21 New — prices too low to display (click "More Info" or "Add to Cart" button to see prices)
43 Used from $190.00
Bring your photographic subjects closer with this Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer Telephoto Zoom Lens. It is designed with Canon's Optical Image Stabilizer technology and is compact and light. This high zoom ratio lens is equivalent to a focal length of 88-400mm in the 35mm format (when used on Canon EOS cameras compatible with EF-S lenses). The image stabilizer effect is equivalent to a shutter speed about 4 stops faster than the same size lens without Image Stabilizer. In other words, if the slowest shutter speed you could formerly hold a 250mm lens steadily was 1/250th of a second, with Canon's 4-stop stabilization correction, you could hand-hold at shutter speeds as slow as 1/15th of a second. It also uses a UD-glass lens element to correct chromatic aberration for excellent image quality throughout the zoom range. Filter Size - 58mm Max. Diameter - x Length 2.8 in. x 4.3 in./70 x 108mm (maximum lens length) Weight - 13.8 oz./390g Canon 1 year limited warranty
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 55-250mm F/4-5.6
12 Elements In 10 Groups, Including One UD-glass Element
Focus Adjustment: DC Motor, Gear-driven(front Focusing Design)
I Love It For IS and Zoom Range at this Price, Not Pure Performance
Reviewed by: J. Kirlin, Bangor, Maine USA Review Date: 2008-03-19
I was determined to love this lens based on the specs and price point alone. Canon really needed to come out with this lens at this price because Nikon offers a very decent Vibration Reduction lens at roughly the same range for the same price, leaving me to make apologies for Canon and their neglect to all my Nikon friends.
The IS can be switched off to save battery life but I haven't noticed a difference in battery performance with it. The IS is only activiated when you press the shutter halfway for auto focus. Although it FEELS like there is a small lag for the IS to start, I don't think I've had any photos messed up because of it.
You can HEAR the IS. A little bizarre after using point and shoots that have IS that is silent, but it doesn't seem to affect performance
Pro: Great price for an image stabilized zoom lens. I paid 299 and am very pleased even though Amazon is selling it for 280 a week later. ALso arrive 2 months sooner than Amazon initially promised. This lens has NEVER been 400 dollars. Its MSRP from Canon prior to release was 299.00. Shame Amazon!
Pro: Images are very sharp.
Pro: Image stabilization does a VERY nice job. Four stops as advertised by Canon? I'm not so sure. GREATLY enhancing the composition experience at 250mm? Absolutely.
Pro: Much smaller and lighter than the 70-300 of any manufacturer and much sharper than my Sigma 70-300.
Con: Cheapish feel. But just use it, quit feeling it already. Plastic mount. But if you NEED a metal mount, may I suggest you are being a little rough with your camera. *UPDATE* The plastic flanges on back were able to hold the camera securely to the lens, but NOT hold the rear cap securely to the lens. I've tried many different rear lens caps that fit snugly on other lenses. So I think this is beyond cheap feel and has to be called CHEAP BUILD.
Con: This lens is a little (ok, maybe not so little) slow to focus in dim light, sometimes it misses altogether when I think other lenses of mine would have had no difficulty.
Con: I never gave Inner Focusing much thought on my other lenses until I used this. The front of this lens rotates AND moves in and out a LOT while focusing, so much so that you MAY even want to recompose your shot. The length of this lens changes almost an inch across the focus range. I just checked my Sigma 70-300 and found that it does also, but I've never seen it make as much difference in the viewfinder as I have with this Canon. Your perception may vary.
This lens and the soon to be arriving 18-55 IS as the XSi kit lens will allow me to carry one less lens to achieve an 18-250 IS range. For a little more money than the cost of both lenses you can get the Tamrom 18-250 but not have Image Stabilization. And now Sigma has an 18-200 WITH Optical Stablization for about what these 2 lenses cost retail, but in testing the 2 Canons produced better images.
Conclusion: A great EF-S lens for Canon users. (even if Nikon had to force Canon to make it for us.)
reasonable value
Reviewed by: Mr. Vijay Venkataraman, Seattle, WA Review Date: 2008-05-07
Since I mostly use wide-angle lenses, I was not willing to blow a ton on expensive/heavy telephoto lenses for occasional shots. Prior to owning this lens, I had a Sigma 70-300 APO zoom telephoto that produced good colors, but was essentially useless due to frequent camera shake. I sold the lens and got this Canon zoom.
a) Surprisingly, it CAN produce pretty sharp pictures if the subjects don't move fast. The sharpness is very comparable with two other lenses I own, the famed and breathtakingly sharp Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4. While the Tamron and Sigma get sharp shots without too much work, this Canon needs a bit of careful handling to get equally sharp shots even at the wide end. I use the word "can", because to achieve it you would either need a tripod or high ISO (my rebel XT's 1600 is pretty much what I use all the time with this lens).
b) The colors in bright light are almost always faded (sharp, but faded). It can be patially corrected in Lightroom, but a bit unfortunate since this lens really needs the bright light for a good shutter speed. Indoors, it produces good color balance/saturation, but struggles to have a decent shutter speed. Kind of catch-22 situation.
c) The construction is pretty cheap, but generally nothing to worry about if handled gently. However, the filter threads are thin plastic and I almost damaged the threads when putting on filters for the first time. I got a dedicated Sigma DG 58mm UV filter permanently affixed on it so that any other filters/screw hood will only go on the metal thread of the UV filter and not the lens thread directly. A metal UV filter is a must if you don't want to permanently damage the lens filter threads.
d) The opteration of the IS is quiet unless you are particularly listening to it. My Tamron's AF makes more noise.
e) After playing with this lens for sometime, I have come to the conclusion that IS is an absolute must on a zoom telephoto when hand held. Being the cheapest IS telephoto on the market today, there is really no equivalent for this in this price range.
f) IS has been of no use in freezing subject motion. While this is to be expected, it highlights how slow a lens this really is.
g) No hood comes with the lens, but I got a third party 77mm screw telephoto metal hood and step up adapter rings.
h) 1 year canon warranty sucks big time compared to the 6-year Tamron and 4-year Sigma (for DG lens).
i) this is a very light lens, much lighter than my sigma or tamron. Very easily carried around (hood might add a bit more bulk, but not too much).
In short, this lens performs great with regards to sharpness and IS. It leaves a lot to be desired in color saturation and flare control, almost always requiring some kind of post processing to achieve desired result.
Update 10/22/08
----------------
I bought a 58mm Canon 250D close up filter for this lens and now I have a fantastic macro lens, that is capable of doing 1:1 macro with a working distance of 25cm (~10")! The 250D is roughly 1/7 th the price of the closest 1:1 macro lens with the same working distance - the tamron 180mm 1:1 macro if you were planning on getting a seperate macro lens. The 250D is optically optimized for lens up to 135mm focal length, but the results are fantastic handheld up to 200mm on this lens. Using 250mm (when you get a bit higher than 1:1) is a little bit of work, but gets decent results (with mirror lockup + tripod + f/25). No horrible color fringing that happens with cheap closeup filters on the market (like the Opteka +1,+2,+4, and +10 close up filters). I haven't used a true 1:1 macro lens, which I suspect will definitely be better quality-wise, but the combination of a canon 55-250mm IS + canon 250d for a telephoto + 1:1 macro + IS under 400$ is a true bargain along the lines of the 50mm f/1.8.
Great telephoto lens to complement your kit lens
Reviewed by: ale, Chicago, IL USA Review Date: 2009-02-06
This is the first lens that I've purchased and kept outside my kit lens (18-55). I mentioned kept because believe it or not, I bought the 70-200 F4L non-IS. I won't be giving any technical review about this lens as that is pretty much covered by the other reviewers here. I'll just share my story to help out other beginners who are having a hard time as well contemplating on what lens to get to complement their kit lens.
At first, I definitely wanted to buy a telephoto lens so I can shoot objects from a distance and I really like to try the lens out in a zoo. I then narrowed my choices between EF 70-300 IS USM and 70-200 F4L non-IS (didn't want 55-250 then because I didn't like the plastic mount). Since the latter would end up costing almost the same or even less (comes with hood and pouch plus the free filter amazon offers), I went for it without even thinking. Before the package arrived, I already had second thoughts and tried to cancel the item. Since I tried out the amazon prime 2 day shipping, the package came really fast so I wasn't able to cancel but returned it as soon as I got it.
So why did I return the 70-200 F4L and settled for an EF-S 55-250?
- I don't get paid taking pictures, it's just a hobby.
- No one will really sit down and scrutinize the pictures I take. All Canon lenses take great shots compared to other brands. It's not like I'm posting the pictures I take in the net for public view.
- The beige color of the L lens is somewhat too loud for me. I don't want people to think I have that much cash or evern comment that I only have an XS body.
- No IS, I realized that I really need IS because I don't have any plans of getting a tripod soon and my hands are really shaky.
- Cost!
- Weight.
- Performance of 55-250 that I was able to research over the net. Of course it's nothing comapred to the L lens, no doubt about that. But if the pictures are viewed alone, without comparing to L lens, they are great.
- Max range is only at 200, I get an extra 50mm with 55-250.
- Missing the 56-69 mm.
Ok, the last 2 are just for my piece of mind because I opted with 55-250 but they don't really matter if you have the L lens. If you do become a pro in the future, you'd definitely get something better than the 70-200 F4L.
Bottom line, this lens is no where in the league of L lenses. As one of the reviewers mentioned, it does the job. For value of money, I really love this lens. About the plastic mount, I realized that I wouldn't be using my camera that hard anyway. Plus, it'll be lighter.
I'm going to steal one of the reviews I read, it basically says that if you like the performance of your kit lens (18-55), you'll defintely like this as well. I totally agree, fast AF, sharp pictures, longer range version of 18-55.
Note that this is NOT a comparison between L lens and 55-250, or even 70-300. Just a decision experience that I wanted to share with a number of beginners out there.
Excellent value
Reviewed by: JR Physics, Durham, NH Review Date: 2008-06-14
This is a very good lens given its price. Like with any lens selection there
are compromises, and a more expensive lens is not necessarily better in all
respects. These are the main considerations for me:
* The lens comes with an excellent IS. One could probably save a hundred bucks
buying a non-IS lens in this focal range which may even be a bit better optically.
However, long range shots without IS are difficult, especially in low light. The
IS on this lens works very well, better compared to my Canon 28-135 IS and even
compared to the 100-400L. The IS really makes a lot of hand held shots possible
that one could not do with a non-IS lens.
* The lens is fairly cheaply built and has a plastic mount. However, the
trade-off is that it is also fairly small and light (the small size is also due
to the fact that it is a EF-S lens). My other tele-zoom is a 100-400L lens
which is built like tank, but it is also huge and weighs 3 pounds. In many cases
one does not want to carry that much weight around, and that is where this lens
comes in really handy.
* Image quality: No, it cannot quite match the 100-400L, but it comes surprisingly
close. Of course, the 100-400L costs 5 times as much. Lack of good color
saturation is the most notable deficiency. On the other hand images are very sharp.
For outdoors one should get a hood, there is quite a bit of glare in shots with
frontal sunlight.
* Zoom range: the 55-250mm range makes the lens quite versatile. 250mm is long
enough for most outdoor sports, many nature shots, people from afar, etc. At the
other end 55mm is still good for close action, for example at a soccer field.
That is almost a factor 2 shorter compared to 100-(300/400) lenses.
It also provides a nice overlap with walk-around lenses, like the Canon 28-135 IS.
* Aperture: F4-5.6 is nothing to brag about, however, a faster lens would also
have to be much bigger, heavier, and costlier. And as long as you objects don't
move too much the IS makes the lens effectively faster. If Canon's 4 stop
improvement holds it would be equivalent to a non-ISF1-1.4, although F1.4-2 is
probably more realistic. A F1.4-2 with that focal range would have to be big,
heavy, and expensive, if it even existed.
In summary, this is an excellent second lens to complement a short zoom or a
walk-around lens. Very versatile and a lot of bang for the buck. In my case,
even though I own a 100-400L I still keep this lens because it is often more
practical because of the shorter focal length and the smaller size.
IS is the way to go
Reviewed by: C. Oleksyk, uxbridge, ma Review Date: 2008-04-17
okay so granted i just got this lens today and have limited use with it but i also own a canon 70-200 L series lens WITHOUT stabilization and the difference to me was immediately apparent. i am not one to carry around a tripod which is what you need with my other lens in order to get a clear shot all of the time. yes this lens does feel much cheaper and it was! but the point and shoot shots came out much clearer. i did not notice any color differences between the two lens as mentioned in a previous review. and i also gained mm on both ends which fits nicely with the kit lens. i am so satisfied that after one day i have already placed my other lens for sale on ebay. any takers!
One of the best lens for portrait and low light photography.
Reviewed by: Sidarta Tanu, Richmond, VA USA Review Date: 2006-10-09
I don't even know where to start. This lens produces sharp pictures and great color and contrast. And for its price (which seems to climb recently), it is worth more than 5 stars rating. I initially get this lens for low light action and sport photography (as this lens is famous for being one of the fastest lens together with its brother 50mm f/1.4), but I also found out that this lens is also perfect for portrait and other general purposes (macro etc). This is definitely a very versatile lens.
As much as I want to encourage everyone to buy this lens right away, let me mention some of the limitation that you would see (which I think will be helpful to go over before deciding to buy this lens):
First, being a prime lens, you will need to move your feet a lot to compose your picture. If you are used to zoom lens, don't underestimate this limitation. It takes me a while to get used to it, and sometime I still find people looking at me wondering why I am moving forward and backwards. the good news is that most of the time, they don't think I'm weird, but they are actually wondering if I'm a professional photographer.
