Filter Reviews

I think the best plays to buy a cameras is brandon.s store it is the best.

After shooting Canon's 28-105mm on my Canon A2e for five years, I had to replace it with a similar length lens equivalent for my new Canon 10D. The 24-85mm comes out to be a little longer on the short end, as well as on the long end (38.4-136mm "35mm equivalent"). At twice the price of the 28-105, I can only say that you are getting twice the lens, and it's great. you will pay more for 67mm filters for this lens (as opposed to 58mm for most of Canon's consumer lenses), but it's all worth it!

This is a fantastic lens made from fantastic glass. It's a joy to shoot, and it's a great match to the smaller 22.66mm sensor of the lower-end pro digital bodies. It's worth every dime of the price.

This lens is almost superb for its price! It's a middle-class lens, what appears in the following:

- it has bigger light-factor (3.5-4.0 vs 4.0-5.6 in the low-class lenses). This gives you more possibilities, for instance to use faster shutter speeds or to decrease the depth-of-fild for special effects)

- the first (outer) lens doesn't spin what gives you an opportunity to use square filters; using a poliriser becomes as easy as any other filter.

- the USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) gives you a really super speed of focusing and completely silent engine. You'll catch the fastest actions and nothing will distrub your object!

These are the most important and useful features of the lens. I should also admit, that the focal distance of this lens is almost ideal for everyday photography, because gives you an opportunity to shoot from landscapes (~24-50mm) to portraiture (~50-85mm) with an equal simplicity and quality.

This is a wonderful lens. It is especially nice for travel photos in cities, indoors, and for some landscapes. You also need to get a hood because of the wide angle of view. In addition, you need a filter to protect the lens as well as function as a filter -haze or polarizer. The filter must be a special wide angle filter (thin metal ring) and you won't be able to attach the lens cap over the filter. Small price to pay, however.

On a DSLR with 1.3x or 1.6x cropping, such as the 10D or 1D, you will see no difference in the images produced by this lens and the twice-as-expensive EF 16-35 f/2.8L. So if you don't need the extra f-stop, go with this one and save yourself $700.

On 35mm film or the 1Ds, you'll see more vignetting with this lens, but the images are still excellent, and this lens has less flare than the 16-35.

The 16-35 is marginally sharper near the 35mm focal length, and does have much better bokeh, if that's important to you.

If you take lots of wide-angle shots, this lens is a must-have. It's one of the less expensive "L" lenses, making it a relative bargain.

If you get paid for your photos, you should own the f/2.8L instead. For the rest of us, this is a fantastic lens, my second Canon L lens after the 100-400. Construction quality is first rate. Images are sharp. The range of the zoom is excellent. For film. On an APS-C sized sensor (Canon 10D or DRebel) this isn't an exciting range and is only marginally wide angle. Though the Sigma 12-24mm is slower and (on paper) lower resolution---that might be the lens of choice for this range on a digital camera.

Do you ever find your pictures boring? If you do, get this lens, and your pictures will have a whole new dramatic look, becuase of its super wide angle. Another advantage is that a wider angle allows you to take pictures at a slower speed, good for darker occasions, because the shaking of hands would have a smaller effect. The third advantage is compared with most of the other Canon professional lens, this is very small, which makes it easier to use at public places where bigger lens means more attentions, and more attentions means less oppotunities. I didn't say anything about the lens's actual picture quality, because Look, this is a Canon Professional lens(the red ring at the top of the lens indicates professional, instead of regular yellow), there is no question about the quality of the pictures! ( And of course, though wide-angle, the pictures are not twisted at the corners at all.) It's the best you can get out of an SLR! But of course, good equipments is only half of good pictures, you will never be able to take good pictures even with the best lens if you don't learn and don't experience. Good Luck. And by the way, ... send me the lens promptly, no taxes, good price.

This lens is for Canon EOS cameras. EF 28-70mm F2.8, EF 70-200mm F2.8, and this lens--EF 17-35mm F2.8, together is one series of professional zooming lens. They all have the same diameter, 77mm. 17-35 is wide angle, 28-70 is midzoom, 70-200 is long distance. I have all of them, and use them on different occations with my EOS 3. All three lens have the same superb quality, but have different uses. If you have all of these three lens, you will be able to take almost any pictures you want, and all the pictures that you take would have a very professional look even if you are an amature, since a good photographer is made up with half the equipment, and half the person.

This is not just my favorite lens, it is one of the nicest things I own.

I love wide-angle photography, and the extra field-of-view I get with a 17mm wide-angle (over a more conventional 28mm) is dramatic. I took this on an extended vacation in Japan and found it to be the only lens I really needed for the entire trip (I also brought my 28-135 IS and my 50 mm f/1.4 but really needn't have). There is something about Japan that really cries out for a super-wide angle (small interiors for one thing). On a more recent trip to Spain I admit there were times I wish I had my 28-135 with me for a little more reach, but this 17-35mm is still my primary lens.

I think the optics on my 50mm 1.4 are noticably better than this lens, but I have become so accustomed to the 17mm view that I find a "normal" focal length practically useless.

There is marvelously little distortion in this lens at 17mm.

It is worth noting however that you will undoubtedly get shadows from even the thinnest filters (I have a very very thing polarizer filter that I use with this lens and even it will crop the image, the lens is so wide.) Also, when I use the built-in flash on my A2E the lens will cast a shadow in the image, which is annoying (a little hard to explain, but the point is that you see so much at 17mm that the lens itself blocks the flash). Someday I will get an external flash to avoid this problem.

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.

This lens is the best in its class. I wish every lens I had was this sharp. This thing is top notch.