Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Comments

1. George says:

   September 21, 2010 at 11:18 PM

   Review by George for Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
   Rating:
   I have owned both this and the original version. The new lens is better in the corners and flares less but the corners are still a little soft at f2.8 and you can get the lens to flare a little if you try. I haven’t seen the loss of clarity above 20mm that others reported. Perhaps you would see a slight difference in eyelashes if you did a lot of portraits but this is probably not the best choice for a portrait lens. It is a somewhat better lens for shooting landscapes and other shots where edge to edge clarity is important.

   But the differences between the two versions are minor and in some instances irrelevant. If you don’t shoot a full frame camera the soft edges don’t appear in the photo. And flare is a minimal issue at most. It rarely appears and is easy to fix in Photoshop if it does. I would opt for the original if I didn’t shoot full frame based on the price difference alone.

   My only problem with the original was when I had to shoot hand held. Sometimes you can’t bring a tripod along which rules out shooting at f16 or 22 so I occasionally ended up with shots that were soft in some of the edges. The new lens will solve that. That is the only reason I decided to upgrade.

   I haven’t used many other lenses in the same range so I can’t compare quality with other makers but I’m not aware of anything reputed to be better. I have Canon primes as well as other Canon zooms and in actual use all are generally close in quality. I use the primes if possible when I plan to crop or enlarge a lot but I could still get by nicely with the zooms.

   So, if you shoot less than full frame or if price is an issue, get the original. If you shoot full frame but need maximum clarity in the center (portraits for example), test both versions first. If you shoot full frame and need maximum edge to edge clarity, go with the new lens.

   Update: Having shot this lens for a long period I would discount the comments about problems above 20mm. I owned the first version as well and I don’t see a difference in the 20mm to 35mm range. On the contrary, I am increasingly impressed with the image quality and sharpness of this lens throughout the range. I recently used it into a very narrow slot canyon where I couldn’t take more than the camera and the lens attached to it and took shots from 16mm up to 35mm that all came out very sharp and rich. Granted I wasn’t shooting wide open because I needed lots of depth of field but the point is the lens delivered the best shots of that trip. In terms of versatility, this lens is unmatched for wide angle use by Canon owners. I also have the 14mm f2.8 II, 17mm f4. TS/E and 15mm fisheye for comparison. This is the one wide angle lens I always take along.
2. M. Hill says:

   September 21, 2010 at 11:37 PM

   Review by M. Hill for Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
   Rating:
   UPDATE: Since posting this review, I have done further experimentation and am coming to a conclusion (no new info from Canon thus far) that (in addition to this lens’s gaussian factor) this new version is just more difficult for current camera bodies to focus, which is probably 70 percent of the problem that I’m seeing. Since this was released for the new 1DmIII camera body, we can hope that the 19 enhanced cross-type sensors will handle this lens better than current bodies. I am leaving the rest of the review as written, because the tradeoff against the long end is real, as is the gaussian effect beyond 24mm relative to the original version. Also because it accuratley reflects how others will encounter this same phenomenon. Based on this, I would up my star rating to 3.5 if they had decimals…. Also: Would like to clarify my remark below about it cleaning up the corners as advertised. I mean that remark to apply to the 16-20mm range only, because at 24mm I have a test shot showing a better corner from the original version I lens, which is to re-emphasize that 24mm is the point where the older lens takes over… END UPDATE

   Canon has hyped this new lens as an improvment over the great original 16-35, but in reality it’s not a net improvment at all. Rather, it is just a tradeoff… What they’re not telling you is that, compared to the original version, this lens goes soft at focal lengths beyond 24mm, where they are near the same in quality. I acknowledge that the new lens DOES clean up the corners as advertised, but if you shoot people for a living like I do, be prepared for soft eyes and disappearing eye lashes looking back at you. In many common shots this lens cannot resolve eye lashes at near distances, where the old version can and does… If you hate seeing soft eyes in a slew of your professional pictures, you will find some consternation in this lens just as I have… I am not happy with the compromise at all… Everything else about the lens is what you expect from a Canon L, which is to say it has awesome build quality and it’s heavy. I have already owned two copies of this lens and have shot and tested a third. They all have the same softness problem. It was apparently a deliberate design compromise, but Canon’s support techs have not yet been brought up to speed on how to explain or position this to customers, at least not in my experience. I have frustrated them by asking this question on the phone repeatedly, and they can’t answer it. They’re starting to get mad when I call back… I did send my first one in for calibration. They found something to adjust, but it did not help…. Moral of the story: If you like your original version, DON’T sell it. You need BOTH. This new one will effectively be your 16-20mm, and the old one will be your 24-35mm… I think it’s very sad needing to carry two of the same lens, but that’s what this situation has come to. We definitely needed a fix at 16mm, and this one provides it. But it comes at the expense of messing up the 24-35 range where the original version was awesome and where it is still the king…. Others have pointed that you can sub the 24-70/2.8 into this range, and I agree, but at the expense of having to change lenses way more often and having to always have the 24-70 available…. I’m finding this new situation very iconvenient…. Personally, I’m just going to think of this as the super bulky and inconvenient 16mm prime that they should have built instead…. Oh, and final note: Canon continues to make the old version of the 70-200/2.8L despite having added the IS version. I think this 16-35 thing should be that way, too, because many people who do my type of work for a living will choose the sharpness of the original lens over the corner-CA-elimination factor of the newer lens. If I had to choose just one of these lenses, I would choose the OLD one, which I would rate at 4.5 stars versus this turkey. I think discontinuation of the original version at this point in time would be both unwarranted and mildly insane. Can you tell I like sharp pictures?
3. L. K. David says:

   September 22, 2010 at 12:29 AM

   Review by L. K. David for Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
   Rating:
   I fully agree with the first reviewer. This lens excels at 16-20mm range. For 24-35mm it is actually less sharp when compared with my 24-105 (but has less distort and vignetting).

   I definiely want the lens to perform equally well in the entire zoom range. But if a compromise has to be made, the 16-20mm range is what I need it for. My primary lens is 24-105, which accounts for 70% of all my shots.
4. Leonard A. Spoden says:

   September 22, 2010 at 1:12 AM

   Review by Leonard A. Spoden for Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
   Rating:
   I owned a pretty good copy of the original 16-35 and this one is slightly sharper in the middle, but most definitely sharper along the edges. You notice it most with a full frame sensor camera like the 1DS of 5D.
5. Eric Slay says:

   September 22, 2010 at 2:09 AM

   Review by Eric Slay for Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
   Rating:
   Many people have stated the facts about this lens. Instead of restating them, let me add what I use it for:

   For nature photography, this is the only lens I need. Just put something pretty in the foreground (flowers, rocks, etc.) and let the lens magically stretch out the horizon to add drama and flair to the shot. Makes beaches MAGICAL… Makes forests imposing. Adds desolation to the desert.

   And from a business perspective:

   As a wedding shooter, I use it to stretch out small/boring churches and make them more dramatic. It is also great to use from above for dancefloor shots and really makes the shots DYNAMIC and interesting.

   And finally:
   
   If you are deciding between this and the 17-40, let me save you some time… there is a huge difference between 16mm and 17mm. Don’t waste time buying the 17 and then selling it at a loss to upgrade like I did.

   If you’re going to go wide.. go wide baby.
6. Careful Critic says:

   September 22, 2010 at 3:04 AM

   Review by Careful Critic for Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
   Rating:
   This is a cheap lens – old design, very plastic – that can prove terribly useful for those on a budget who want a wider perspective, especially on 1.6x crop factor dSLRs.