Secondly, the focal range of 50mm, which is considered the normal lens and great for portrait lens. but on many DSLRs which is not full frame (unless you have a full frame Nikon DSLR like the D700 or D3, then 50mm is 50mm), this lens become a 75mm equivalent which is in the border of a short tele lens. I actually like the 75mm equivalent though I often have to move backwards when taking picture of a group of people.
Third, in some situation the autofocus might not able to focus (which is common for many other lens too). It is hard for the autofocus to lock when aiming at a wall that is one color (usually black or white), or on a clear sky (day or night). This kind of makes sense to me actually. IN these situations the AF assist light doesn't help either so you can opt for manual focus or set the focus to infinity when you can't find focus lock on scenic/landscape or sky photography. So far I don't have many problems with the autofocus.
Sharpness increases as you stop down to f/2.2 or f/2.5. I actually use f/1.8 most of the time and the results are still nice. Personally, I'd rather use f/1.8 aperture settings than stopped down (e.g to f/2.8) and compensate with higher ISO setting which often gives me grainy picture. But if your object is not moving (static) then it is better to stop down to f/2.8 or more.
If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR (Vibration Reduction), here's my take: In overall, VR does help a lot (as it will reduce camera shake) and will produce better/sharper picture than equivalent lens without VR (especially if the object is static). If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature alone might not help (depending on how fast the object is moving and how much light is available), and a fast lens often end up being a far better solution, even without VR feature as it will allow much faster shutter speed to freeze motion. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.
If you are wondering whether you will get the benefit of buying f/1.4 lens over a f/1.8 lens, just remember that the f/1.4 lens is about 60% faster than f/1.8 at its widest aperture setting. With this information, you can decide if the additional speed will justify the additional cost. The bokeh is nicer as well in f/1.4 lens but I think speed is usually the main factor in deciding whether to get the more expensive f/1.4 lens.
Here are the summary of pros and cons for this Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF lens:
Pros:
1. Very fast (f/1.8)
2. Very sharp pictures (especially when stopped down to f/2.2, f/2.5 or more.)
3. Great for sport/action photography
4. Great for indoor and low light situation
5. Great for portrait
6. Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens
7. Fast autofocus
8. Good for wedding photography (or no-flash event). However, if this is your main objective then you might want to get the 50mm f/1.4 version or 28-70mm f/2.8 lens)
9. 75mm equivalent which can be considered a short tele lens (I actually like the fact that it's 75mm equivalent vs 50mm in DSLR. if you need more zoom, you can get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #9 pros is not applicable.
10. Inexpensive
Cons:
1. Being prime lens, you need to move your feet a lot to adjust/compose
2. Autofocus issue on some situations (read detail above)
3. Plasticy build
4. Autofocus is not the most silent but very reasonable
5. 75mm equivalent with 1.5x multiplier on non full frame DSLR (many people find this is an odd range for normal lens. I actually like it). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #5 cons is not applicable.
6. Autofocus does not work with D40, D40x, D60 and D5000. The newer 50mm f/1.4G AF-S lens or 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens will autofocus with those cameras.
Bottom line: This lens is so versatile (and inexpensive) that I think everyone should own in addition to all the lenses that they already have. Being a very fast lens, it enables me to take pictures in low light (sport/action photography) that I otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
After knowing its limitation, I would predict that 99% of you that decides to buy this lens will find this lens very useful. And if you decide that you don't like it (which I think not more than 1%), I'm sure there will be a lot of people who wouldn't mind buying it from you (with some discount of course).
Again, I would recommend everyone to get this lens. In some ways I can say that this lens makes me a better photographer.
Happy Photographing!
Sidarta Tanu
Dollar for dollar the best buy in a bright sharp lens
Reviewed by: Albert J. Valentino, New Jersey Review Date: 2004-11-28
This lens is probably the sharpest lens that Nikon makes--see lens reviews/specs at www.photodo.com. I use this lens for low light situations outdoors and indoors so I don't need a flash. also, small dept-of-field. Using this at f/2.0 I will get at least four-six times as much light (which means four-six times faster shutter speed) as my zoom at around f/4.8 and also have a sharper image. For $99.00 this f/1.8 is a steal and a much better buy than the f/1.4 which is almost as sharp a lens and costs about $250.00--it's a no brainer.
I use this with my Nikon D70--remember, with a digital SLR this is equivalent to a 75mm lens for film which it a pretty good portrait lens.
Just buy it--for the price you can't go wrong.
Will make you a better photographer
Reviewed by: R. Rosener, St. Louis, MO United States Review Date: 2004-11-11
This is the lens to get for any Nikon SLR, from the simple N75 all the way to the Digital D70. It's faster than a zoom and much, much sharper. That's right, no zooming! If you want to make the image bigger, move closer. Want to make a wider view? Step back. This is the lens that all photographers should start with. Most of Henri Cartier Bresson's photos were taken with a 50mm lens. It forces you to think about perspective, composition, and arrangement. You can take more pictures without the intrusive light of a flash. It's cheap too. This lens is a classic and will make you a better photographer by enabling you to make creative choices. It works on almost every Nikon ever made. What more do you need to know? Get one.
I'm in love with this lens: it's absolutely a dream to work with
Reviewed by: Tana Butler, Soquel, California Review Date: 2006-12-12
As a professional photographer, I cannot praise this lens enough: it brings me closer to my subjects, and connects my photographs with viewers from the level of intimacy it imparts. Why? When you fall in love with someone, they are right in front of you, and the rest of the world blurs away. That's how this lens makes me see: as though I am right in front of, and in love with, what I'm viewing.
I take lots of pictures of food, people, and farms. (See the samples I've uploaded here.) This lens has a quality of gentleness in it that is unsurpassed. Because it's fast, it's great for low lighting, and brings a romantic quality to beautiful food in restaurants. It's also the perfect portrait lens, seeing people much as we ourselves do, with no distortion, only kindness. Yes, I am ascribing emotional qualities to an inanimate object, but it doesn't exist in a vaccum. It makes me a better photographer, by showing me how to see.
It's wonderful, and wonderfully priced.
A must have for any collection
Reviewed by: Mikel N. Daniel, Fairchild AFB, WA Review Date: 2007-02-24
I purchased this lens to supplement my kit 18-55 which I found wasn't fast enough to capture indoor shots of my two little girls without flash. I have to say that EVERYONE should buy this lens. As one of the first additional lenses I purchased for my Nikon D40, I was absolutely stunned and blown away by the tack sharp images and speed of this tiny little gem. While it is manual focus only with the D40, everything else works just fine. It even tells you when the image is in focus via the green focus light found inside the viewfinder. Keep in mind that at 1.8 its easy for your main subject to slip out of focus. For portrait shots, 2.8 is usually plenty to get a fast shutter speed with plenty of bokeh. For those split between this and the 1.4, if the price difference wasn't so big, I'd say go for it. But at 1.8 you're getting an extremely fast and capable lens at a price that just cannot be beat. I'm filling up my hard drive every day with pics that I simply could not have captured with my kit lens. There are some shortcomings like the manual zoom, manual focus with the D40 and that it's small plastic casing probably won't survive a fall (my 70-300 VR is MASSIVE next to it) but it more than makes up for its shortcomings with the amazing shots it takes. I promise you, you'll be hard pressed to find any other quality glass in this price range.
19 New — prices too low to display (click "More Info" or "Add to Cart" button to see prices)
4 Used from $250.00
Standard lens featuring superb quality and portability. Two high-refraction lens elements and new Gaussian optics eliminate astigmatism and suppress astigmatic difference. Crisp images with little flare are obtained even at the maximum aperture.
50mm standard lens with f/1.4 maximum aperture for Canon SLR cameras
2 high-refraction lens elements and Gaussian optics help eliminate astigmatism
Delivers crisp images with little flare at the maximum aperture
Extra-small Micro USM focus adjustment and full-time manual focusing
Measures 2.9 inches in diameter and 2 inches long; 1-year warranty
With the 50mm f1.8 lens available for less than a hundred dollars, why spend so much more to get the f1.4? The answer is, you may not need to. It all depends on your seriousness, budget, and how long you need your lens to last.
If you want a "starter lens" for shooting at 50mm (or with prime lenses in general), the f1.8 would be a great buy. 50mm is a very useful and intuitive focal length to spend some time with, because it sees the world at the same distance as your naked eye (regardless of your camera's crop factor). So you could buy the f1.8 cheaply, regard it as a "play with it" lens, and get a nice introduction to "prime lens quality." The f1.8 will seem like a substantial step up from kit lenses and most consumer-priced zooms, and amazing bang for few bucks.
So if the f1.8 is such a great bargain, why would the f1.4 be among Canon's most all-time popular lenses? It's that the f1.8 can take the great shot within certain conditions, but the f1.4 delivers within a much wider range of conditions. In other words, "You get what you pay for," and we'll save the best for last.
Affordable-but-Solid Contruction: The f1.4 will likely have a much longer life than the cheaper plastic build of the f1.8, and retain more resale value. It's an investment, rather than a commodity. And it'll be more certain on your camera and in your hand. (My first one finally needed some calibration, after 80,000 shots and extreme wear-and-tear from frequent swapping with my other primes.) Users sometimes report the front glass falling out of their f1.8s. For the f1.4, the main issues revolve around the Micro USM focus motor, which is not as sturdy as true USM.
Focus Versatility: The f1.4 lets your camera autofocus, and then lets you tweak further by hand without flipping a switch - that's called "Full-Time Manual Focus." The f1.8 requires switching back and forth between auto and manual focus. The f1.8 is famously noisy/buzzy during autofocus, has a bare-minimum focus ring, and no distance scale. The f1.4 will autofocus more reliably, especially in dim light, though it will fail occasionally when starved.
Resistance to Abberation: Chromatic abberation (fringe colors) and barrel distortion are evident-but-low for both lenses at wide apertures - that's "prime lens quality." But in comparison tests, the f1.8 is more susceptible to vignetting (shadows around the corners), halation (glowing around the highlights), and lens flare. For instance, lens flare within the f1.4 tends to be more tightly controlled - "in focus" - whereas a bright light source is more like to blow out the whole shot in the f1.8. All these factors improve when stopped down, but lag about a stop behind the f1.4.
Color: However, if the f1.8 catches up at f/8 to the f1.4 by many standards, it rarely catches up to the f1.4's saturation. The f1.4 has "proper-to-strong" color richness at all but the widest apertures, while the f1.8's shots are much more likely to require postwork. (I do, however, get better saturation from my 24mm f2.8 and 100mm Macro f2.8. The 50 f1.4's saturation seems good-not-great by comparison.)
"Headroom": The engineering of both lenses lets you choose the tradeoff between "most possible light" or "most possible clarity." It's by design that you can choose "more light for less crisp," or stop down for sharpness. *Samples vary*, but the average 50mm f1.4 should consistently "get down to sharp" more quickly, "sharp enough" by f/2.0, "very very sharp" by f/2.8 (often exceeding the professional 24-70mm f2.8 L when wide open), and delivering "unreal sharp" by f/4. (I saw insane "specks of mascara sharpness" at f/3.5 from my first f1.4.) Again, the f1.8 will probably lag about a stop behind that curve.
My second 50mm f1.4 performed even better than my first, right out of the box, "marginally sharp" at f/1.4 and increasingly beyond reproach by f/1.8-2. (At f/1.4-1.6, it suffers only from halation and some light fall-off in darker areas.) So if extreme sharpness is necessary for you, shop with a strategy that will let you return your lens or get it calibrated if not up to your needs. My guess is that my first one was more typical out of the box, but it approached the performance of the second after calibration.
(It's also worth noting that the premium-priced 50mm f1.2L is drastically more sharp (and better performing generally) at wide apertures, but *less* sharp at f/2.8 through f/8. The f1.4 is a better "walkaround" performer than the f1.2L lens that costs four times as much.)
Regarding light return specifically, my own experience in lens-swapping baffled me, until I read other reports that the f1.4 exposes a third of a stop brighter than most other Canon lenses. It's brighter in the viewfinder generally, and really IS a whole stop "faster" than the f1.8 at maximum apertures (i.e., the same net exposure at half the shutter speed). If you're willing to sacrifice some clarity, that extra stop can make a huge difference when you're challenged by moving targets in low light.
(For instance, shooting "wide open" for performers in dim venues. Faster shutter for less motion blur. More light for better color. And the edges may be soft at 100% magnification, but *relatively* clear compared to the out-of-focus background. That "illusion of clarity" isn't as likely to print very well, but resizes very snappily for the web.)
So the f1.8 can certainly produce some stunning images, particularly in general daylight photography OR tightly-controlled conditions OR stopped down, but is less adaptable to challenging circumstances that the f1.4.
"The Best for Last...":
Now, with both these lenses, you get the advantage of marvelously wide aperture, which can be used for a tight focal plane that lets the background (or foreground distractions) fall quickly out of focus. This is of course a cornerstone of creative photography, and both lenses give you plenty to explore. (In practice, even f/2.8 delivers a pretty shallow depth of field in close-up shots, so these wider lenses give you even more room to play.)
However, there is such a thing as "blur quality," called "bokeh," based on the number of aperture blades within the lens. The f1.8 has five, and the f1.4 has eight. The f1.8 will portray out-of-focus lights more pentagonally, the f1.4 more roundly. (In focus, those same lights will be eight-pointed stars with the f1.4, ten-pointed with the f1.8 - odd numbers of blades double the number of points.) But most importantly, the blur from the f1.8 can be rather "choppy," especially at wide apertures, while the f1.4's is consistently more "buttery smooth."
