michaelnotar
Lifetime Member
Registered: October 2006
Location: CDA, Idaho, USA
Posts: 882
|
|
Review Date: Fri August 31, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $690.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
better CA than my canon 16-35 v1, better edge sharpness, great build
|
|
Cons:
|
slow, use with a body with good AF
|
|
color fringing is really well controlled, the best i have seen, its certainly better than my canon 16-25/2.8 v1 and the 14/2.8 which has a big problem with this. doesnt seem to have the edge softness of the canon 16-35 either. well built, like an L series.
all these comments are with a 1.3x body. apparently the lens covers 35mm/FF, i have looked through it on a film body, but not shot with it. i was happy though. distortion is well controlled, all kinds too. at 12mm lines only curve slightly, but the canon has more at 16mm. lens is said to have bad flare, due to the huge curved front element, its not like it doesnt kill it (didnt seem to lower contrast). i have only seen 2-3 spots at most in my images and that was in about 10% of them, they were easily retouched. i shoot home interiors, so i have lots of blown out windows and light fixtures to cause it, but these were the parameters for the last senstence above. i would love to get this lens on a FF, the edges will be dark, but that normal for a 14mm lens, and this one is 2mm wider!
its amazing that such a good lens comes from an off brand and for 1/2 the price.
its a bit dark, so make sure you have a good body to put it on or you will be hunting for AF.
it has become my main wide lens, but i will keep the 16-35 for low light AF.
i give it an 8, and my canon 16-35 a 7.
------------------------------
Michael
www.shutterworksphoto.com
|
|