   I learned about “cheap” with this lens – broke the focus ring the day after delivery. But I blame myself too, and the replacement’s given me no trouble, though I think my first one was a bit sharper than the second. (Update: calibration of the replacement optimized my performance to match or exceed that first one that I broke. It now performs *very well* wide-open at f/2.8, and beyond belief at f/5.6.)

   By many standards, this lens will match or exceed zoom lens of comparable price (as a prime lens should). Autofocus is a little buzzy, but the main time you’ll notice is when it loses its bearing and suddenly lurches way off target. Mostly, focuses quickly enough and well. Some chromatic aberration in worst-case scenarios, but nothing awful or unexpected. Vignetting, even on a 1.6x crop, can be noticeable, mainly in sky shots, but gradual rather than sudden. (Might be unacceptably worse on a full-frame camera.) Undue distortion seems minimal – haven’t really checked but also haven’t really noticed, if you see what I mean. Flare seems average, perhaps better than one would expect from such wide glass. (I’ve never had a shot blown out, even with the sun in the shot.) Bokeh is nonchalant, not dreamy but never intrusive.

   But at the price, the positives make up for the negative and “average” tendencies. It’s vibrantly colorful and contrasty almost to a fault. Hard light is a little more challenging with this lens, a little more tricky to balance exposure between highlights and shadows. It can be softish wide-open, but very unobjectionably – have rarely regretted shooting at f/2.8. My main lens is a 50mm f/1.4, and switching back and forth on the same aperture setting is perfectly functional in practice. Lose a little crisp for taking in four times as much space, and that’s a trade-off I can run with. (Their filter threads match too.)

   Before calibration, my second sample got “plenty sharp” by f/4, and “stunning sharp” at f/5.6 or beyond. Now, I never find any complaint at f/2.8, and frequently get my breath taken away at f/5.6. However, other reviewers around the web have verified something I’ve noticed – the focus is more consistently crisp when focused out to infinity (which isn’t far) than when aimed at nearer subjects. For any kind of scenic photography, I recommend setting the focus to infinity and then flipping to manual focus to lock it out there, for easiest and most reliable results.

   “Crop factor” over-simplifies the effect of mounting a wide-angle lens on a 1.6x camera. Yes, the field of view will match 40mm on a full-frame, but the perspective will not, because you’ll be closer to your subjects. Shooting live subjects (like bands, models, or street life) will require a learning curve, so beware mission critical work before you’ve broken yourself in so you can anticipate its exagerations.

   That said, I bought this lens primarily for “head-to-toe” model shooting in my modest studio, and it’s been a real asset. Interestingly, it tends toward a very useful “slimming effect” that makes hippy girls look more slender and shorter girls more ambiguous in height. This happens if you’re filling the frame with them and standing with your lens at about their head level – relatively speaking, their hips are much further away so they narrow. Disconcerting at first but terribly useful once you’ve gotten the hang of it. (Beware chicken legs or the reverse from dramatic perspectives.)

   I read every review I could find before purchase, and this lens seemed to be a magic middle between the higher cost clarity of the 20mm and the cheaper lesser sharpness of the 28mm. Near as I can tell, I nailed it. The build and buzz create an ongoing sense of cheapness, but the performance really pays off if you need an affordable wider angle that generally won’t let you down.
7. Gabriel Massip Fons says:

   September 22, 2010 at 3:11 AM

   Review by Gabriel Massip Fons for Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
   Rating:
   I bought this lens to have a fixed, light lens to use with my digital EOS 10D (due to 1.6 crop factor it has the same viewing angle than a 45 mm lens, in the “standard” range). I use it in “keep it simple” photographic sessions.

   Resolution and overall image quality are quite decent; but it has one main drawback: vigneting is non-negligible at f/2.8, even inside the digital cropped frame (so I can’t guess how bad could it be in a full 35 mm frame). At f/4 it becomes usable. I’ve done a very informal comparison with Canon EF 17-40 L and both lenses give comparable results at f/4.

   Design is old, but effective; it has a depth of field scale. I’d like it to have a more silent focus engine, or a somewhat more robust build, but it does its job.
8. James P. Palazzolo says:

   September 22, 2010 at 3:48 AM

   Review by James P. Palazzolo for Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
   Rating:
   From all the reviews I read, I expected certain pros and cons from this lens. I was not disappointed.
   
   pros: very sharp lens with very good colors
   
   cons: vignetting at wide open, and a little too contrasty
   
   For myself, the pros outweighed the cons for the price. It is ideal for the 1.6 multiplier cameras, where it becomes a 38mm lens.
9. Charles says:

   September 22, 2010 at 4:39 AM

   Review by Charles for Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
   Rating:
   I did quite a bit of research on this lens before buying it. I must have read fifty reviews. In the end I came to the conclusion that hypercritical people who have enough money to fill their bag with L lenses can find something bad to say about any lens that doesn’t have a red ring around it. This lens seems to have a great balance of features with minimal discrepancies for a great price. I own an L lens (70-200 IS F/2.8) and it’s amazing, but I don’t have the money to pony up for another one this time around. I think this lens fits my needs just fine for now. My only complaint? I usually buy my lenses from this site, but I found it at three other major spots for a hundred and a quarter less. I know it’s been cheaper here before so why so expensive now? I wish I didn’t have to take my business elsewhere, but that’s a big difference and why pay more than you should?

   UPDATE: Jan 14, 2009: Well would you look at that! The price comes down a full hundred overnight! Finally the price on this thing is in the neighborhood of other major retailers again. It’s hard to believe the price could flux this much this fast. Do some comparison shopping and make sure you’re okay with what you are going to pay in case the price suddenly drops after you buy it.
10. Fred Telegdy says:

    September 22, 2010 at 5:38 AM

    Review by Fred Telegdy for Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    I love, love, love this lens. It makes a great companion to my Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras and has come in handy in many situations.

    If you’re looking for a wider Angle of View, then this lens will provide it. Whether taking landscape shots or tight interior shots, it will perform and deliver outstanding photographs.

    That said, you have to be careful when purchasing filters for this lens. I purchased a Tiffen 58mm Haze-1 Filter to protect this lens and when I put it on the lens, there was a small dot about 3-5mm in diameter in the center where the filter and lens were touching each other. I ended up having to buy a more expensive, thinner glass, filter to get an acceptable fit.

    Beyond that, the only other negatives for this lens are that it’s more loud than my USM lens, but that’s to be expected. It’s also not so loud that it’s distracting; it’s just noticeable if you’re used to USM. And the focus ring on the lens stops at either end. I prefer the way my 50mm lens handles that in you can just keep turning it and not feel like you’re damaging anything internally. With this lens, I fear turning the focus ring too far.

    All in all, the negatives with this lens pale in comparison to the benefits. I don’t think twice about swapping the 50mm for the 24mm when the situation calls for it.
11. P. CHEONG says:

    September 22, 2010 at 5:43 AM

    Review by P. CHEONG for Zeikos ZE-WA52B 52mm 0.45X Wide Angle Lens for Camcorders and Digital Cameras (Black)
    Rating:
    great wide angle lens….works great for wide angle shots

    got great video shooting my kids soccer game
12. Rufus Burgess says:

    September 22, 2010 at 6:25 AM

    Review by Rufus Burgess for Zeikos ZE-WA37S 37mm 0.45X Wide Angle Lens
    Rating:
    Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2C06SS8IWANM9 I agree with A. Abram’s review. The wide angle lens has a very good build quality and blends well with my Canon Vixia HF200. Pretty much everything in his review is spot on. However, there are a couple things that are somewhat disappointing.