In other words, there's more to quality than sharpness - there's also quality where your shot is LESS than sharp. And this is where the f1.4 becomes "a favorite lens" for some people, even at over three times the price of its diminuitive counterpart.
Make no mistake, the f1.8 would make an excellent "starter" lens. But the f1.4 is an exceptionally *serious* lens. Are you still learning to love photography? Then $80 is a fine price to pay for a lens you might outgrow. Or do you already love photography? Then $300 is a worthy price for a true investment that will reliably pay off. So they're both bargains, just buy what's best for you.
(Addendum - Canon also sells a 50mm f2.5 Macro lens around $250. If you NEED macro, it's reportedly pretty good, and for general purpose as well. But it's a) not even as fast as the f1.8, b) more difficult to manually focus than the f1.4, and c) not as creamy in the bokeh, with six aperture blades instead of eight. And Canon's 100mm version is drastically more practical for macro work, and better performing generally. But the 50mm Macro does become a contender, at a "middle price," if what you really need is one decent lens to do as many different things as possible, though none of them as well.)
EXCELLENT - At a price
Reviewed by: S. Rose, Review Date: 2004-11-11
This 50mm is amazing. I truly love it. I debated a long time between the 1.8 and the 1.4. In the end, I figured I'd never replace it again so get the 1.4. I love it - the images it makes are staggering. Still - it's pricy compared to the 1.8 - but not to L series lenses. I think it's worth it. I read online it had barrel distortion wide open - and it does if you really study the image - but that's perfectly OK with me for the 1.4 shallow depth of field. Normal people will never see that at all. One drawback you may not think of is that beautiful wide open 1.4 aperture is not available to you if there is much light. It's so fast it's easy to overexpose - even with 1/4000th of a second shutter. It takes awesome portraits - awesome landscapes. This is a must have lens in every EOS owner's bag. Don't get the 1.8 and wish you got this one. Get this one and start taking great photos.
An Essential Lens
Reviewed by: Max Pruden, Santa Clara, CA USA Review Date: 2005-12-19
There are some excellent reviews of this lens already posted, but in my opinion, this lens is quite simply an essential lens for any film or digital photographer using Canon bodies. Here are some specific observations, in no particular order.
* It provides fantastic crispness and the fastest focus I've ever seen. On subjects where my zooms tend to hunt, this lens is instantaneous. I also like the full-time manual ring, because there are times when it's handy to change focus slightly.
* I completely disagree with the reviewer who said this lens wasn't contrasty. I tend to shoot in a range of environments, from dingy school auditoriums for my niece's basketball team to bright sunlight at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, and this lens has reliably given me 30-40% keepers every time I've taken it out of the bag. Colors are punchy, and there's very consistent contrast across the frame without any noticeable distortion.
* It's small enough to go anywhere, but as one reviewer mentioned, it feels good in the hand, so it's not fumbly. I didn't like the lighter plasticky feel of the f/1.8.
* The lens ring is 58mm, which means filters are inexpensive - I recommend a circular polarizing filter for any outdoor shooting.
* I agree that this lens is unbelievably crisp at f/4.0 and higher, but for some subjects I like the blade-thin shallow DOF at f/2.0 and less. Just gotta remember to keep your group pictures within a fairly shallow range. :-)
* The crispness of this lens worked beautifully with black and white photography, and for converting color to BW. Because of the extra stop, it brought out beautiful texture at ISO 100 without requiring that I go with a higher ISO, which would have introduced some grain.
If you're consdering a 50mm prime for your Canon, I recommend that you go to a good camera store, which should offer rentals. Take this lens out and do some real-world shooting. The f/1.8 is a toy in comparison, and anyone who says they would choose it instead of the f/1.4, at any price, is simply not credible.
I take my pictures because I want an excellent representation of what I saw. I don't always have the luxury of retaking them: I need the best possible shot the first time and every time. The 50mm f/1.4 is the best of these two lenses, and one of the best three lenses I own (I also own the 17-40mm f/4L and the 70-200mm f/4L).
You Deserve the Best - Go with Top Notch Quality Only!
Reviewed by: Kristy Howard, Los Angeles, CA Review Date: 2005-01-15
Like many, I'm just an amateur photographer. If you are using the standard 18-55mm lens that accompanies the Canon EOS Digital Rebel kit, you've probably discovered how slow the lens is. With a f/3.5-5.6 aperture, the lens is better suited for outdoor photos where natural lighting is available. With indoor photos, I've found myself using the built-in flash repeatedly, thus drowning out a lot of the natural color. This was particularly true with photographs of people. Thus, I sought out a high quality lens, high speed lens -- this is definitely one you'll want in your lens collection. The 50mm size best simulates a person's visual perspective, so it tends to avoid the type of distortion apparent in wide angle photos. The distortion is rather minor, but more pronounced when you use 28mm or wider. If you are accustomed to using a wide angle lens, you need to be forewarned that your perspective appears extremely narrow when using a 50mm lens. Be sure to take a look at a 50mm lens in person and make sure that you are okay with it. Overall, Canon quality is unsurpassed and my photos come out clear and much brighter as a result of the lens' speed. I've tested other brands and occasionally, you face incompatibility problems. Often, you end up wishing that you didn't buy an off brand anyway, so I've learned to avoid long term regrets about why I didn't buy a dedicated Canon product. Life is too short -- save up your money and buy top quality equipment. You won't waste time second-guessing your decisions!
Amazing portraits: 50mm/f1.4 vs. 50mm/f1.8 Comparison
Reviewed by: S. Banerjee, Boston, MA Review Date: 2005-08-19
The 50mm/f1.4 and 50mm/f1.8 are the BEST PORTRAIT LENSES that Canon offers. I own a Canon Rebel 2000 and Digital Rebel XT and have used both these lenses for several months. Pictures have been outstanding and my professional customers frequently cite the sharpness, light balance, depth of field, color reproduction, and "bokeh" (intentional blurring of background in portraits) from these lenses. Some people question the usefulness of a 50mm lens on digital SLRs with a 1.6x crop factor (i.e., 50mm lens = 80mm on a dSLR like the Digital Rebel XT)... I can vouch that the range is beautiful and relevant, focusing more closely on key subjects in portraits.
WHAT DO THESE LENSES HAVE IN COMMON? They are both fast (the f1.4 is blazing fast - dSLR can hardly keep up!), details are incredibly sharp (you can see individual hair strands), virtually no chromatic (color) aberration, no dithering or shadows in the corners, focusing is rapid and quiet (thanks to Canon's patented Ultrasonic USM technology) and photo quality parallels even my professional Canon "L" lenses. These fixed aperture lenses also provide superior pictures than telephoto lenses at 50mm because of better glass and aspherical elements.
HOW ARE THESE LENSES DIFFERENT? Having tested both lenses across 1500+ pictures, there are 5 key factors that make the f1.4 superior (justifying the $300+ price tag).
1) FASTER ESPECIALLY IN LOW LIGHT: Extra f-stop makes the f/1.4 better for indoor photos or low light. Great companion to the 480EX flash. I was able to take nearly 40 pics/min with flash and the fastest Sandisk 1GB Ultra II CF card
2) NO CHROMATIC ABERRATION, whereas the f/1.8 has slight yellowing of photos under certain lighting conditions or where edge definition is low
3) FULL AUTO/MANUAL FOCUSING RANGE: f/1.8 requires flipping between auto and manual using a switch, while f/1.4 can be manually "hot" focused/tweaked after auto focusing
4) SUPERIOR BUILD QUALITY: The f/1.8 is plastic and feels cheap, like it might fall apart anytime. The f/1.4 is metal, weighty, and is for the proud lens owner
5) CLEANER "BOKEH" - f/1.4 produces beautiful blurring of background in portraits ("bokeh") while the f/1.8 leaves less clean edges. Canon reviews suggest this is due to the f/1.4 having 8 lens elements vs. 5 elements for the f/1.8
WHICH LENS SHOULD YOU BUY? This is a question of utility vs. value. The f/1.4 costs over $300 while the f/1.8 can be acquired for under $75. The f/1.4 will last forever while the f/1.8 will probably break under normal use in a year. Does this justify the 4x price tag? If you are a budding photographer looking for a "play lens" then the f/1.8 will more than over-deliver. If you are a photo enthusiast who looks for "the perfect shot," you will want the f/1.4 because it surpasses every expectation (and so you're not left wondering, "what if"). If you are a photo professional, you already have the f/1.4 lens among your bag and are not reading this review. :-)
Great for low light, great focal length for DX, and autofocus will also work with D40, D40x, D60, and D5000 cameras
Reviewed by: Sidarta Tanu, Richmond, VA USA Review Date: 2009-05-24
This Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX lens produces sharp pictures and great color and contrast. It is also perfect for portrait and other general purposes (semi-macro etc). This lens also produces nice bokeh. The picture quality and bokeh quality are comparable with the other Nikon prime lenses (50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 AF-S etc) lens which are famous for being sharp. Overall, this is a very versatile lens. On a non full frame DSLR (such as D40, D40x, D60, D5000, D80, D90, D200, D300 etc), this 35mm focal length is equivalent to about 50mm which is considered a normal lens (normal as to being close to a person eye viewing angle perspective).
Many of us, including those who already own the 50mm prime, have been waiting for this lens (prime lens that has wider angle than the 50mm) for a long time, especially for non full frame DSLR owners that usually have about 1.5x magnification due to the smaller sensor size. Those 50mm lens on a non full frame DSLR is equivalent to 75mm which is often too much zoom for many situation. For example in a room where you can't keep backing up to compose your photos, or when taking picture of a group of people where you will need to move back a lot with the 50mm lens. This 35mm lens will solve that problem to some extent as this is a lot wider lens than the 50mm prime lenses. Having said that the 50mm prime lens is still a great lens. If you don't own any of the earlier version of the 50mm lens and wondering if you should get this 35mm or the 50mm, then I would recommend you to get this lens over 50mm, unless you know for sure that you need more zoom than the 35mm for your purpose, then you can go and buy the 50mm or 85mm (both available on f/1.4 or f/1.8).
This lens (DX lens) is not designed for a full frame camera (FX or Film). There will be light fall-off which is quite significant. If you have a full frame DSLR, you might want to get the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, or the older 35mm f/2 AF-D lens instead.
Being a prime lens (this 35mm lens), you will need to move your feet a lot to compose your picture.
While this lens produces very sharp images at f/1.8, the corner show lower contrast. Sharpness and contrast increases further as you stop down to f/2, f/2.8 and f/4. Sharpness increases slowly after f/2.8 (i.e. at f/2.8 seems to be the optimal, without sacrificing too much speed)
The big plus with this lens over the older 35mm lens is the AF-S feature which is auto focus system that is internal to the lens, very fast and very silent. This lens will please a lot of people who currently own D40, D40x, D60, and D5000, as they now can benefit from the autofocus.
Another big win is the manual override on autofocus mode (M/A mode), which will allow us to change the focus without having to change the mode to manual mode (this is pretty standard to most Nikon newer lenses but it's quite new for Nikon prime lens series)
This lens doens't have image stabilization (VR), but that is kind of expected as Nikon also doesn't include VR on their new 50mm f/1.4 AF-S lens. It would be nice to have VR (for longer exposure handheld operation, and for people with less stable photography technique) but it will probably increase the size, weight and cost of this lens.
If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR (Vibration Reduction), here's my take: In overall, VR does help a lot (as it will reduce camera shake) and will produce better/sharper picture than equivalent lens without VR (especially if the object is static). If the object is moving fast (sports/action) then VR feature alone might not help (depending on how fast the object is moving and how much light is available), and a fast lens often end up being a far better solution, even without VR feature as it will allow much faster shutter speed to freeze motion. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.
If you are wondering whether you will get the benefit of buying f/1.4 lens over a f/1.8 lens, just remember that the f/1.4 lens is about 60% faster than f/1.8 at its widest aperture setting. With this information, you can decide if the additional speed will justify the additional cost. The bokeh is nicer as well in f/1.4 lens but I think speed is usually the main factor in deciding whether to get the more expensive f/1.4 lens.
Here are the summary of pros and cons for this Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens:
Pros:
1. AF-S AF-S AF-S (very fast focus, internal focus, and very silent)
2. M/A mode (manual focus override available on autofocus mode)
3. Very fast lens (f/1.8)
4. Very sharp pictures
5. Great for sport/action photography (though you might need more zoom)
6. Great for indoor and low light situation
7. Great for portrait
8. Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens
9. Perfect for low light with no-flash event. However, also check out the following lens for low light photography: 17-35mm f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 17-55mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8 or the the 50mm nikon prime lenses.
9. Great focal length (35mm). About 50mm equivalent which is a normal lens (If you need more zoom, you can get the Nikon 50mm or 85mm prime lens or 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens).
10. Did I already mention very fast and very silent focus? :)
Cons:
1. Being prime lens, you need to move your feet a lot to adjust/compose
2. Being a G lens (no aperture ring available), this lens will not work on manual focus camera where you need to set the aperture from the lens)
3. No VR. As VR will be useful for taking handheld shots on low light (especially if the object is somewhat static or if the photographer doesn't have steady hands when taking photograph)
4. Not designed for full frame cameras (FX or Film) where there will be siginificant light fall-off.
Bottom line: This lens is so versatile that I think everyone should own this lens in addition to all the lenses that they already have (even if they alredy have the 50mm prime lens). Being a very fast lens, it will allow people to take action shot in low light that otherwise wouldn't be able to be do. And now, with AF-S, there is nothing to dislike about this lens (though in my opinion, this lens might attract even more interest if it has a VR feature).
Happy Photographing!
Sidarta Tanu
For $199 is it just hype?
