise

3) At f/2.8, I can also blow the backgrounds and foregrounds out of focus. The out of focus areas are gorgeously buttery and the blokeh is very nice given the 7 blades of the shutter.

4) The color saturation is like nothing I've ever seen before except with my 70-200mm Canon "L". I was literally floored at some baby pictures I took where the colors were in two words "mind blowing". I knew the color would be great but "WOW!" With Photoshop CS2 I can "fake" saturation but its just not quite the same as the color that came out of this lens straight out of the box. Zero photoshop touchup needed.

5) Its sharp! This lens takes some amazingly sharp pictures into what I would classify as amazing. I've received numerous positive comments on the sharpness of this lens. I've tried looking at the edges to see if there's any CA or less sharpness and couldn't really find any. Maybe on a full size sensor you can tell more but I couldn't really on a 20D. I do notice that the plane of focus at f/2.8 is narrow (which is good) and I have to make sure that everything I want in focus is. The blokeh is very buttery at f/2.8. I like it quite a bit.

6) Its built like a tank. Black metal shell. Metal EF mount. Smooth manual focusing. Sturdy recessed switches. The red stripe catches the eye of photographers who know....easy to strike up conversations and learn.

7) It was surprisingly smaller and lighter than I thought it would be. About half the size of my 70-200mm Canon "L". I was expecting it to be bigger and am much happier that it wasn't. Its on my camera all the time and not a chore to carry around at all. Unless you're a very petite person.

8) Internal focusing. So the lens size doesn't change in size or turn when focusing. This is very useful when you put filters on or when you're focusing in close.

9) USM Motor. Its whisper quiet and it focuses super fast. Faster than my 70-200mm....something I'd expect but wow its fast and silent.

10) It focuses pretty close 12 inches or so. You can get close to your subject. Its not a macro lens but you can get some dramatic wide angle shots with its close focusing.

11) Its TTL2 so works very nice with my 580EX flash.

12) EF mount will grow with you. If you upgrade your camera body to a full frame camera with an EF mount, this lens will fit your new camera and you can continue to enjoy your lens investment.

Cons:

1) On a 1.6x frame size, it doesn't get into "amazing" wide category but that's not the fault of the lens. I'm marking this down as a Con but you can take it several ways. If you want to get ultra-wide on a small frame camera, you won't with this lens (although 24mm is pretty darn wide) and about your only Canon options are the 15mm fisheye which I own and think is a great specialty lens, the 10-22mm EFS Canon, and the 14mm L. The 10-22 I hear is very good but its EFS (and won't fit the full frame cameras - less upgradable I think) and its not an L lens although for a non-L the 10-22 I hear is exceptional. The 14mm EF L will run you almost as much as this 16-35mm zoom. The 15mm EF Fisheye is wonderful but it is designed to distort and the distortion is visible on the 20D and even more so on full frame cameras and you need Photoshop to fix. On this 16-35mm L, if you want the f/2.8 and are ok with something like 24-56, then you won't find better for small-sensor cameras. I'm very glad I got it and, if you already have a full frame camera or upgrade at some point, you can enjoy 16mm "WOW" wide. I can only imagine the coverage I'd get on a full frame camera.

2) The hood is massive...wide but not very deep...so its a shallow hood (It has to be with the wide angle I guess). I never take it off -- it keeps stray light out and is a secondary protection for the lens. I have had zero problems with lens flare.

3) The front lens element does sink in and out inside the tube (exposed but the lens case doesn't change in size). There is no protective filter to protect that front element. I bought a UV/Haze filter ($26 from Amazon) and I highly recommend you do as well to protect your investment. With the UV/Haze filter, the lens is very self contained.

4) Oh the cost....my oh my. Expensive as heck. Cost as much as my camera body --- worth every penny. If its any consolation, these lenses are very hard to make and they keep their value. Your camera body might drop in value as new technology arrives but this lens will hold its value if you take care of it.

Pic :






 

 


More Detail : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006I53Q/tipfla-20


More Review : http://camera.babybi.com/detail.php?id_detail=45