    The vignetting in close range means this lens really can’t be used for semi-pro work. The strange thing is that on the HF200 you can’t even tell that vignetting is occurring until the video is transferred into an editing program. A little zoom will make it disappear. But that is where the biggest problem comes into being. This lens is advertised as a .45x wide angle but with the macro on it is really more of a .8x. If you zoom in much you will lose the entire benefit of a wide angle lens. The cure is worse than the disease.

    The detachable macro is a great addition. I’m not really into photography but I can see where this may come in useful every once in a while. Just taking some pictures of a dime were NOTICEABLY better with the macro on. No matter how much I zoomed in without the macro I couldn’t get as close or as much detail as with the macro on.

    Six 37mm adapters come with this lens (25, 27, 28, 30, 30.5, 34mm). Unfortunately no adapter comes with the lens that makes the wide angle lens (without the macro) fit on 37mm threads. This would add so much more versatility to the lens in situations that require a fisheye view. I give an example in the video and you can see at least another foot of view is added.

    When considering buying these ask yourself how much you’re going to use them. For $17 these offer almost the same performance as the official canon WA lens at 1/10 of the price. The only problem with performance is when using high levels of zoom (blurred). However, on youtube there are reviews of raynox’s .45 wide angle lens that show a noticeable improvement over this lens. At only $30 I’m kicking myself in the pants for not buying it.

    (I bought this with the 2.5x telephoto lens from Zeikos and that is worthless while filming. It barely adds to my camera’s optical zoom while adding very noticeable distortions.)
13. A. Abrams says:

    September 22, 2010 at 7:19 AM

    Review by A. Abrams for Zeikos ZE-WA37S 37mm 0.45X Wide Angle Lens
    Rating:
    I purchased thus for my new Canon HG21 also purchased at Amazon. Build quality of glass and housing is excellent and the optics clearly have an anti-reflective coating on them. Image quality is fine in several minutes of test video I shot and appears to be completely undistorted. Do note that some camcorders (like my HG21 had) may have slight corner cutoff/vignetting at the full wide-angle zoom setting. A slight touch of the zoom away from full wide-angle solves this completely and you do not loose much at all of the (super) wide angle effect that this lens is made for. For under $30 as opposed to the Canon equivalent at about $150 and considering I won’t be using it on a routine basis, I’m very happy with the Zeikos. By the way, if you go to their web site, they have many products in their lineup. After buying this lens, i also purchased a 3 piece Zeikos 37mm filter set from Amazon (which included a circular polarizer!) and am very happy with this line overall. Definitely worth the price!!
14. C. L. says:

    September 22, 2010 at 7:24 AM

    Review by C. L. for Zeikos ZE-WA37S 37mm 0.45X Wide Angle Lens
    Rating:
    I’m disappointed with it, feels like cheated by the description, it’s not really a 0.45x 37mm lens.

    With the macro on, the factor is effectively >0.7x, I compared to my 0.7x lens, it’s even narrower than that, that’s how I know the effective ratio is >0.7x.

    There is just no way to use the 0.45x lens without the macro, the lens itself has a female thread of something like ~40mm, only the macro has a male 37mm thread to put it on your 37mm camcorder/camera. There is no other adapter comes with it.

    in the end, I had to tape the lens to my 37mm adapter for some other lens in order to use it.
15. Mozer says:

    September 22, 2010 at 7:50 AM

    Review by Mozer for Zeikos ZE-WA37S 37mm 0.45X Wide Angle Lens
    Rating:
    Very solid construction quality. It performs as described, though there is slight vignetting at the widest angle, so zoom in just a bit to eliminate that. Worth it for the price.
16. Joe says:

    September 22, 2010 at 8:31 AM

    Review by Joe for Zeikos ZE-WA37S 37mm 0.45X Wide Angle Lens
    Rating:
    This is amazingly worth your money for a first lens or any lens. it does great also because it has a second lens that provides your camera with REALLY CLOSE macro. i love this lens, BUY THIS ITEM.
17. Neal R Boyd says:

    September 22, 2010 at 9:05 AM

    Review by Neal R Boyd for Opteka .35x HD² Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens for Canon EOS / EF
    Rating:
    As mentioned before, this is not a lens, it’s a conversion lens.
    
    I purchased this to use on the kit 18-55mm lens on my Canon Rebel XT. The kit lens on the camera is pretty decent, but not worth buying a ridiculously priced conversion lens… not to mention, buying a nice Canon fisheye is way out of my budget at the moment.
    
    With all that said, I bought the Opteka because I wanted the semi fisheye effect for some experimental & skateboard photography, and because I’m too broke from the holidays to purchase a high end, dedicated fisheye lens.
    
    The conversion lens impressed me quite a bit. Using the aforementioned kit lens, I attached the supplied conversion ring (metal, which is good) as the conversion lens’ threads are too small to fit the 58mm threading of the Rebel XT’s stock lens. No big deal, really… screw on the ring, then screw the conversion lens into the ring and you’re all set.
    
    If you zoom back all the way, you can get a significantly distorted image, appearing like an orb surrounded by dark vignetting (like looking through a door’s peephole).
    
    If you zoom past the vignetting, you can achieve some pretty decent wide angle shots, with some expected distortion on the far left, far right, and very center of the image… then again, that’s what fisheye’s are all about.
    
    The conversion lens comes with a little hood scoop, but it really doesn’t need it, and if you pull your focus back all the way with the scoop out, you’ll wind up with two metallic crescents increasing your vignetting.
    
    The conversion lens comes in a pretty rigid leather (or fake leather, I really don’t know) case lined with a suede-like material. If you’re buying this for your Rebel’s 18-55 kit lens, expect to see a metal ring in the box.
    
    The conversion lens unscrews toward the bottom, and when the bottom section is attached to your camera you wind up with a macro lens. I’ve played with it just enough to say that “it works,” but 99% of my usage is based around the fisheye functionality.
    
    If you’re looking to blow around $30 and you want to have fun experimenting with your DSLR (or video camera if it fits or you have a ring adapter for it), you can expect to get your money’s worth out of this thing.
    
    Shooting with a fish/semi fish requires a different type of mentality than shooting normal photos. While fisheye photography can be overdone, they make for really good up-close action shots, nature shots, and even landscapes & experimental work. This conversion kit *will* distort your image, it’s supposed to. It’s all about using the curvature to enhance your subject.
    
    Last note: on some tests from 2 up to 10 feet away, the auto focus functionality seems to work fine with this extension. If you pull the lense back all the way, the vignetting will be a black blurry halo, as the multipoint auto focus will concentrate on whatever you’re pointing at (rather than the conversion lens’ inner lining).
    
    For best results, prepare your shot and focus manually. Very fun conversion kit, by no means professional grade, but pretty darn good. Great to have in the camera bag.
18. R. Cooley says:

    September 22, 2010 at 9:10 AM

    Review by R. Cooley for Opteka .35x HD² Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens for Canon EOS / EF
    Rating:
    This is a great product. The wide angle option is exactly what was needed for my landscape shots. The fisheye feature allows you to take some really cool shots but the best part is the macro lens. Finally, I have a good macro lens and the whole thing cost under $40.00. This is a must have!!!
19. Paul Blackburn says:

    September 22, 2010 at 9:15 AM

    Review by Paul Blackburn for Opteka .35x HD² Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens for Canon EOS / EF
    Rating:
    I bought this converter for my Canon Rebel XSi.