Reviewed by: Thype: The Console Apologist, Portland, OR USA Review Date: 2009-06-12
Being a self proclaimed prosumer I'm not exactly a pro, but I am still demanding when it comes to camera hardware (and software for that matter). I mention this because it puts this review in the proper context.
On to the lens...
First off, when a $199 lens comes around from Nikon I have two thoughts, "Right on!" and "Seems pretty cheap for Nikon". I was skeptical but for $199 and all the great reviews why not give it a shot? Well, I did.
Amazon taunted me, B&H teased me, and my local camera shops didn't exactly sooth my fear that it would be months before I could get my hand on one. Putting a pre-order in with all the above mentioned establishments my local store came through first (and for the same 199 dollar price tag).
I get it home, take it out of the box and the first thing that comes to mind is how much heavier it is than some of the kit lenses I have picked up. Yes it's plastic, but the thing has a different level of quality from the other Nikon budget/consumer lenses. You can peruse the other reviews on Amazon and other websites for more specifics but the point is there is a noticeable difference.
I then put the thing on my camera (made sure to put on a filter first) and start snapping away, outside, inside, and everywhere in between. The pictures are fantastic, in low light in particular. The bokeh isn't top notch but for anyone but a pro this likely will be worth the tradeoff being the 199 price tag is a huge selling point here. And don't get me wrong, the bokeh isn't terrible, I've just seen better with more (much more) expensive lenses.
So is it hype? Can a Nikon lens selling at $199 be good enough for the more demanding consumers out there? You betcha, this thing is probably the best and smartest purchase I've made in the last five years. I have three other lenses and I can say without any hesitation the 35mm F/1.8 AF-S will be on my camera 90% of the time - if not more - from here on out.
In closing, if you love photography but don't have the means to drop hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on nicer lenses, get annoyed at the fact that low light photography with the kit lens just doesn't cut it, and want to expand, this is THE lens to get.
I promise you, you will not be disappointed.
Good luck!
great prime lens for a DX Nikon DSLR
Reviewed by: Joseph Adler, Mountain View, CA Review Date: 2009-05-18
I bought the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens because I wanted a fast, light lens that worked with my camera (a Nikon D40x). Since getting the lens two months ago, I haven't taken it off my camera. I'd recommend this lens to anyone with a newer Nikon DSLR. If you'd like to know more about my experiences with the lens, read on.
I'm not a professional photographer, or even a very serious hobbyist. I don't have a huge budget for camera equipment (my only camera is a Nikon D40x), and mostly use my camera to take pictures of my children.
For the past couple of years, I've mostly used the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens. I love this lens: it's very flexible, and works much better than I expected a lens with that wide a range to work. Unfortunately the 18-200mm lens, like a lot of the zooms that work with the D40/D40x/D60/D5000, have some issues. First of all, the 18-200 is kind of slow. For indoor pictures without a flash, it's difficult to get sharp pictures. Secondly, the 18-200 is heavy. It's awkward walking around with a one pound lens strung around your neck.
I bought the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens because I wanted a faster, lighter lens. I hadn't tried a fast prime lens in a long time (probably not since I shot on 35mm film), and probably had unrealistic expectations about what a lens like this could do. I was hoping that I could just set my camera to auto and snap pictures. With normal daylight, I could take some very good pictures inside without a flash. However, there are some practical limits to what a fast prime on a low end camera can do; I had a harder time taking pictures in dimmer light (for example, in an aquarium). It definitely works better than an f/4 lens (which is the approximate aperture for most zooms are at this focal length), but it's a subtle difference. (I did get some better results by manually changing ISO and aperture settings, but that's not usually practical when you're trying to shoot a moving toddler.)
On the other hand, this lens is noticeably sharper than the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens. I've found it easier to take pictures of people with faces in focus and background blurred than I could with the zoom lens. When I bought this lens, I wasn't even thinking about sharpness, but I'm mostly happy with the results. If you can get the foreground in focus, it will look very sharp.
The one issue I have with this lens is that out of focus backgrounds... look a little strange. Photographers call the look of out-of focus backgrounds "bokeh." Most photographers want out of focus backgrounds to look subtly blurry; you'd want a point of light to look bright in the middle then taper off at the edges. This lens does the opposite: points of light turn look much more like rings with this lens. To me, the backgrounds look like "ghosting" on an old television. This isn't a deal killer, but it can lead to weird results, particularly if you're taking pictures of people against complicated backgrounds. I can definitely take pictures with this lens that I couldn't take without it. However, don't expect a D40 with this lens to perform as well as a Nikon D700 12.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) with the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras.
I have few other complaints about this lens's performance. It feels as light on the camera as I hoped; it's really nice walking around with such a light camera after lugging around a zoom for so long. The camera focuses very quickly and quietly; like most of the AF-S lenses I've tried, focusing is very fast and accurate. Overall, I'm happy with this lens (especially at half the price of Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras). It's not perfect, but it's reasonably priced and very useful.
Tack sharp, inexpensive, and compact
Reviewed by: Christopher Biagini, Northern Virginia, USA Review Date: 2009-05-25
I never thought I could get by with just one focal length, but this lens hasn't left my D60 for more than a few hours since I got it quite some time ago.
This (relatively) cheap little lens is a great performer. I'm not quite ready to shell out the big bucks for the pro f/2.8 zooms, and this lens is a great way to match their performance without breaking the bank. [...] recently posted their review, and the numbers are even better than I would've guessed. I've noticed a marked improvement in the sharpness of my photos compared to the kit lens, and the reviews make it clear why. The kit lens is great stopped down a bit, but a lot of times there just isn't enough light to do that. With this lens stopped down just to f/2.8, it's incredibly sharp and you've still got plenty of light to work with.
On normal primes in general: they say everyone should have one, and now I see why. It eliminates two temptations that the kit lens offers: zoom and VR. Of course, both of those things are great tools, but it's tempting to use them as crutches. With this lens, you've really got to pay more attention to your composition and exposure. You can't just zoom to fit the subject into the frame--you've got to move, and once you're moving, you start coming up with compositions that you might not have thought of before. And all the while, you've got to keep an eye on your exposure--too often with the kit lens, I found I just left it wide open. Now, in dim light, you've actually got a bit of room, so you've got to think about whether you want the shot at f/1.8 or f/4.
Highly recommended.
Great way for amateurs to get into prime lenses!
Reviewed by: Hemanshu Kumar, New Delhi, India Review Date: 2009-09-21
Okay, so I'm just an amateur enthusiast. I won't pretend to talk about chromatic abberation, or lens elements or all those things I don't know much about, and frankly, never consciously care about when I'm taking photographs.
So straight off: who should NOT be buying this lens?
1. it's a DX lens, so it's great for digital SLRs but not for for film SLRs. Which is a real pity, because I still retain my old Nikon N75 and consider it a brilliant camera.
2. it'll work great on all the cameras any enthusiast like me could have bought from Nikon in the last 10 years (yes, including the most basic and most excellent Nikon D40 and of course the brand new Nikon D5000). It lacks an aperture ring, so you'll only have problems on some really old film cameras -- for which this lens is in any case not the right size (see 1).
I have to confess that for the last ten years, since I started putting money into (Nikon) SLR cameras and lenses, I've always bought myself zooms. I've always been on a low budget, and considered fixed focal length lenses the playground of the rich and the professional.
I didn't know what I was missing.
There's a reason pros ALWAYS have "prime" lenses (like these). After years of never shooting below f/3.5 (on my Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens) or f/4.5 (on my Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras), it is so fantabulously amazing to have a lens that is SO sensitive to light. With this lens, I can go all the way down to f/1.8, and boy, suddenly I can take absolutely wonderful night shots -- all with no VR and no tripod (who can lug those around anyway?!). Oh, and the fact that a prime lens like this is lighter than zooms, means your hand will shake less to begin with.
I also like to do a little bit of food photography, and I've noticed that the way to make food look really great is to have low depth of field -- just focus on the food, and blur out even the plate and the table and stuff. And that's another place a prime lens is invaluable, because its depth of field can be made so obscenely small that a *portion* of a dish (say just the cherry on top of the cake) can be put into sharp focus, with everything else nicely blurred out. Needless to say, this also makes it great for portrait shots taken from shorter distances (for long distance portraits, I love my 70-300mm).
One other feature of this lens you'll really love is the AF-S motor. That's Nikon's way of telling you that you can keep the lens in autofocus mode, and if on a particular shot the camera doesn't happen to zero in on the exact spot you care about, you can just rotate the focus ring and manually set focus -- without having to flip any switch to get into manual focus mode! Little things like this make all the difference between getting the shot you want, and going "Damn!".
So by all means, if you've never had a prime lens, make this your first one -- for just $200 (or $250) you'll get photos that'll make you feel like a pro! :)
The only issue, of course, is that you can't zoom. Much of this can be overcome by moving physically closer/further from your subject, but if you really like wide-angle shots, you'll keep wanting to switch between this lens and a zoom. In my opinion, at its low price and light weight, adding this lens to your camera bag is still a total no-brainer.
15 New — prices too low to display (click "More Info" or "Add to Cart" button to see prices)
8 Used from $1,115.00
MODEL- 8014A002 VENDOR- CANON
FEATURES- EF 2470mm f/2.8L USM Lens This new lens does what many pros throught could not be done- replace the previous L-series 2870 f/2.8 lens with something even better. Extended coverage to an ultra-wide angle 24mm makes it ideal for digital as well as film shooters and the optics are even better than before with two Aspherical elements and a totally new UD glass element. It is now sealed and gasketed against dust and moisture and a new processing unit makes the AF faster than ever.
-- SPECIFICATIONs ------------------------------------- Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 24-70mm 1:2.8 Lens Construction : 16 elements in 13 groups Diagonal Angle of View : 74 degrees - 29 degrees Focus Adjustment : Front-focusing method Closest Focusing Distance : 0.38m/1.25 ft. Zoom System : Rotating type Filter Size : 77mm Max. Diameter x Length Weight : 3.3" x 4.9" 2.1 lbs.
MANUFACTURER WARRANTY: 1 YEAR LIM
EF mount; standard zoom lens; Comes with Lens Cap E77U, Rear Lens Cap, Lens Hood EW-83F, Soft Lens Case 1219.
Reviewed by: erugifog, Seattle, WA USA Review Date: 2005-12-15
I've owned the 24-70mm for almost a year now. This lens has been a favorite of many since it replaced its well-regarded predecessor, the 28-70mm. It shoots images that are very sharp and have excellent contrast and saturation. It's sharp wide open and only gets better when stopping down. The USM (Ultrasonic Motor) focuses very fast, and full-time manual focusing is allowed. I've thought about buying a 50mm f/1.4, but the results from this lens are so good, I'm having a hard time justifying the purchase. I've been nothing but pleased with the pictures I get from the 24-70mm. The constant f/2.8 aperture is great for shooting indoors and produces a very nice bokeh (background blur) when shooting portraits. This lens is much heavier than comparable consumer-grade zooms, but I don't object to the weight. I actually like the heft and feel of this lens on my 20D. The only feature I wish it had is IS (image stabilization).
The one thing preventing an unqualified recommendation is the recent release of the Canon 24-105mm f/4.0L IS. The latter lens costs about the same and has some noteworthy advantages. It is .7" shorter, .2mm narrower and .6 lbs. lighter. It has 3rd generation IS that gives you a 3-stop shutter speed advantage when shooting handheld. I know from my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS that image stabilization is a very welcome feature when shooting handheld at slow shutter speeds. And, obviously, the 24-105mm adds an extra 35mm of focal length on the long end.
The 24-70mm bests the 24-105mm in one way: It's a faster lens. That translates into the following advantages: At f/4.0, the 24-105mm cannot stop subject motion blur as well in low-light situations where the 24-70mm's f/2.8 can give you a shutter speed that is twice as fast. Note that IS does not have any impact at all on subject motion blur, only on camera shake on your end. If bokeh (background blur) is important to you, the 24-70mm will have a slight advantage over the 24-105mm given its wider aperture. A wider aperture also helps a camera focus a little better in low light.
The first run of the 24-105mm had a flare problem (see Canon's Web site for more info), and the early production models have been recalled. But the problem has now been fixed. You'll have to consider your photography priorities when deciding which of these two excellent lenses best suits your needs. You would be well served by either.
Update 5-17-10: It's been 4 1/2 years since I wrote this review, and I continue to use and enjoy my 24-70mm, which is now paired with a Canon 7D. Anyone considering buying this lens today, however, should know that a major Canon rumors Web site is reporting Canon is getting ready to update this lens in 2010. There are reports that the mark II is currently being field tested, and the new version is rumored to have image stabilization. No doubt, a mark II with IS would cost significantly more than the current version. FWIW, Canon updated their 70-200mm f/2.8 IS earlier this year; the mark II version of that lens brought improved optics and the latest generation of IS, but it was priced $500 (MSRP) more than its predecessor. A mark II version of the 24-70mm would be adding IS to a lens that doesn't currently have that feature, so the increase in price could be even more than $500. Just something to consider as you plan your purchases.
Best available all-around Canon lens
Reviewed by: R. Kohary, Bothell, WA USA Review Date: 2004-08-27
Simply put, this is the best all-around lens that Canon manufactures. It produces razor-sharp images with startling color and saturation, and at f/2.8 across the zoom range is capable of shooting in all but the dimmest of lighting conditions. The "L" glass (Canon's professional line of lenses) is simply the best out there, bar none, from any manufacturer. It's pricey, but well worth it.
I use this lens for portrait and wedding photography, landscapes, sports, and anything else that doesn't require extreme telephoto. In concert with my EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM lens, I find that these two lenses cover just about everything I ever want to shoot. Of the two lenses, if I could pick only one, it would be the 24-70mm, because it's so versatile and can shoot so many situations (the 70-200mm is also a marvelous, invaluable lens, but at 70mm is limited in wide-angle situations).
I can't recommend this lens highly enough. If you can afford the entry fee, you'll have no hint of buyer's remorse once you see the spectacular images this lens produces.
You will not be sorry you bought this!
Reviewed by: Larry Kottraba, Phoenix, AZ USA Review Date: 2006-02-11
In April of 2005 I bought the Canon 20D with the 18-55 kit lens, my first SLR camera. After getting used to properly taking pictures with the camera I bought the 24-70 as a lens upgrade - and what an upgrade it is. All the positive stuff you read about this lens is true ... the color, the contrast, the sharpness, it's unbelievable how well this lens performs compared to a consumer grade lens.
A lot of reviews complain that the 24-70 is too heavy, and it is heavy for a lens, but it's not "too" heavy to carry around all day. I also regularly use my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS - that's a lens that is maybe too heavy for regular use but it's also A LOT bigger than the 24-70.
A note about debates you'll find everywhere comparing the 24-70 to the new Canon 24-105 f/4 ... These lenses are not built to be an either-or, they are different lenses targeted at different uses. The main complaint I found online about the 24-70 is that it lacks Image Stabilization, a complaint I eventually dismissed as irrelevant. I've taken thousands of photographs with this lens and not once did I miss a shot because the lens didn't have IS. Simply put, this lens isn't long enough to require IS.
If you're new to SLR photography be careful when reading product reviews, especially those in discussion forums. Just like any other hobby (like computers), people who are in to photography have very strong opinions and tend to have to have the latest and greatest thing that just came out. If you're thinking of purchasing a lens this expensive and are unsure if you should get one or the other, try renting one for a few days.
Another reviewer on this page commented on using this lens with the built-in flash on a 10D. If you're buying an $1,100 lens you should know that Canon didn't design it specifically so you could use it with the built-in flash. They probably assumed that if you could spend a grand plus on a lens that you could also step-up and buy a real flash. This reviewer gave the lens a 3/5 rating because his camera body didn't have the right flash, something that has nothing to do with the lens at all.
Extremely Satisfied
Reviewed by: Jesse R. Hunter, Review Date: 2005-12-16
If you have read the 22 or so reviews below this one and are still teetering on the fence whether or not to purchase this lens, allow me to try and give you the final push. I can honestly say that this is one of the only peices of equipment I own that I enjoy and appreciate using MORE every time I use it. Holding this lens literally brings a smile to my face.
I've owned this lens for about six months now and have shot ~1500 exposures with it. The first thing you will notice taking it out of the box is the weight and build quality. Holding it in your hand, you will FEEL the value of the lens. Needless to say, this lens excels in the realm of sharpness, contrast, color, and versatility.
The weight seems to be an issue to some, but to me it is perfect. It's just heavy enough to give you stability in slow shutter speeds, yet not too heavy that your arms tire out. I have acheived sharp 1/15th F/2.8 exposures handheld, for which I give credit to the weight.
Something not many people mention in these reviews is the bonus of Macro in this lens. It is capable of a 0.29 magnification, which for someone who is casually interested in macro like me, produces a capability for some very interesting composures. The lens does very well in commercial product photography.
It seems that the AF nails perfect exposure about 40%-60% of the time at longer range shots (95% at ranges within 15 feet). When it misses absolute focus, you still get incredible pictures with no complaints. However, when it does acheive that perfect focus, the shot will rival the 135mm F/2 in terms of sharpness.
Note that the lens utilizes a reverse-zoom extension. i.e., when you zoom out to 24mm, the lens extends another three or so inches. This has never been a problem for me.
The built-in flash of the 300D, 350D, 10D, and 20D simply will not do with this lens (try it and you will se why). You will have to order a speedlite to overscome the inherent length of the lens + hood.
Order this lens with a B+W 77mm UV filter. Get no filters below this quality. I tried to skimp, and suffered a loss of saturation, contrast, and increased flaring.
Read this if you are debating the 24-70 vs the 24-105
Reviewed by: Eric Strate Photography, Spokane, WA United States Review Date: 2009-08-17
UPDATE - October 3: Wanted to update my review on this lens after using it for a couple weddings and portrait shoots lately. Normally, these wouldn't warrant an update for a lens that is so obviously well-suited to these roles, but this lens literally saved the day. I was shooting a wedding in one of the most difficult type of circumstances - never seen the location before, had 15 minutes before the ceremony to scope things out, had no chance to get my basic flow figured out by watching a rehearsal and this place was an exposure nightmare - black tuxes, white dresses in a very poorly lit chapel. I was shooting with a backup camera (50D - great camera, read my review, but it doesn't perform well enough at high ISO for me to trust it for a wedding shoot as I don't want any noise introduced into things.) So I knew I was going to be limited to some extent in terms of the freedom I'd have to play with different F-stops - I was going to need to be wide open to shoot at an ISO that I trust on the 50D for weddings (no higher than 200 in my experience) and have a shutter speed that wouldn't give me motion blur during the proceedings. Suffice it to say that I was more than pleased with how sharp things were at F2.8. I don't know that I could have done the same thing - on this camera - with the 24-105. That extra full stop down to 2.8 was absolutely critical. On another note, aspiring wedding photographers would be well advised to make an initial investment in a 5D Mark II or something in the 1D lines if you really want the freedom to work at high ISO and not worry about image degrading noise. I am ultra-picky about noise, so perhaps what I notice wouldn't bother some, but the investment will be worth it in the quality of your work. 40D and 50D are wonderful prosumer cameras (high level consumer/amateur, entry level professional), but the 5D and 1D series truly set themselves apart at higher ISOs. 50D is a perfect backup, or a great second camera if you want to throw a 70-200 or something ultra-wide on it and switch to that on the fly during the wedding. This lens pays for itself again and again.
Perhaps the most common agony-inducing lens choice that Canon L-series fans may run into is the choice between the 24-70 F2.8 and the 24-105 F4 IS. People waiver back and forth between the benefits of the 2.8 aperture vs. the IS and extra reach of the 105. Some say there isn't a wrong choice because both lenses are both so good. I have a slightly different take - both lenses are good, they are both phenomenal, but you CAN make the wrong choice here, depending on the kit you already have and what you need the lens for.
First off - the IS vs. the F2.8. The 24-105 has image stabilization - a definite plus in low light, handheld situations. While IS is great for up to 3 stops of exposure to prevent camera shake, it isn't going to freeze motion. To do that, you need shutter speed. To get shutter speed in lower light situations, you need wide aperture (and you want QUALITY glass so things are sharp wide-open). I am not knocking the 24-105 at all, but the way I see it the F2.8 outweighs the benefit of IS - it lets you go up to a shutter speeds where camera shake shouldn't be an issue (especially in the 24-70mm focal length range) and is pin sharp at that aperture. And these shutter speeds let you freeze action - good if you want to capture a toast in lower light at a wedding or something (unless a bit of motion blur is desired, which can easily be obtained...but if you don't have the 2.8 to begin with, there is no adjustment you can make to compensate save for bumping your ISO up and introducing more noise). So in the debate over the benefit of 2.8 on the 24-70 vs. IS on the 24-105, I think the nod goes to the 24-70.
Next, the extra reach (to 105mm on a full frame or 168mm equivalent on an APS-C like the 40D, 50D, Rebels). In this case, you might think about the lenses you've got or that you plan to purchase. For example, the 70-200mm zooms that Canon makes in its L-series are INCREDIBLY popular lenses, for good reason. Whether you have the 70-200 F2.8 with or without IS or the 70-200 F4 with our without IS, you have yourself an excellent piece of glass with those mid-range zooms. If you have one, or if you are planning on getting one, the 24-70 becomes the perfect compliment to them, giving you L-series performance from 24-200mm - if you have the 70-200 F2.8 you've got the ability to shoot at that wide aperture from 24-200mm - a very, very useful ability to have. Granted, the 24-105 saves you from having to switch lenses if you are in the 70-105mm range, but I don't know if that is too much of an inconvenience. I will say this, if you EVER plan on owning the 70-200 F2.8, you owe it to yourself to get the 24-70 F2.8 now. Remember, F/2.8 is a full stop ahead of F/4 in light gathering capability, so if you are somewhat new to all of this, you will collect double the light at F2.8 than you will at F4 - meaning you could shoot at twice the shutter speed and get the same exposure as you would at F4 with a given shutter speed. I know many pro's that look at aperture as being the #1 priority with any lens purchase, always get as much of it as possible. So, if you have any plans of ever owning one of the very popular 70-200mm mid range zooms from Canon, I think the 24-70 is the better choice.
Now let's discuss image quality. In this case, there is no loser. The F2.8 lets you get shallower DOF. I've read some reports saying the 24-70 is sharper across more focal lengths and apertures and others that say the opposite, but when you are comparing the sharpness of these two lenses you are really splitting hairs. My 24-70 is PIN SHARP at F2.8 - so sharp that I was literally stunned when I took my first test shots of the kids playing in the yard in the early evening. Motion was frozen perfectly and details all the way down to their eyes were extremely sharp - there is no way I could have done this and gotten the results I did with anything but the freedom I had to shoot at 2.8 with a higher shutter speed in the evening light. Sure, I could have shot at F4 with double the ISO and managed to keep the same shutter speed, but as I said before, the noise factor creeps in (to be fair, higher end Canon's do a great job with high ISO and noise). But in cases where the need for the extra aperture isn't an issue, both of these lenses are superb. You can't go wrong with either as far as image quality goes.
Based on all this, it probably sounds like I'd never recommend the 24-105 over the 24-70. But I would. If you are planning on owning only one L-series lens (financially this is a very real issue for most of us) and want the ULTIMATE is high quality walkaround lens - a lens that will let you do professional quality work and has the added benefit of image stabilization, then I'd say go with the 24-105. If, however, you plan on owning the aforementioned mid-range zooms and plan on doing things like event photography in poorly lit indoor settings, I think the 24-70 is the way to go.
One more thing, if you get either of these lenses, don't plan on putting anything less than a high quality filter on them. L-series lenses need very high quality filters or you are going to suffer degradation in image quality. Spend the extra $80-100 (or more) and get a nice B+W UV filter.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this lens or if there is some aspect of the decision between these lenses you didn't see here that you are interested in.
2ND UPDATE - June 29: After borrowing one off and on for several months, I have also added an 85mm F1.8 to my collection (look for my review on it if you want the details). Because I know that some people may be reading this review in the hopes of deciding on a good lens for portrait photography, I wanted to quickly reference this other lens as an option. First, the 24-70 F2.8L continues to prove itself a great investment. It is a true workhorse lens for wedding photography, giving you a very useful combination of zoom and width, nice shallow depth of field with great sharpness at F2.8, and phenomenal build quality (after shooting an outdoor wedding in the pouring rain I really came to appreciate the rubber seal this lens has around the rear element where the lens connects to the camera.) So while I am obviously still a big proponent of the 24-70 as a portrait and general purpose lens, I have to mention that if you are really stressing out about the cost of this lens, you might seriously consider the Canon 85mm F1.8. For around $380, this lens provides you with AMAZING portrait opportunities, incredible shallow depth of field with great sharpness at the focal points and silky smooth bokeh in the background. So, if a portrait lens is what you are looking for and the cost of L-series glass is an issue, consider the 85. Obviously it is not as versatile as the 24-70 and there are some additional optical characteristics that make L series glass a bit better than non-L series glass, but the 85 F1.8 could be used for a professional portrait shoot without any concern at all. Best of both worlds - get the 85 AND the 24-70! :) Email me if you have any questions about this lens or equipment in general and I'll help if I can. My contact info can be found at my website.
10 New — prices too low to display (click "More Info" or "Add to Cart" button to see prices)
7 Used from $300.00
MODEL- 2519A003 VENDOR- CANON
FEATURES- EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens Sharp. Lightweight. Responsive. These are just a few adjectives that describe this terrific portrait-length telephoto lens. With a powerful ring-type USM and fast f/1.8 aperture subjects zip into focus in the viewfinder. It is great for all types of work calling for moderate telephoto power but comes into its own low-light situations and offers a 1/3-stop speed advantage over the 100mm f/2 USB lens. * Ultrasonic Motor In order to achieve critical autofocus the elements within a camera lens have to move quickly quietly and precisely. With this in mind Canon developed the worlds first lens-based Ultrasonic Motor (USM) which spins the lens motor with ultrasonic oscillation energy. Instead of a large noisy drive-train system electronic vibrations create by piezoelectric ceramic elements power the mechanical action of the lens providing constant torque with virtually instantaneous stops and starts. USM lenses are both faster and quieter than conventional motor driven autofocus systems and draw minimal power from the camera draining very little battery power.
Reviewed by: Just Anonymous, Georgia, USA Review Date: 2005-07-25
October 2006 Update:
I thought I owed this Lens review an update after shooting with it for almost a couple of years and having the pleasure of shooting with a variety of L Lenses: 70-200L, 16-35L, Fisheye, 50mm and the Kit lens. This is what I've found:
1) Bar none, the best "portrait" lens I own. There's just something about this 85mm focal length + f/1.8 that brings out detail....faces have so much dimension with this lens, they look 3 dimensional. When I want to get shots of my daughter that amaze, I use this lens. When I look at my picture archive on my computer, I can easily spot the ones taken with this 85mm. My friends, some of which who don't know much about photography, pick pictures taken with this lens as their favorites - they ask wow how did you get that picture? I have a few blown up pictures to 16x20 and 11x14 of my daughter for my parents from this lens which are magnificent.