    For the price, I am perfectly happy with the quality of construction, the included 52/58 mm adapter ring and the overall capabilities of this item. That is what my score of 5 stars is based on. I am not comparing this item to lenses that cost twenty or thirty times as much.

    Concerning the optical properties of this fisheye, you should be aware that it exhibits pretty noticeable chromatic aberration, however, this can be easily removed with software (I use Photoshop, but apparently a plugin exists for The Gimp, if you are looking for a free alternative). As a result, images will probably have to be processed, but it takes about 20 seconds to adjust and apply the correction.

    On my camera (with the stock 18-55 mm Canon lens), depending on the focal length you select, the image will be anything from a full circle in the center of the frame to a full-frame image with no vignetting. It’s up to you to chose how you want to compose the image. I suggest you search for images taken with this converter on Flickr or some other photo site to see if it is what you want.

    I have only used the macro adapter once or twice, so I won’t review it.

    In summary, for the price, this converter is good quality, a lot of fun and worth having if you want to obtain fisheye shots.
    
20. djb says:

    September 22, 2010 at 9:36 AM

    Review by djb for Opteka .35x HD² Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens for Canon EOS / EF
    Rating:
    I thought it would be fun to try a fish-eye lens (or a semi-fisheye). This sort of works OK, but the optics and image quality is very poor – quite fuzzy and unfocused. It’s ok for small scaled (resized) down images.

    Here is an example:

    Note that, on my Canon 40D, the image is not fully round; part of it gets clipped at the bottom. This lens comes with an adapter for the standard 52mm lens; it will not work with the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens (72mm) that comes with the Canon 40D, for example.
    
21. J. Chilton says:

    September 22, 2010 at 10:21 AM

    Review by J. Chilton for Opteka .35x HD² Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens for Canon EOS / EF
    Rating:
    The image quality with this lens attachment isn’t stunning, but what do you expect for such a low price? There’s lots of blur and chromatic aberration around the periphery of the image–much more so than in a more expensive lens. Some of that can be corrected in an photo manipulation program (Photoshop, or GIMP for those of us who like free software). I get the best results with manual focus and the image stabilization turned off (I’ve tested it so far with a Canon 18-55mm EFS lens). It’s a fun lens for the occasional creative shot–I’d never use a “real” fisheye lens enough to justify the cost. Good build quality, although the downside is that to attach it to the 58-mm threads on my lens, I need to screw the included adapter onto it. You can’t store the lens with adapter on it, because the included cap won’t fit on it, so it’s slightly more cumbersome to take on and off than if they’d just made it 58 mm.

    As a side note, you can unscrew the 0.35x macro lens from the back, add it to your camera’s lens and get a serviceable, if not great, macro lens. Not terribly impressive, but it’s an easy enough way to dip your toe into macro waters if you haven’t before.

    As a final note, I’m horrified by the reviews here of people disappointed because they thought this was a standalone lens they were going to attach to their camera, rather than a lens attachment that screws on to the filter threads of your lens. How do you guys function in the real world? Do you buy a car and then gripe that act all mystified and upset when you learn you have to also buy fuel to put in it? Seriously, you didn’t notice any of the usual specs for a lens stating what sort of mounts you could use? Sheesh!
22. AdamSmythe says:

    September 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM

    Review by AdamSmythe for Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    UPDATE, July 11, 2010: The Canon rebate referred to below should just about be concluding as I write this, so you can read this review (and others) and decide whether this lens–at its regular price–is right for you. (Or you can wait for the next rebate program, but that may be a while from now.) Since the time when I wrote my initial review, I have come to regard this lens even more highly. It feels great on my Canon EOS Rebel T2i, and I had a recent experience with this lens that might interest you. My wife and I took a sightseeing train ride along the Arkansas River through some very picturesque parts of Colorado. There was an open-air observation car that was great for taking pictures; however, when the train was moving it was impossible to remain perfectly still, as the car swayed slightly (and unpredictably) from side to side. I thought about turning the image stabilization (IS) off completely, but decided to give it a try. It turns out the IS worked beautifully. One more thing: As the sun set, the canyons the train was climbing through were alternately drenched in glorious late-day sunlight or covered with shade. Given the rapidly changing light conditions and the train sway, it wasn’t the easiest task to try to capture the gorgeous scenery, especially for an amateur like me, but the Canon EF-S 15 – 85mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS lens turned out to be up to the task. I have no regrets.

    REBATE ALERT: From May 9 through July 10, 2010, Canon is running an “instant” rebate program that includes this lens–at a considerable saving. The best part about an instant rebate is that it should be built into the price you see on Amazon (it was when I bought mine), so you don’t have to mail in some form and wait (and hope) for a rebate to arrive weeks later. If this is the right lens for you (something we haven’t established yet), then now may be a good time to pull the trigger on a purchase.

    Regarding this lens, it is a considerable improvement from the typical kit lens on a digital SLR. Kit lenses are decent for the money you pay (which isn’t much), but they have clear limitations, especially in sharpness. If you are reading this review, I assume you are looking for a lens for the general-purpose focal-length range, and the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5 – 5.6 IS USM fits well into this category. The 15 – 85mm range is wider than most kit lenses (probably on both ends), which enables the photographer to use this lens for a wide variety of purposes. The build quality is quite good, though not up to “L” series lens standards. Of course, its price is also not up to L levels, either. Sharpness is very good. Frankly, I can’t really tell the difference between this lens and L glass (but I’m just a humble layman), although professional photographers and serious amateurs probably can. Concerning qualities such as vignetting or chromatic aberration, I suggest you consult some of the many professional reviews on the web, which generally paint a good picture of this lens.

    Okay, so should you buy this lens? That’s the question I want to address with this review. If you do a lot of low light shooting, like weddings, this lens probably isn’t fast enough for you. You can’t always use a flash in a church. The Canon EF-S 17 – 55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the Canon EF 24 – 70mm f/2.8L USM may be better choices. Both of these lenses have what the EF-S doesn’t–a much wider aperture. They also have higher price tags and a narrower focal length range. They are also heavier (especially the 24 – 70 L), which depending on how long you typically carry your camera around may mean something to you. Specifically, the 15 – 85mm weighs 20.3 ounces, while the 17 – 55mm weighs 22.8 oz, and the 24 – 70mm weighs a heftier 33.5 oz. For comparison, a Canon EOS Rebel T2i without any lens weighs only about 19 oz.

    The 15 – 85mm lens is relatively new (2009), so it is built with the latest manufacturing technology. It features, for example, four-stop image stabilization, which is great. (Remember that image stabilization helps compensate for the unsteadiness of the photographer, but does nothing to stop the movement of your subject.) “Bokeh” (foreground/background blur quality) is very good. The lens is made of plastic, but its high-quality plastic, if that doesn’t sound too oxymoronish.

    In short, if you are looking for the absolutely finest general purpose lens that money can buy, this is not your lens. However, if what you want is a very noticeable step-up in sharpness from a kit lens, combined with a very convenient weight and four-stop image stabilization–and you don’t want to fork over a great deal of money–then this lens merits your careful attention.
    