2) I thought that when I bought my 70-200L I would never use my 85mm again, I was wrong. I routinely find myself putting on the 85mm and shooting pictures with it. Also, Its much lighter and less imposing than my 70-200L so when I just want amazing portraits, don't need the higher 200mm and don't want the weight, and want a real shallow depth of feel and out of focus backgrounds, I go for the 85mm.
3) I also have a 16-35mm L which I use quite a bit for inside shots and panoramas which stays on my camera most of the time but there's just a special look to the longer mm rating that you get which makes portraits just work better with the 85mm - so when I take off the 16-35, I usually mount this 85mm.
4) I really thought that between the 16-35mm L and the 70-200L, I'd never ever use the 85mm, I was wrong. There are wonderful advantages to this lens which make it a keeper for me....the construction on this lens has held up very well, after years it looks brand new. I do have a UV/Haze filter that I use as a protector I got from Amazon (about $25) - great value.
There's allot to be said for a non "L" lens which consistently winds up on my camera when I own several "L"s which cover the mm of this lens. To me, its an L: built like an L, color and saturation comparable to an L It's my "L" lens that doesn't have a red stripe.
Original Review:
I bought a 20D recently with the 18-55mm kit lens and to start out I bought a 50mm f/1.8 lens which really got me interested in the faster f/stops to blur backgrounds and take pictures in lower light. My kit lens was not fast enough (hard to blur background and hard to take pictures in low light) and both the kit lens and 50mm lens did not have Ultrasonic which made me miss focus more often with moving targets.
I looked quite a bit and found the 85mm f/1.8 lens. Although Amazon only had a few reviews, the photography forums I found were buzzing about how this lens should've been labeled an L lens. Pros might know why but 90% of the reviews I read said it was comparable to an L lens in quality and that it was very affordable.
I bought this lens and I have to tell you, I was very impressed with it right from the start. On construction, its heavier than the kit lens and the plastic 50mm II lens. It has a metal mount and very solid construction. If you look through it you can see allot of glass which tells you it has a wide aperture and consequently its much heavier than the kit lens or 50mm lens. But...its heavy in a good way. It balances the camera and makes it look like a real camera.
So what's good about this lens? For one, you can take great pictures in low light with the f/1.8. I photographed a stage play handheld with this lens and no flash (non allowed) and I got tremendous results. Ultrasonic helped with every picture in focus and all very sharp with vibrant colors, very nice saturation, and I used ISO 400 and I could even freeze the action on stage.
As a portrait lens, it really can blow the backgrounds into a very nice buttery blokeh and with the Ultrasonic - I haven't missed focus once. Its also wonderful for inside pictures with no flash. The F/1.8 is really versatile.
A few notes. If you're going to get a 70-200 L zoom lens, you might wind up not using this lens as much but for parties, its allot less intimidating than a big white lens. I hear this lens was designed a long time ago and not really designed for digital and that some strange effects can be seen with it on digitals. I have not gone looking nor experienced any of these. Its just a tremendous value at $350. I was not able to use this lens as a macro as it was not designed as such but I have thought of putting an extension tube on it to see what I get but haven't done so yet.
Constructed Solid. Solid feel, smooth focusing ring, distance window, autofocus with a real Ring USM. Five Stars! Amazon shipped fast on this for me - Great store.
The answer is most likely yes; since its price make it the best value for a fast canon prime lens. But before you make the $350 plunge here are few useful things to know about how it can be used. Keep in mind that I use this lens on the Rebel XT (1.6 factor), which means it provides me with an angel of view similar to 135mm on film cameras.
SHARPNESS: Yes that's one feature you can count on when buying this lens. This lens produces very sharp pictures. So much so that it will blow away your 18-55 kit lens (if you have one) and all other zoom lenses. Exception to that are the L-series zooms. The sharpness difference will be obvious even in the smallest of prints (4 by 6). If you can't envision such difference then consider this. Sharpness can be viewed as contrast between the edges of different color objects. Hence, the sharper an image the greater the contrast in the edges between such groups of color. This lens captures the contrast in such setting better than most other lenses.
SPEED: This lens is blazingly fast. As such you will have the opportunity to shoot at higher shutter speeds wide open (remember the inverse relation between aperture and shutter speed). More importantly you gain the ability to shoot in low light situations (concert for example) and still maintain a decent shutter speed for handholding. Here's the best part, if you're like most new people to photography, you probably plan to take self portraits. This lens will give you that ability, as you will be able to buy few clamp on lights coupled with 100-150W bulbs and start shooting at medium ISO speeds wide open.
ANGEL OF VIEW: Assuming you will be using this lens on a 1.6 digital format consider that you will be having a tight crop, more like that of a 135mm lens on a film camera (1.6*85=136). What does that translate to in practical terms? You will have to stand 6-8 feet away from your subject to be able to cover their head and shoulders at landscape orientation.
SPECIAL EFFECTS: Here are two special effects you will find useful in this lens depth of field and compression. To some degree or another every lens offers depth of field, which can be summarize as having only the subject of interest in focus and the rest of the picture blurred. This lens is unique in that it creates a very shallow depth of field in which the subject is truly isolated from the whole scene. Set the aperture to 1.8 and focus correctly and you can achieve such results. More importantly the lens quality of such blur (known as bokeh) is outstanding as there are eight diaphragm blades that control the aperture opening vs. 5 or 6 in many other lenses.
As for compression, since the camera is a telephoto it will compress everything in its sight closer together to fit in its sight. For example, if you are photographing a person, their face will look wider and their nose will look smaller or flatter. Keep in mind that unlike some of the longer telephoto lenses (300mm for example) the effect with this lens is subtle and pleasant
SIZE AND BUILD: Its size and weight are perfect! It balances my XT very nicely. So much so, that I can take pictures at very low shutter speeds with this combination (though I don't find my self doing that that often with this fast lens). All this translates to comfort and confidence when I am shooting with this lens. The build quality is excellent, I find no inherit weakness in the design.
If you plan to photograph friends and family then this is the lens. You will take sharp pictures with the right kind of effects for portraits like compression and beautiful bokeh. The lens is fast and designed excellently for maximum control and comfort. You won't miss a shot because of shake with slow shutter speeds and even if you do (that's a big if) you can put its speed to use by dialing a higher aperture. It's only draw back is that it has a pretty tight angel of view on 1.6 factor SLRs. I can't think of any other prime in the non-L canon line up that matches this lens (other than possibly the 50mm 1.4). Truly an incredible value, buy it with confidence!
Ps. By no means does this review cover all the merits of this lens. To name a couple, the lens offers precise auto focus and low chromatic aberration. Rather, I covered the features that were most useful for its intended purpose; taking pictures of people.
Amazing Naturally-lit Photos!
Reviewed by: R. Taira, San Francisco, CA Review Date: 2007-01-12
I hang out with friends a lot and up to this point, most of our photos together have been under flash conditions. Mostly because we hang out in the evenings, in someone's home. I bought this for my Rebel XT mainly for the great reviews and the impressive entry price! Although the reviews were already mostly positive, I took some time playing with the lens to get used to its characteristics. Since this forum is replete with technical reviews, I would like to share my impressions instead. I primarily rely on reviews, myself, to help me make purchasing decisions, so here are my thoughts on the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens.
PROS:
1)I'm a fan of Steven Soderbergh and love how he made it look like he shot Ocean's Eleven with natural light. I wanted the same effects for my get-together photographs and boy did I get them! I shoot mainly in RAW now and apply the Tungsten filter when I import them into CS2 and they look phenomenal!
2)After correction, skin tones look very natural and the lighting makes the captured moment look like a captured moment. Not a forced moment like when a blazingly bright flash is involved. (Sorry I don't know how else to illustrate it...)
3)The bokeh on this lens is dramatic, not distracting. My friends love the photos I take with this lens but the just can't put their finger on why...
4)The 85mm is solid. Compared to my XT kit lens, the 85mm feels like a 'real' lens with solid movement and loads of glass inside (which you can see when you peer into its very large front lens).
5)The shooting distance is very comfortable for your subjects, as they do not feel like you're crowding them with your camera. (More on this below in Con).
CON(just one!):
1)Sorry, this is not really a con, but more of a warning mostly to other amateurs out there who may be looking at this for the price. It may be pretty obvious to most, but this lens does not feature a zoom range. Meaning if you want your subject's head to look bigger in your viewfinder, you must walk towards them or have them come closer to you. Conversely, if you want them smaller in the VF, you must walk away from them etc...since this was my first fixed lens, I had to get used to it a bit. This is not the lens for you if you want to take group photos in low light situations in small room.
ALL-IN-ALL:
I love this lens. I love how dramatic my pictures come out in their natural settings. The bokeh adds so much more emotion to each photo. And since you can shoot with such a wide open aperture, you'll catch the moments when they happen without it blurring away from a too-slow shutter speed or a bright flash of blinding light! (Please buy an inexpensive UV filter for this since the front lens is so big, it will easily get scratched and damaged.)
Excellent lens, put a red ring around it
Reviewed by: Vijay Raghavendiran, San Diego CA Review Date: 2006-03-08
This was my second prime lens, the first being the "I-am-prime-too-50/1.8" lens and I specifically bought this to shoot a badminton tournament (and more for the future). FYI, badminton tournaments are definitely 1.8 situations at ISO 1600 and no flash permitted. And what a lens!
The focus is absolutely sharp, crisp with gorgeous bokeh to make the subjects stand out. I took photos of professional badminton players (USA rank 1-5) and emailed it to them. Even though I am a serious amateur, they replied back saying the photos were gorgeous and amazing, and loved it. I shot the complete tournament at 1.8 ISO 800/1600 and have absolutely pleasing results.
On just one or two occasions, the focus was hunting, but I would put that down as a one off occasion as there was aboslutely very challenging situations - moving subjects in low light. The focus is quick and absolutely smooth, no noise at all.
The lens is compact, not at all heavy and is perfect portrait lens. My only disappointment is that it comes without a hood, and even if I buy a Canon hood, it does not have the same look as other (say, Tamron 28-75 2.8 hood is a really good looking hood) hoods.
The relationship between the background and the foreground is something that impressed me with this lens, especially for an 85mm focal length. The lens makes the subjects stand out and you dont need to stop down for sharpness. I know I am going to keep this baby at 1.8 at all times in future.
This in concert with my 50 1.8 for wider angle situations like awards and group snaps, the photos are absolutely stunning. The reviews I received for my photos are pretty good, thanks to this lens with my 20D.
I am sold on primes now and will probably end up buying more primes than zoom lenses. Go on Canon, put a red ring around it!
Definitely 5 stars.
Other lenses considered before this purchase - 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2L and to a small extent, 200/2.8L. Finally chose the 85/1.8 due to the 1.8 and the effective focal length on 20D with 85mm. No buyer's regret, I am very pleased with my purchase now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Mar 2009
This is a comparison of 85/1.8 and 135mm/2L.
Ive had this lens for 3 yrs now and have taken so many portraits with this, simply put, amazing results every single time. Never been able to find fault with this lens or the images. Image quality has been consistently awesome, consistently 5 stars. The only lens that bests the images from this lens is my 135/2L, but that is of an entirely different league and shouldn't even be compared to this lens. Merely stating that for academic interest. Even then, the three places that the 135mm beats the 85 mm are
1. Sharpness - 85mm is very sharp, 135mm/2L is simply a notch above.
2. Saturation - 85mm is good, 135mm/2L is much better, image has a pop. But then again, 85mm has half a pop too!
3. Bokeh - Again, 85mm has a lovely bokeh, esp @1.8 and 2. However, the 135mm is in an entirely different league, one simply cannot, should not compare.
Now, the $350mm lens compared to the much more expensive, much higher quality lens worth $925 is completely unfair. However, I would give the 85/1.8 4 stars assuming the 135mm is the gold standard with 5 stars.
If this review second rates the 85mm, that is certainly not my intention. I have consistently enjoyed shooting with this lens and will continue to have a lot of fun.
One of Canon's best for price/performance
Reviewed by: Black Belt Systems, MT, United States Review Date: 2008-11-19
The Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 II USM lens is a moderate weight (15 oz), very well built lens. It does not come with the appropriate hood, the Canon ET-65 III. You get both a lens cap and a mount cap, all packed inside tight conformal foam to protect the lens during shipping. There's also a very brief manual and the usual warranty paperwork.
The lens offers AF and manual focus, and allows manual focus even when AF is set to on, a very useful feature for low-light and other challenging focus situations. This is a USM lens, and as a direct consequence focus is fast and precise, just as you'd expect.
The AF/Manual switch is in a reasonable location, close to the camera body. There is a range indication on the barrel of the lens behind a transparent window which serves to keep dust and debris out of the workings of the lens. Manual focus is controlled with a broad, easy to manage textured ring about mid-body on the lens. During focus, nothing external on the lens body moves or rotates, so there are no complications for using polarizing filters, and no concerns about the lens "pumping" air and so causing dust contamination in either the lens or camera with use.
The lens lacks any form of image stabilization. IS is showing up in more and more lenses, though for the price... perhaps this is one of the justifications for building IS into the camera body. I'm sure that this design wouldn't be anywhere near its current price point with IS added to the build. One last point is that since the lens is a fairly fast design, perhaps there is less overall need for IS (though that argument falls completely apart the first time you *do* need it!)
It takes a 58mm filter, though I highly recommend the use of the ET-65 III hood rather than a filter; filter use should be limited to polarizers, neutral density filters and so on, rather than keeping a filter on the lens with the idea of protecting it. Here's why: filters create a flat surface over the end of the lens that can (and often does) create low-level reflections. These are most apparent in low-light shots, but they are almost always there. In the case of a UV filter, no other benefit is gained (UV can't get through the lens system anyway) other than physical protection. The hood, however, keeps the lens out of harms way quite effectively, and it increases contrast and reduces flare at the same time by preventing light from entering the lens at high angles of attack. I have shot with both hoods and filters, and after decades of experience, I have to come down firmly on the side of hood technique. It only takes one shot ruined by a filter reflection to wake up to this reality; and hoods never, ever compromise an image. They're simply the best way to go. Finally, the hood for this lens is inexpensive, well worth the extra few dollars it costs.
Aperture is controlled by an 8-blade system. The available f-stops range from f/1.8 wide open to f/22.0 fully stopped down. MTF (sharpness) peaks at f/5.6, and vignetting is almost gone by that setting.
On my camera, an EOS 50D, resolution loss from diffraction effects begin at f/7.6, so in many ways, the "sweet spot" for this lens for me lands naturally at f/5.6. On a camera with a lesser sensel density such as the 40D, diffraction doesn't set in until higher f-stops, but you're beginning to lose sharpness from other effects, so I'd still call the sweet spot as f/5.6 (which also provides a fairly extensive depth of field) for shots where detail is the primary consideration.
For portraits, you'll want to go right for f/1.8 if lighting conditions allow in order to take advantage of the shallow and pleasing DOF isolation this lens is famous for; background blur is very soft yet very strong, while the in focus region remains deep enough to keep the important features of the face in focus from ear to nose. The loss of MTF at f/1.8 is noticeable, especially once you get a feel for how the lens performs at f/5.6, but in my opinion, the compromise is perfectly acceptable in a portrait context. There's another benefit as well; at 85mm, and especially on a crop body like the 40D or 50D, this lens allows you to get some distance from your subject which tends to make them more comfortable, while giving you the modest compression that is the hallmark of any telephoto lens. Portraits "pop" and backgrounds blur away with commendable speed. Head-and-shoulders work will put you at about eight feet, and as the lens can focus down to just under three feet, this gives you considerable control over framing without ever running into a limit imposed by the lens design.
This is also a truly excellent lens for not-very-wide field astrophotography, although at critical focus and maximum aperture, chromatic aberration will make itself felt on the brightest stars, which you will then have to compensate for. I have successfully used this lens to capture the the Orion nebula, Andromeda galaxy, Triangulum galaxy, and a number of other astro objects that range from the easy to the difficult, all using no more than a standard (non-tracking) tripod, this lens, and the EOS 50D. On a crop body, 85mm (136mm effective FOV) is definitely the place to be to compromise between star trailing and magnification, and the f/1.8 aperture allows fast enough exposures to eliminate trailing at ISO 1600 and above.
I carry this lens nested in a large camera bag (a Tamrac 5612 Pro 12, *highly* recommended); I rarely put the lens on the camera until I am ready to use it, and when I am done, I take it right back off, cap it, and bag it without wasting any time or motion. I do both the assembly and disassembly "blind" in the bag, using the bag top to shield the camera and lens from the wind and environment as best I can manage. The lens has a raised alignment dot that makes blind assembly practical. It's the size of the overall investment that drives this behavior, of course; both the camera and a lens like this deserves -- demands -- good care and that is just what I try to provide.
Physically speaking, this lens isn't as large as you might think. Canon did a great job of packing a lot of glass (nine elements in seven groups) into a decent form factor of 3" diameter by 2.8" long; even with the hood mounted, this lens provides a fraction of the intimidation factor of, for instance, the 70-200mm f/2.8L. But at 85mm, it can still "get in there" and catch a lot of action without forcing you to crop to extremes. It's light enough that you can shoot for quite a while before fatigue sets in, an issue that will rear its head in any situation that goes on a while, like a wedding or a play (and that low-light capability is great for stage work, where a flash annoys literally everyone.) Plus it is black, and so looks more like it is designed as part of the same camera system, unlike the L's with the white bodies. That's also less distracting in a dark theater.
I can honestly say that this is definitely one of my favorite lenses. I have a fair collection of primes to compare it to, some of which are L glass, and I've got some great L zooms as well; yet for portraits, I inevitably turn to this specific lens as it outperforms everything else I own in the successful shooting methodologies I find myself returning to over and over. Frankly, at the price, I think it is perfectly fair to characterize this lens as a "must-have"; if you're ever going to shoot a portrait, trust me, this is the lens you want (even over the 85mm f/1.2L, which has far too narrow a depth of field for most reasonable portraiture, though you can't beat it for light-gathering.) Like Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, the 85mm f/1.8 is one of those where you're left scratching your head as to why it doesn't have an "L" designation. It is an outstanding performer.
If Canon were to re-do this lens, I'd like to see them add image stabilization, and perhaps some modern anti-CA elements, as this is the one area where this lens occasionally bites the photographer in high-contrast situations. Until that day, though, this lens is unmatched by anything else in Canon's line for price/performance, and I can't imagine anyone ever regretting its purchase.
24 New — prices too low to display (click "More Info" or "Add to Cart" button to see prices)
9 Used from $577.99
11x Zoom versatility
A remarkable 18-200mm one-lens solution-adept in a wide variety of situations. Picture angle equivalent of a 27-300mm lens in 35mm format.
Nikon VR II (Vibration Reduction) image stabilization
Vibration Reduction, engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens, enables handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper images.
Two Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements
Offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration, even at wide aperture settings.
Three aspherical lens elements
Virtually eliminates coma and other aberrations, even at wide apertures.
Zoom lock switch
Secures lens barrel at its minimum length.
Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC)
Enhances light transmission and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.
Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
For fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
Rounded 7-blade diaphragm
Renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image elements.
Focus to 20 inches
Extends versatility.
M/A focus mode switch
Enables quick response to changing situations between manual and autofocus operation.
Flower-shaped lens hood
Included HB-35 lens hood-shades the objective from unwanted, image-degrading light.
One-lens solution adept in a wide variety of situations
Nikon VR II (Vibration Reduction) image stabilization
Two Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements; three aspherical lens elements
Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC); exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
Reviewed by: Ruslan Moskalenko, Pleasanton, CA United States Review Date: 2009-12-31
There are a lot of reviews comparing every feature of the lense. They are long, detailed, but more confusing than helpful. So I'll try to keep it short.
Let's say you a typical amature photographer. You take all kinds of pictures in all kinds of conditions. So what lense would be the best?
You can probably live with some minor distortions but nothing gives you as much freedom as a wide range zoom. If you shoot inside a room, you really need 18 m on a low end. The smaller the number the wider the angle and the more people you can squeeze into the frame from the other side of party table. Every mm here makes a big difference. So 18 mm on the low end is pretty much a must have. On the longer end, well, the bigger the better. However, if you that also means heavier and it also means much harder to take good pictures because on a long zoom range the camera gets less light, it's sensitive to shaking hands and the lense distortion is getting worse. Also it's more expensive.
So bottom line is - if you can afford the Nikon 18-200 mm lense - go for it. That will be your single all around lense and you won't feel sorry. If it's too pricey - check out the 18-105 mm one. Think about it this way - there are a lot of specialized lenses but really only a few all-around ones. So 80% people really need to choose between only 3: 18-55, 18-105 and 18-200 and the biggest factor here is how much you can afford. So it's actually not that complicated.
I few side notes.
It's tempting to buy a couple lenses instead of one. It looks like you're getting more for less, but in reality changing lenses is not something people do often. The extra lense is heavy, it takes time to change, every time you take a lense off, there is a risk you can get dust inside the camera - there are a lot of reasons why having two lenses is not the same as one.
Other vendors. You can get much cheaper lenses from other vendors like Sigma etc. I heard mixed stories. Some people got lucky and got good glass, some were not. If you can try and buy, you may want to take a chance. But Nikon quality control is pretty good, so there is not much risk there.
Protective filter. If you're planning to spend many hundreds on a lense, please, don't forget to buy a good protective filter. Something like UV(0) or clear glass. Once you try to wipe out the glass on the lense, the microscratches on surfice will cause all kinds of image defects so you should never ever touch the lense glass. The filter is way more forgiving and it can be replaced easily. A bad filter can ruine the quality, so don't be cheap, plan to spend somewhere in $50-90 range.
And finally, why would you not buy this lense?
1. Price. Most people say this lense is nice but too expensive. Since there are new better camera bodies for the same price coming out pretty much every year and the lenses hold value very well I'd suggest you to consider buying the best lense you can afford and maybe saving a bit on a cheaper body. The lense will likely outlast the camera.
2. Weight. This camera is heavy. No DSLR will fit in a pocket but this lense on a camera will require fairly large bag to carry and holding it on your shoulder for a day could literally be painful.
There could be some other reasons like if your requirements are very high and you need some specialized or professional grade lenses but if you're requirements are that high, I don't think that review will open your eyes anyway.
Hopefully this review will help you.
Exceptional All-Around Performer
Reviewed by: Dr. Norge, Review Date: 2009-12-23
The 18-200 VR II is an all-around great lens. While it is not "the best" lens available for any single role, it stays mounted on my D90 a large majority of the time. When I don't want to haul around a bag full of gear, this is the lens I take without a thinking twice. Clearly, Nikon had to make some tough choices in balancing the features of this lens, trying to satisfy a wide range of users and applications. Here is my take on where they ended up.
This lens IS:
- Remarkably versatile with an 11x zoom factor
- Surprisingly sharp at all focal lengths
- Very good for outdoor sports in good light
- Useful for almost-macro close-up work
- Solid enough to not require kid-glove treatment
- Usable in many indoor situations with the VR system
- Reasonably sized, considering the zoom range
This lens IS NOT:
- Very fast, especially racked out
- For low-light sports photography
- A pro-level all-metal "indestructable" lens
- Well-suited for low-light shooting
- Compact or lightweight
As noted by other reviewers, the minor distortion and corner fall-off is easily remedied via post-processing software. While many use Photoshop, I recommend DxO Optics Pro software. It has very effective custom modules for this lens and many Nikon DSLRs that work extremely well.
The most pleasant surprise for me with this lens is how good it works for "almost-macro" photography. I also have the heavy and expensive Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro, which is without a doubt the sharpest lens in my bag. However, some of the best close-up shots of bees, flowers, etc that I have taken came from the 18-200, for two reasons. First, unless I am out on a "macro safari" I don't generally have the 105 mounted, so it isn't always "at the ready" for targets of opportunity. Second, with the 18-200 racked out to 200mm, it focuses about 8 inches from the front of the lens (which equates to just over 19 inches from the sensor), which provides a pretty decent close-in range. For lower light or extreme macro situations, the 105 is still the superior lens, but the 18-200 does much better than I had ever hoped for when pressed into macro service.
The only lens you need
Reviewed by: Jdl8r, Review Date: 2009-10-06
I owned the original 18-200 VR lens and adored it. It was the only lens I ever really needed to take with me on my photo shoots and personal travel. My only real issue with the lens related to lens-creep. As an active person who is accustom to slinging the camera around my neck and taking off - the original model lens would extend itself (a minor annoyance). The 18-200 VR II has a cam lock to prevent such.
This is a phenomenal lens that takes great photographs throughout the zoom range and it has VR so there's no need for a tripod - just buy it and never worry about carrying around 2 or 3 lenses.
Check out Ken Rockwell's review - he knows his stuff and has been reviewing equipment for years! Help support his site too! You'll have to google his namd as Amazon seems to remove the link when I attach it.
Could it be any better?
Reviewed by: Donald H. Sauret, Apollo Beach, FL USA Review Date: 2010-03-11
I have been a photography enthusiast for many years, and a user of Canon and Nikon equipment since the days of the Nikon F. My comments are based on nearly 60 years of picture-taking, not lab tests. Though I have used a few lenses that may have done some particular thing better than the 18-200 VRII, this is by far the best all-around lens I have ever used. Presently my wife and I are using a D-60 and a D-90. About six months ago I bought the first 18-200 to use on the D-90, and my wife was using the D-60 with a Nikon 18-105 VR that was originally part of the D-90 kit. I feel that the 18-105 is a fine lens in terms of IQ, and is a compact design for it's range, but my wife was instantly coveting my 18-200VR. The extra reach makes a world of difference, and I believe the VR is more effective than that in the 18-105. We had a great opportunity to compare the VR capability on the violent Jungle Safari ride at Disney's Animal Kingdom. I was afraid the lurching, jouncing, swaying safari vehicle would make photography impossible, but we pressed on regardless. We were amazed that a majority of the shots were sharp and focused! Not always with the subject we had in mind, but we were also trying not to fall out of the truck! We examined these pictures carefully, and have the opinion that the "active" mode of VR on the 18-200 may have made a difference, though not by a huge amount. The higher performance of the D-90 relative to noise vs ISO may have also been a factor compared to the 18-105 on the D-60. Very impressive performance by both setups. Now you can go on vacation and take one lens.
Needless to say, this "capability gap" could not continue, and I have since purchased a second 18-200 VRII for my wife's camera. If I had to be picky about anything, it would be the zoom creep. Both the 18-105 and my first 18-200 would creep if not retracted to 18mm. Yes, there is a zoom lock on the 18-200 VRII, but I rarely use it, as setting the lens to 18mm while walking around solves the problem. The second 18-200 does not creep at all, but may loosen up with time. We'll see. To me, this is in no way a deal breaker, but I felt I should mention it, since so many others have been critical of the creep. All I can say is, retract to 18mm and it will stay there. It's just not something you have to worry about. Image quality is so close to that of even my prime lenses as to be amazing for all that moving glass and machinery! Most distortions and CA's are taken care of in software, so are pretty much a non-issue. I use Photoshop, and Nikon Capture NX2, the latter being my preference in the ease-of-use department, and it understands the characteristics of the lens and camera. I even do a certain amount of pixel-peeping, and have never felt that the 18-200VR was lacking in any way. When I have a bad picture, it is the fault of the photographer, not the equipment.