23. Trevor S. Howard says:

    September 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM

    Review by Trevor S. Howard for Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    I was one of the early fans of this lens, and to my knowledge, one of the first guys to get their hands on one and play with it, from the moment I held this lens, I knew she was a winner

    Lets start with the build quality, its fantastic, ok its not quite L-level, but it is considerably better than the old 17-55 f/2.8 IS I owned, as in its put together much better, the build is similar to a midrange Nikon lens [Such as the 16-85 VR] which is a good thing, the zoom and focus rings both operate smoothly, but are also reassuringly firm, there is a slight bit of zoom creep between 24-35 I’ve found, but nothing major to worry about

    AF-wise, its a very quick performer, probubly one of the faster USM lenses out there, and its also very quiet, even for a USM lens the soft noise is well..softer…and the IS functions completely silently and smoothly, and as advertised, its good for at least 4 stops of stabilization, I’ve managed 1/4 shots with ease at 85mm for instance…

    Optically, this lens impresses, people may criticize its variable aperture nature but its tack sharp wide open, even at 15mm, distortions are very good [They test even less than the 24-105 f/4L on a full frame camera] and the colors have a very nice zest to them, The only down side is the chromatic aberration, which is a tidge high, but its also easily correctable from what I’ve seen, and certainly not as bad as some people would make it sound, overall I’ve been very impressed with this lens optically, its one of the best lenses I’ve had [And I've owned the 24-105 f/4L IS and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS] and its my favorite walk-around lens ever

    My only other complaints are the fact that it should include a hood for the price, Canon is still the only manufacturer who forces you to buy $45 lens hoods for $700-800 lenses just because they’re not an L lens…Its quite annoying to be honest..but again, I knew that going into this..

    Overall, its a fantastic lens, don’t mock it till you try it
24. peter_co says:

    September 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM

    Review by peter_co for Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    This lens will take a key place in the Canon line-up: it will be the first high quality wide angle to medium telephoto lens for APS-C (i.e. 1.6x) crop bodies. Thankfully, this lens is well qualified for this role. The build quality is solid and both the focus ring and zoom rings are firm yet move smoothly. The image quality provided by the lens is outstanding. The lens is very sharp across its zoom range, even wide open. Color fidelity is also a strong point of the lens, as it produces saturated yet natural colors. Distortions are also at a minimum considering the focal range of the lens. Although there is some barrel distortion at the wide end (particularly at 15mm), this is simply unavoidable for superzooms covering this range and it should be pointed out that even L lenses covering the same (35 mm equivalent) range cannot fare better in this respect. I confidently give this lens 5 stars!

    The only alternative to this lens that I considered was the Canon EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8, which is another superb lens for APS-C cameras. I decided to choose the 15-85mm over the 17-55mm simply because it suited my needs better. Optically the lenses perform about the same (i.e. both offer superb image quality), therefore this did not factor into my decision. The two lenses simply have different strong suits. The 17-55mm with a constant aperture of 2.8 gives the lens versatility in low light situations and allows it to double as a portrait lens in certain situations. On the other hand, the 15-85 while having a variable aperture f/3.5-5.6 offers a greater focal range: 15-85 (i.e. 24-136 in 35mm eq.), allowing it to cover a greater range of subjects in daylight. Since I plan to later buy a dedicated portraiture lens and since I was mainly interested in a walkaround lens for reach and image quality, the 15-85mm seemed the more appropriate choice for me. Of course, the decision was only helped by the fact that the 15-85mm is also $300 cheaper than the 17-55mm. However, both the 15-85mm and the 17-55mm are great walkaround lenses offered for Canon crop bodies and which lens you choose can only be dictated by your particular circumstances.
25. Gene Naftulyev says:

    September 22, 2010 at 12:10 PM

    Review by Gene Naftulyev for Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    This lens is the perfect walkabout lens covering 23-135 with the 1.6 factor.

    Distortion is at a minimum, and although not a fast lens, the IS makes even hand held shots sharp.

    The downside of this lens is that both in sunlight, and in studio flash conditions chromatic aberration (purple/green fringe) is evident in all shots. Granted it is less pronounced than with the cheap kit lens (for the 7D) but none the less at 1:1 resolution there is chromatic aberration in every shot where dark and bright come together in high contrast.

    The Canon software that comes with DSLRs does a very good job of removing the fringe from photos, however that means unlike Nikon’s in-camera processing of the image to remove fringe, an extra manual step of doing that on the Canon is necessary for any images that are more than casual snapshots.

    If you want 1 lens for a very wide to slight tele range, this is probably the best thing available for 1.6 crop factor. However even if the price is near L lenses, this is not an L lens and it will be apparent when zooming in 1:1.
    
26. Richard says:

    September 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM

    Review by Richard for Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    I recently upgraded from the EF-S 18-55 IS to this EF-S 15-85 IS. GREAT lens, the difference between 17 & 15 is quite noticeable when it is needed. I recommend the Canon to anyone. Image quality is excellent, there is a little bit of vignetting but when you shoot in RAW, it is EASILY correctable in Canon’s DPP, as is the slight barrel distortion. I have not yet seen any chromatic aberration (CA).

    The USM motor is superb, FAST, QUIET & ACCURATE.

    The minimum aperture is f/22 at 15mm and f/36 at 85mm, which I love, a noticeable step up from the 18-55 IS

    Using the 15-85 lens on any of the Rebel series cameras may feel a bit unbalanced, unless you have the battery grip on your camera. I shoot with the 50D, which is a bit larger & heavier camera body, so it is a good match and well balanced, comfortable feel. The lens is substantial with a 72 mm filter size, to be safe I am taking after Nikon and I bought a B+W 77mm Circ. Pol, and will use it on the lens with a 72-77 stepping ring. This will eliminate all possibility of filter vignetting!

    It is not an “L” lens, but no EF-S lenses are.

    * Evaluation (on a 5 point scale)

    Image Quality – 5
    
    price value – 3
    
    build quality – 5
    
    focal length range – 5
    
    lens speed (f/stops) – 4
    
    focus speed – 5
    
    quiet focus – 5

    Minimum focusing distance (macro) remains constant throughout the focal length range, being about 7 or 8 inches (18-20 cm).

    I have some images in my gallery: [...]
    
    goto my gallery titled “Gallery” the first 3 images: the Statue of Liberty & the two images titled “Deer Tracks in the snow” were taken with this lens.

    Would I recommend this lens to a friend (or non-friend)?… Unquestionably YES

    I would have loved to see this lens as a constant f/4, but I’m thinking the physical size of such a lens would be unbearable.
27. J. Horner says:

    September 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

    Review by J. Horner for Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    as soon as i received it, i set my camera up on a tripod and shot the same picture, first with the old canon 14mm, and then with the new. the improvement in the new lens in terms of corner to corner sharpness was really significant. the only thing that was somewhat disappointing, was that the new lens had considerably more fringing around high-contrast edges. i shot an image of an interior with a view out the window and there was a very wide, highly saturated blue fringe even in the center of the image. the old 14mm experienced fringing too, but rarely in the center of the image, and even at the edges, was not as extreme as it is in the center of the new lens. granted the difference in luminance was quite extreme between the interior and exterior (at least 5 stops) so this is not a problem that would effect every image, but it is something to be aware of. even with this problem, i would still recommend the new lens again as the increase in sharpness far outweighs the inconvenience of having to retouch the occasional fringing.
28. San Antonio Bob says:

    September 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM

    Review by San Antonio Bob for Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    I have a 17-55 Canon lens which I use on my 30D and 50D. It works great. When I got my 5D MkII I purchased the 14mm lens. It is awesome. For me just wide enough – not quite fisheye. It is a lens which offers incredible possibilities for unique views and perspectives and its speed certainly helps – although I tend to go for more depth of field which it accomodates as well. I have several L series lenses, but I can see where this one will be my “creative” lens. If you can afford it, you will be thrilled to own and use it.
29. Carbonadam says:

    September 22, 2010 at 2:37 PM

    Review by Carbonadam for Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    This lens is the top of the line wide angle. A significant improvement over the last 14mm and a must have for anyone who loves the distorted look wide angle gives. When I was a kid my dad gave me a very wide lens for an old minolta. Since then i have always loved the look this brings to certain photos. I have tested this lens and the results are spectacular. It is very fast and works well in low light. I highly recommend this lens, despite its price.
30. Kelvin Leung says:

    September 22, 2010 at 3:19 PM

    Review by Kelvin Leung for Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    Had used the previous revision before. I was amazed by the how wide and the distortion control. Finally bought it late last year. It’s an amazing lens. Super sharpness and color!
31. Frank E. Olivieri says:

    September 22, 2010 at 4:05 PM

    Review by Frank E. Olivieri for Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    Quality and ease of use make up for the price. The picture quality is what you expect from the L series.
32. Ben Johnson says:

    September 22, 2010 at 5:04 PM

    Review by Ben Johnson for Pro Digital Hard Lens Hood For The Nikon D5000, D3000 Digital SLR Cameras Which Have Any Of These (18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm) Nikon Lenses
    Rating:
    I bought this product for cosmetic reasons mostly. I dont like how my curent non-tullip hood looks on my camera. I use it on my nikon 18-55mm lense. I love the way this looks on my camera. It does screw on only like a filter so be prepared for that. other lense hoods like this I have seen for as much as $40.00, so this is a steel for the money. I am completely happy with the product and shipping. The only thing to watch out for if anything is if you screw this on over a uv filter. At 18mm you do get a little vingetting, but this can be fixed by just removing the filter. It would be nice to be able to put filters on top of the hood but never the less I love the product.
33. Emilio Santiago says:

    September 22, 2010 at 5:43 PM

    Review by Emilio Santiago for Pro Digital Hard Lens Hood For The Nikon D5000, D3000 Digital SLR Cameras Which Have Any Of These (18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm) Nikon Lenses
    Rating:
    Maybe is ok but on my Nikon D-3000 show a shadow on the screen and on the picture. I’m willing to received any advice.
34. LSM says:

    September 22, 2010 at 6:20 PM

    Review by LSM for Pro Digital Hard Lens Hood For The Nikon D5000, D3000 Digital SLR Cameras Which Have Any Of These (18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm) Nikon Lenses
    Rating:
    This lens hood isn’t well suited to the Nikon 18-55mm lens as you’ll start to see vignetting around 20mm.
35. linmoncha says:

    September 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM

    Review by linmoncha for Pro Digital Hard Lens Hood For The Nikon D5000, D3000 Digital SLR Cameras Which Have Any Of These (18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm) Nikon Lenses
    Rating:
    Before I purchased this lens hood, all my pictures took under bright sunny days are lack of contrast and color saturation. After I put it on my d3000, the results are astounding.

    The only problem I have with the seller is that even though it came with a plastic wrap, it was covered with dust, which is something deadly to a camera.
36. David R. Youngman says:

    September 22, 2010 at 7:37 PM

    Review by David R. Youngman for Pro Digital Hard Lens Hood For The Nikon D5000, D3000 Digital SLR Cameras Which Have Any Of These (18-55mm, 55-200mm, 50mm) Nikon Lenses
    Rating:
    I didn’t read the description carefully before I order the item. I actually wanted an lens hood with a bayonet mout instead of the screw mount which this one has. But it works just fine.
37. Stephen Green says:

    September 22, 2010 at 8:08 PM

    Review by Stephen Green for Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
    Rating:
    I know what you’re thinking: Seventeen hundred bucks or more for a mere midrange zoom?

    There is nothing “mere” about this zoom!

    Wide open, Nikon’s new workhorse is sharper than most prime lenses. That’s right — I shoot all day long at f/2.8 (I like resulting blurry backgrounds) and never, never lack for sharpness. Being able to shoot f/2.8 at night doesn’t stink, either.

    Colors are vibrant, the bokeh (out of focus areas) is creamy, and you’ll see ghosts and flares *only* when shooting straight into the sun. And I’ve never seen an autofocus do its thing so quickly or with such accuracy. I’m catching a lot of shots I used to miss.

    No lens is perfect. This one has exactly three drawbacks.

    1. It’s pretty darn big for a midrange, so sometimes I miss Nikon’s compact 18-200mm zoom. And that’s without the massive lens hood in place. Snapped on, a big lens gets even bigger.

    2. The zoom ring is too close to the camera body. I’ve only been shooting with it for a few days, but I keep grabbing the manual focus ring by mistake. There’s a learning curve here, and I’m not yet over it.

    3. It’s in short supply. Good luck finding this beast at the suggested retail price.

    On my D300 however, it’s as perfect as a giant, expensive hunk of glass can get. It takes all my standard 77mm filters, and its DX-effective 35-105mm (approximate) zoom range makes it a great “walk around” lens. It goes wide enough for most landscape shots, and zeroes right in on my two-year-old’s face.

    But mostly I can’t get over the sharpness, the color, and the responsiveness of the autofocus. I probably paid too much for mine, but it was worth every penny.
38. Kyle Lanclos says:

    September 22, 2010 at 8:35 PM

    Review by Kyle Lanclos for Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
    Rating:
    The image quality from this lens is, as other reviews indicate, nothing short of spectacular. Having used its ancestor, the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8, I am not surprised in the least. Despite specifications to the contrary, the 24-70mm feels lighter in my hands than the 28-70mm did, and if it is possible, somewhat more responsive. Perhaps the weight distribution is more even in the 24-70mm than it was in the previous iteration.

    After using this lens for a few weeks, two things did surprise me:

    1. I don’t miss VR in the slightest. I was, to put it mildly, dismayed to find out that Nikon did not include VR in their latest evolution of their fixed-aperture standard zoom. I was, to put it mildly, pleased to see that I get proper exposures with 1/100s shutter speed or higher in all the situations where it matters to me. The configurable auto-ISO on the D300 is a life-saver in this respect; I expect this observation will only become more true as camera technology improves. I suspect Nikon planned this all along.

    2. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4.5 is substantial. For the longest time, I kept using my trusty 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens, because I felt sure that I wouldn’t benefit very much from the extra 1/3 to 4/3 stops that the fixed f/2.8 lens has to offer. I was wrong.

    I primarily use this lens indoors, and for basic portrait work. For these settings, it is exemplary; my only regret is that this lens may put my 50mm f/1.4 out of business. That would be a sad development.

    Another area where this lens shines is quasi-macro work. With a reproduction ratio slightly better than 1:4, you get respectably close to small subjects, and have beautifully out-of-focus backgrounds at f/2.8 and 70mm. Shots of single flowers at close range against an interesting background, for example, turn out quite nicely.

    I’m very much looking forward to using this lens for the next decade or two (or more). DX digital, FX digital, film– whatever your game is, if you need a lens that covers this range, I don’t think you will find any better than this for quite some time.
39. Roger J. Buffington says:

    September 22, 2010 at 8:38 PM

    Review by Roger J. Buffington for Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
    Rating:
    This is a magnificent piece of kit. The Nikon 24-70 F/2.8 is a professional -grade lens and shows this in every way. The build quality of this lens leaves nothing wanting–all metal construction, wonderful damping of the zoom ring–this is a beautiful instrument.

    This is a full-frame lens, which means that it is suitable for FX Nikon cameras such as the new D3. However, this lens also performs wonderfully on the usual DX sensor for the other Nikon cameras such as the D200/300, D70s, D80, etc. When used on a DX camera, like all lenses, the focal length is increased by 50%. This is both good and bad. The “wide angle” end of the lens becomes 36mm rather than 24; on the other hand the 70mm zoom becomes 105mm–a very useful focal length. Overall, I love the range of this lens on a DX camera.

    The image quality of this lens leaves nothing discernible to ask for. This is a razor-sharp lens at all apertures including wide open at F/2.8. Images on my D80 are colorful, contrasty, and did I say razor-sharp at all apertures? This lens is as good within its entire focal range as any prime lens I have seen, used, or heard of. Of course, the price of this lens reflects this, alas.

    This is an AF-S lens, meaning that it contains an integral focusing motor (supersonic wave motor, or “SWM”). This, combined with the fact that this is an F/2.8 lens, causes it to focus lightening-fast. So this lens is great for action shots or low-light shots. Since this is an AF-S lens, it will autofocus on the D40/D60 series of Nikon bodies.

    Some Nikon afficianados have complained that this lens does not have VR (Vibration Reduction) but VR is probably less important for a 24-70 focal range than for a longer zoom, and since this is an F/2.8 lens, it is usually feasible to increase the shutter speed of the shot to “freeze” the action.

    A few points. The outer element of this lens extrudes, but not past the petal-configured supplied lens hood, which does a perfect job of protecting the front of the lens. Neat. One thing I am not crazy about is the relative placement of the manual focus ring and zoom ring. I sometimes confuse the two, and I think that given the fact that most people will use this lens in auto-focus mode rather than manual mode, Nikon might have placed the manual focus ring in a more out-of-the-way place. Not a big quibble.

    This one is destined to be another Nikon legend!
40. T C Knight says:

    September 22, 2010 at 8:45 PM

    Review by T C Knight for Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
    Rating:
    For those of you who are satisfied with your 18-200 VR. You don’t need this lens. I stuck with my f3.5-5.6 zoom for a long time because, heh, I took “good pictures”. I adapted to low light, didn’t miss f2.8. I was not convinced that a “pro” lens could make any difference visually…only if examining test shots of test patterns with a microscope.

    I’ve been wrong before but this was a doozy. There is SUCH a HUGE visually noticable difference between shots made with this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8 VR) and my old stanby lenses that I about fell out of my office chair. My “good pictures” have become “great photographs”. I now own both this and the 70-200. I sold my favorite lens of all time, a 24 mm prime, on a website. I’ll never go back. You will get these two lenses from me when you pry them out of my cold dead fingers.

    One more note. If you are like me and constantly read pro blogs and photo how-to books you will see most of the pros say something along the lines of “I don’t use mid range zooms, I use wide angle for landscaps and long telephoto for close ups”. I bought that for a while until I started looking closely at the metadata for photos they exhibit on their websites and books. Check it out, 6 times of 10, the lens is shown to be a 24-70 zoom. I use this lens almost exclusively for landscapes and lifestyle photos. I rarely go to a wider angle unless trying to make a visual “statement”. So, here’s one pro who says “I USE MID RANGE ZOOMS”, and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is usually the one on my D3 when I pick it up.
41. Pamelot says:

    September 22, 2010 at 9:28 PM

    Review by Pamelot for Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
    Rating:
    I’ve had the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 for a while now, and it gave me such a problem! The pictures that lens took were so beautiful and sharp that I couldn’t bring myself to use any other lens. Caused such difficulty when I wanted to take portraits. I had to step so far back that, frequently, I would miss the shot! Went to my son’s pre-school graduation. The kids were all standing together, perfect opportunity for a picture. But I had to get so far away that all the other moms with their point and shoots were walking in front of me and blocking my shot! This happened time and time again–at school events, little league games, swim meets, and on and on… The Nikon 24-70 has solved my problem! Finally, a lens to compete with, and possible surpass, my beloved 70-200! It produces pictures that are every bit as beautiful as those produced by the 70-200. Indeed, they are indiscernable. So now, I can get right up there with the other moms and take wonderful portraits of my kids. Only problem now is that now I want a 2nd body so I can pull out this lens for portraits, and quickly switch to the 70-200 for action shots.

    This is a great lens, and a perfect compliment to the Nikon 70-200. Unless you’re into landscape photography (which I’m not), those two lenses should be all you’ll need.

    6/23/2009
    
    It’s been a while since I wrote this review, and I’ve now gotten that second body–a D700 (to go along with my D200). Now that I’ve had a chance to use the lens on the D700, I have to say that the pictures the combination produces far outshine those produced by the lens on the D200. That’s saying a lot because I loved the pictures I took with this lens and the D200. But the D700 is such a superior camera that, coupled with the Nikon 24-70mm, it takes some of the most beautiful pictures I’ve ever seen.
42. Shane O. Laake says:

    September 22, 2010 at 10:20 PM

    Review by Shane O. Laake for Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    When I bought the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras 14 months ago, I didn’t know what to expect. I never used a 3rd party lens or an ultra wide-angle, but I quickly learned to love the lens and the opportunities it created. Having said goodbye to the lens a week ago (still kicking), I decided to give this new slightly faster model for a spin.

    Currently reviews or even sample photos are sparse, and even some details seem elusive, so lets start in the beginning:

    * Like the predecessor, this model features HSM, so all Nikon DSLR users can benefit from this lens (D700, D3, and D3x users will only get a cropped view)
    
    * Also like its predecessor, its a hefty well-built lens that’s made in Japan
    
    * It’s comparable in size and weight to the original, but the 82mm front threads take some getting used to
    
    * While the older model did not extend at 10mm and extended barely at the “long” end, the new one is flush from 16-13mm, and extends slightly at both the wide and the long end.
    
    * the EX finish is a tad more refined, and it now features an AF/MF switch (full time override is available in AF). The focus ring is somewhat stiff, but has a nice movement to it. AF is blazing!
    
    * Sigma seems to have revised the rear element a bit with an added piece of plastic to minimize reflections
    
    * You also get an extra aperture blade for better bokeh and much better sunstars
    
    * Just in case you are wondering, this lens works just like a Nikon lens with full functionality

    I’ll post photos, but in general its the equal or better to the earlier lens. At the wide end the extra 1/3 stop is barely worth mentioning, but at the wide end, you get 1 1/3 stop more light. The changes do go beyond that, as there now is ELD glass as well as SLD (in the previous version), and there is more aspheric glass. If this doesn’t mean anything to you, just know this all helps it be a great lens!

    This is a very challenging focal length to design for, especially if cost and size are a concern, so there is no perfect lens in this range. That being said, Sigma seemed to have used their experience with a previous 10-20mm to create a highly refined and very capable lens. If shooting at f/3.5 you will see some softness in the corners, but frankly it’s not that limiting. Stopping down to f/5.6 helps a lot with gains in between, and it peeks at f/8-11 (maybe f/13 on a 6mp sensor).

    Coming from an 18-## zoom? You’ll get a whole new perspective, an opportunity to explore a new world of photography, and get to work with a lens of much better construction than a kit lens.

    Coming from another ultra-wide angle? It may not be worth the switch (I sold my other one for a variety of reasons), but you almost get the speed of the Tokina AT-X116PRDXN AT-X PRO DX 11-16mm Ultra-wide Angle Lens for Nikon and you get a faster aperture and more useful zoom range than first gen ultra-wides such as the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX Nikkor Zoom Lens or Tokina AT-XAF124DXN 12-24mm Wide-Angle Lens for Nikon.
43. Chris Inoue says:

    September 22, 2010 at 10:37 PM

    Review by Chris Inoue for Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    I compared performance and test images taken with the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 against my Nikon 16-85 VRII, which I consider to be my sharpest lens. The photos were taken with a Nikon D5000, tripod mounted, no digital sharpening, of fixed targets on my living room wall at about six feet. The targets consisted of newspaper at the corners and a large US map in the center, with a variety of detail and some color. Illumination was provided by house lamps and a photo flood light. The photos were compared side by side at 200% enlargement.

    The Sigma 10-20 was not as sharp as the Nikon 16-85 in the very center of the image at comparable focal lengths (16mm and 20mm) and apertures, although was very close by f/5 and nearly the same at f/8. At the edges of the image however, the Sigma 10-20 was as sharp or sharper and had better contrast at all f-stops tested (3.5-8). I have no lens to compare the Sigma 10-20 to at shorter focal lengths but Imaging Resource tests indicate good to very good sharpness, similar to the older Sigma 10-20.

    Focus speed with the Sigma 10-20 is very fast and quiet, similar to the Nikon 16-85. There is some variation in auto focus reproducibility but seems to be within a reasonable margin of error and will likely not be noticable in most photographs. The zoom action of the Sigma is smoother than the Nikon. The lens is somewhat larger and heavier than the Nikon.

    Chromatic aberration/color fringing has been reported as being an issue with many wide angle lenses, including this lens. I will comment on this after shooting some high contrast scenes outdoors if I feel it is significant.

    This is my second copy of the lens. The first copy appeared to have a slight back focus problem at 10mm at short focal distances as indicated by variations in auto focus performance vs manual focus to achieve optimal sharpness. Optically, the first copy appeared as sharp as this one and likely would have been acceptable to most users.

    First edit 9-30-09: Outdoor shots posted in the gallery. The lens performed well in the field yielding good color and contrast. Flaring is visible as the lens is tilted towards the sun. I used my baseball cap to shade the lens and would also recommend the lens hood in most situations. At 10mm, sharpness is acceptable at f3.5 in the center and quite soft at the edges. Sharpness at the edges seems fairly good by f4.5. Color fringing is quite evident in high contrast areas near the edges of the image however it was not so bright as to apppear in uncorrected 8×10 prints. Also it was quite easy to reduce the fringing to a non-issue with CA correction using Adobe CS4. Auto focus was accurate. Overall I’m quite pleased with this lens and I’d say it outperforms my expectations for sharpness and vignetting but I wish the CA was better controlled. I will keep this lens, however the older version (f4-5.6) is reported to be as good or perhaps better in some respects so I’d recommend the f3.5 lens only if the constant aperature is of interest to you.
44. Jon Shaver says:

    September 22, 2010 at 11:34 PM

    Review by Jon Shaver for Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    Bought this lens with the idea that if it didn’t perform to a professional standard, I’d return it. I LOVE the security I get from Amazon with the 30 day return policy.

    Long story short, I’ve shot about 200 floral shots close up and macro equivalent. Virtually all are keepers–and I’ve already committed a number to gallery wrap canvas in 16×24 prints from Mpix. Got them today and they are, in short, phenomenal.

    I am still debating the Nikon 12-24 2.8 as I use both a D90 and D700 to maximize my focal lengths given I have 20 or so Nikon lenses ranging in age from 2009 vintage to 1975 glass.

    All are great and I have three other Sigma lenses as well–none is as fun and accurate as this one. When time permits and budget allows, I’ll do a comparison of the Nikon 12-24 but let’s face it–it cost three times as much and is generally considered Nikon’s tour de force.

    If you buy this f3.5 Sigma, I cannot imagine you will be anything but happy.

    Good luck–I will be looking for additional feedback.
45. Mario Curcio says:

    September 23, 2010 at 12:27 AM

    Review by Mario Curcio for Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    A lens can be judged only in connection with a specific camera body as it may perform differently with different sensors. So, I can speak about it together with the Nikon D300.

    From the specifications, it seemed to be a better lens in comparison with equivalent range lenses of other brands including the new Nikon 10-24.

    I was long tempted by the new Tokina 12-24 DXII but I wanted to start with a 10 mm rather than a 12 mm in order to justify the gain by the new purchase over the 16-85 mm Nikon lens which I already had. Also, I both tested the new Tokina and Nikon at a professional fair and from the few indoor shots that I took I was a bit disappointed, not as sharp as I would expect and unacceptable chromatic aberrations showed up, although distorsion compensation was OK. So I thought it was worth waiting for the new sigma. That Sigma is able to provide good lenses I had already proof with the 70 mm f2.8 macro, excellent one. Thus, in the end I dared to buy this as soon as it came out even before reading any reviews. I wish I could read at least one though to feel a bit surer. For this reason I want to share soon my experience with those who are wondering as I did, hoping to be of some help.

    So, briefly put, I have no regret. This is the lens I have long waiting for. Image quality is the most important factor for me and I am not disappointed. Sharp, excellent correction of chromatic aberrations, reduction of flare. Slightly soft edges especially at large apertures, but since I typically use a tripod then I can use higher F stops and low iso even in low light conditions and then image quality is superb. It’s not the fixed 3.5, which I don’t need much, to make the real difference over other lenses but the combination of glasses, I believe.

    If you want to see some images that I took with this lense, although not at full resolution, visit my website:

    [...] (look at the gallery under the category new, the wide angle images have been taken with the Sigma 10-20 f3.5, the close up ones with the Sigma 70mm f2.8)

    Mario
46. Francisco Marquez says:

    September 23, 2010 at 12:59 AM

    Review by Francisco Marquez for Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
    Rating:
    I’ve owned this lens since February and it is my favorite lens for hiking. Using an ultra wide angle lens is a unique experience that comes with a steeper learning curve then most other ranges. The biggest concept to grasp is scale, at 10mm an object 1 foot from your lens will look like its 5 feet away through the viewfinder, so composition and corner to corner attention to detail is crucial to getting a good image.

    Distortion at its widest is reasonable and expected.

    It is incredibly sharp in center to mid frame wide open, but it can get a little soft on the edges. I own the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM II , so I know what sharp looks like and I have no gripes with this sigma.

    Focus is quick and the rings have just the right amount of tension allowing for precise setting. Try laying on the ground and have a friend jump over you, ultra wide angle lens have incredibly large depths of field and it’s hard for this lens to miss focus. Also the minimum focusing distance is inches from the front element, so watch those cactus needle in the desert.

    The color reproduction is wonderful, and flare is controlled very well by design. The hood is ample, although when shooting wide the sun always seems to find its way into frame.

    Chromatic Aberration can occur towards the sides of the frames, but due to the previously mentioned scaling effect, you would have to crop into the image to notice it.

    The case is great, although I never knew how awkward working a cube into my camera bag would be. I eventually started leaving the case at home as it just took up to much room in my bag.

    Ultimately I do not regret this purchase one bit. Compared to other ultra wides, I couldn’t tell you, all I can tell you as this is my go to lens when I’m feeling creative and it hasn’t let me down yet. I’ll post sample pics to illustrate my points.