The pros:
Focus is fast and accurate, even in poor light.
Zoom range covers everything most folks will ever need.
Image quality is fine throughout the zoom range.
Compact for it's range.
Is an absolute delight to use.
The cons:
Your sample may or may not creep, but so what?
Though it's compact for this type of lens, it is still a lot to hang on the front of a D-40 or D-60. I asked my wife if she'd prefer a lighter lens. Not a chance!
Conclusion:
Would I buy another one? I already did!
Fun lens!
Reviewed by: W. Chin, California Review Date: 2009-10-19
We bought this with the Nikon D90 body. It's been great so far. Love the versatility. Photos are clean and crisp through the entire range. Regarding the lens creep, it is a slight issue if the lens is partially extended and pointed straight down. During "normal" use, this really has not presented itself as an issue. Fully collapsed (at 18mm), the lens stay put; we never bother to lock the lens. Highly recommended!
Never has my opinion of a lens changed so dramatically or so quickly as in the case of this 70-300mm VR from Nikon. My first copy, owned about a year ago, was utterly mediocre in nearly every way. It was fuzzy at 300mm, no better than reasonably sharp under 200mm, gave nice colors and decent focus performance but was no fun to use thanks to its sticky zoom ring and "hidden" focus ring.
I reviewed that lens, giving it three stars, warning that it was likely a below-average copy but that buyers should be aware that variations exist and to be sure to test a lens like this before purchase.
With that bit of history, the performance of my second copy of this lens, purchased a few weeks ago now, has stunned me. It has prompted me to sell my 80-400mm VR zoom (also an excellent lens, but less sharp, heavier and much more expensive) and has matched in most ways the performance of various pro Nikon zooms I've owned. Even at 300mm, where it is weakest, it equals at f/5.6 the sharpness of the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF at f/4, while improving on that lens' color rendition and thus exceeding it in terms of overall image quality at all apertures.
How's that for an encore?
I've had no choice but to radically alter my review. Comments below as of today (1/28/10), apply to the first (three star) version of the review, and the caution that one must be aware of sample variability is as important as ever. Nevertheless I've decided to review the lens based solely on the performance of my second sample, under the assumption that the second sample is representative and the first not.
The lens still has some "handling" issues that stem from its nature as a consumer-oriented lens, and it is still a "slow" lens, with a maximum aperture of f/4.5 - f/5.6 - although f/5.6 at 300mm still implies a light-transmissive opening of about 54mm, nearly as large as that of an 85mm f/1.4 (61mm). There is simply no way the lens could be faster without also making it larger, heavier and much more expensive - and such lenses already exist.
Build quality is good consumer-grade, meaning metal where necessary, plastic elsewhere, likely little or no weather-sealing and not designed to endure rough handling. That's fine - another design choice that has benefits for size, weight and cost. Not quite so fine is the still-sticky zoom ring, which takes just enough effort to turn that near 300mm your subject will tend to jump around, maybe right out of the frame, as the hand holding the lens works in opposition to the hand holding the camera. Even worse in my opinion is the lack of a smooth, front-mounted focus ring, which I find fairly important in a long zoom. Notice that all the professional lenses have the focus ring in front of the zoom ring and usually larger than the zoom ring, so that small tweaks to focus are done easily and naturally with the photographer's hands in the shooting position. The small, hidden focus ring on the 70-300 is unlikely to be used except when setting up shots of still subjects on a tripod, and that's a shame because the lens is actually even better suited to other uses.
Those deficiencies are tolerable, though, because the 70-300 VR just about re-writes the book on image quality for consumer zooms in its range. It's not just a matter of acuity, although acuity is excellent: like many of Nikon's best lenses, the 70-300VR's images exceed the level of quality implied by formal tests of it. These formal tests, and most reviews, independently consider the various easily-measurable aspects of lens performance - acuity, aberrations of various types, perhaps (though usually cursorily) color rendition; and then attempt to grade the lens based on some rational summation of its good and bad qualities. What is usually missed is that the perception of sharpness and of image quality relies on a much less linear and not easily definable combination of a lens' optical qualities. The real performance of a lens can be more than the simple sum of its parts, or it can be less - and the perception of quality and sharpness in different lenses' images can vary quite a bit between lenses that have similar measurable capabilities.
Whatever the explanation, the 70-300 VR is a genuinely excellent lens in terms of image quality. Even in comparison to some of the best and most expensive professional lenses I've used, the 70-300 VR more than holds its own. Between 70mm and 200mm, I don't believe I have ever used a significantly sharper lens. Some might have an edge at one setting or another, but overall, within that range, I would put the 70-300VR up against any Nikon or third-party f/2.8 professional zoom and challenge anybody to see a difference in the resulting image. If there is one, my guess is that it would probably be in the 70-300's favor, because although most of these lenses are similar in terms of acuity once f/4.5 is reached, they vary in their rendition of color, and in that area the 70-300 excels.
To be sure, the 70-300 is not likely to produce a BETTER image at f/5.6, say, than one of Nikon's top pro zooms at the same aperture: those lenses are excellent, as well. But neither will the more expensive lens produce a better image, at least not without opening it up and taking advantage of its expensive larger aperture, which the 70-300 lacks. That is one trick that the 70-300 VR can not match, and probably the only reason for most people to consider paying up for the more expensive alternatives.
Towards 300mm the performance of the 70-300 VR drops off slightly - but only slightly. It's still worthy of superlatives, because it manages to almost match the performance of Nikon's 300mm primes in terms of pure acuity while retaining the outstanding color rendition and small-scale contrast that gives its images the snap and pop that distinguishes them from those of lesser lenses. Not only do I not hesitate to use this lens at 300mm, I do it at every opportunity. I know the images I get will look just as good, in any non-trivial way, as those at shorter focal lengths or made with any other lens I've had the opportunity to use. That's a giant leap away from what I said about the first sample of this lens I owned, by the way: watch those sample variations!
I now give this lens a five star rating. Despite its minor issues with feel and handling, it offers such exceedingly good performance, and is so impressively superior to any of its competition within its price and focal length range, that I can not give it any less. It becomes for me, along with the 16-85mm VR, the 85mm f/1.4 and a couple of others, one of the few standout lenses that I will always be happy to have on my camera, confident that any just about any photograph taken with them will have first-rate, no-excuses image quality that for practical purposes could not have been exceeded. Remember, though, that my initial review of this lens gave it three stars. That is a BIG difference between samples: take care to ensure that you get a good one. If you do, it won't disappoint.
Notes:
VR - This lens has Nikon's VRII vibration reduction system. It is very good. It is significantly better than the original VR found on the 55-200, 70-200 and 80-400 lenses. As to VR itself, any variety, the secret is long-since out: it's a revelation. Don't even consider buying a lens in this range without VR unless you have a specialized use in mind that doesn't require it. That might include tripod-only use or sports photography. VR makes a lens like this easily hand-holdable in normal lighting conditions, and hand-holdable in low light with some care. That by itself is a revolutionary improvement in the accessibility of telephoto photography to photographers at every level, and also to the quality of the resulting images. Anybody who grew up using non-VR telephoto lenses knows you're almost always on the margins of camera shake when using them, often having to chuck three out of every four photos to get one good one. VR cures that completely.
Focusing - Fast and accurate. Nikon's top-level pro AF-S lenses have exceedingly quick, snappy focusing, and the 70-300 doesn't quite match them, but it is generally only one full step behind - a fraction longer to lock on; still quick. It is much quicker than the other consumer-grade AF-S lenses and also faster than the older screw-drive pro lenses, even on a pro body (with a couple of exceptions, perhaps). Out beyond 200mm it does drop off, as less light is reaching the focus sensors and the acuity has dropped a bit. For tracking motion out beyond 200mm, it will not come close to matching the pro lenses. In these cases I find the quickest way to lock focus is to back off the zoom, lock on, and then re-zoom. Cumbersome, unfortunately.
Bokeh - Quite good with this lens, a surprising deviation from most of Nikon's consumer lenses. It is better to my eyes than that of any of the lenses mentioned below except the 70-200 VR and possibly the 300mm lenses. Bokeh is important in a lens like this: at 300mm, even with an f/5.6 max aperture, it's easy to generate a great deal of background blur. That produced by the 70-300 VR is smooth, not likely to be distracting and adds to my confidence in recommending it vs. more expensive, professional zooms.
Vs. 80-400mm VR - The 80-400 VR is a great lens, but it is a full technological generation behind the 70-300 VR. It is a pro-level lens in terms of feel and build quality, and it is nicer to use. It produces beautiful, sharp, contrasty images that are in general difficult to tell apart from those of the 70-300 VR. When you look closely, the 70-300 is the sharper of the two, by a fair margin. It is also lighter and easier to carry, and much less expensive, and it offers decidedly better AF performance thanks to its very good AF-S focusing system. To my eyes, the 80-400 VR matches the 70-300 VR's excellent, snappy, contrasty color rendition, or at least the difference is too close to call.
Vs. f/2.8 70-200/80-200 Zooms - The 70-300 VR has better VR than the original 70-200 VR, and if it doesn't quite match it for pure optical acuity when formally tested, it certainly seemed to match it in my use. The 70-200 VR is a VERY good lens, at least for DX, but unless you need the f/2.8 maximum aperture and are willing to carry it around (not a small issue), the 70-300 VR is in my opinion its equal, even looking closely. Older lenses like the 80-200 AF-S and 80-200 AF-D are excellent lenses as well, but they lack VR, are not sharper than the 70-300, and they are still heavier and more expensive. The catch is that these lenses are the only way to get the fast f/2.8 aperture that really is critical for many types of photography. That, and their superior build quality, is in my opinion their only advantage.
Vs 70-300 AF-D and 70-300G - The AF-D lens is a good lens, half the price of this VR version, but I don't think it's quite half the lens: the VR is substantially better in every important way. The AF-G version is one of the few Nikon lenses that is actually fairly poor in terms of optical performance. If cost or size is an issue I would forgo both of these for the 55-200 VR, which is a very good lens: smaller, sharper, and it has VR.
Vs. 55-200 VR - I love the 55-200 VR, and for many photographers it will be a better choice than the 70-300 VR. The 70-300 is definitely the better lens: better focusing, better VR, sharper (though the 55-200 is sharp, as well) and with visibly better, contrastier colors. But the 55-200 is much smaller, much less expensive, and surprisingly close in performance. Unless the difference in price is of little importance to you; or if you prefer smaller, unobtrusive lenses that still manage do their job exceedingly well, consider the 55-200 VR instead. The 55-200 has poor bokeh, which might rule it out for some, and it is a DX-only lens, which rules it out for film and FX users.
Vs 300mm f/2.8 AF-S II - I'm joking, right? Well, nobody is going to consider these lenses as alternatives to one another. You spend several thousand dollars on a 300/2.8 lens because you need the f/2.8 max aperture, and the 70-300 doesn't have that. Just as a matter of pure interest, though, at f/5.6 or f/8 I could not tell the difference between these two lenses in terms of sharpness, and I found the 300/2.8 couldn't match the 70-300 VR for color rendition. I spent a fair amount of time comparing the 70-300 VR, the 300mm f/4 and the 300mm f/2.8, and at f/5.6 the 70-300 was my pick. (I've since gotten rid of the f/2.8, though not due to the comparison with the 70-300 VR).
Lens Rocks! Discard the poor reviews due to shipping etc.
Reviewed by: Tom Cat, Atlanta, GA Review Date: 2006-12-22
I am very impressed with this lens. It is wonderfully sharp. The auto focus can hunt slightly in dimmer conditions but you would probably expect this with a 4.5 lense. Don't let this stop you at all. I would by it all over again for sure. By the way, I bought mine from ritz camera (.com) on Sunday and delivered on Thurs. (I paid $504 due to the $25 off for using paypal plus free shipping and no tax). Many photos are better than my 18-200mm VR lens. I'm so glad I bought this as the extra reach is going to help me out on the softball field where my 200mm was just short. One other thing I noticed was it is slightly noisier than my 18-200mm VR (but not terribly much more). It is enough to notice, but no show stopper. Your going to love the photos you get from this. I'm thrilled to have it and now be in the 300mm range. What a keeper. I plan to keep both my 18-200 and my 70-300. Mine comes with a 5 year warranty directly from Nikon.
Destined for greatness
Reviewed by: Frank H, NC Review Date: 2007-01-23
I needed more reach than I have with my 18-200 VR, and was
not able to obtain the 80-400VR, so I got this lens thinking
I could get rid of it if I didn't like it. I am very happy
that I did!
I am extremely impressed with this lens. It appears to me
that the VR is actually better than on my 18-200VR. The lens
has superior balance, size and weight for handheld nature
photography. Lens flare (when I could get it to appear) was
acceptable, the contrast is tremendous, and the bokeh was
quite pleasant. Auto-focus is very accurate and quick. In
addition, the lens was extraordinarily sharp all the way
to 300mm.
Best lens in its category
Reviewed by: Kyle D. Gendron, Burlington, MA United States Review Date: 2007-02-11
I got this lens to replace my older Quantaray 70-300mm. I got tired to losing a lot of images to camera shake at the 300mm end. Plus the lens I had was old (almost 10 years) and optically it wasn't that great.
The Nikkor 70-300mm w/VRII is perfect for me. I love the way the VR works. I've been able to get useable images taken at the 300mm end with a 1/6th shutter. Very impressive. No more camera shake issues at the long end. I'm also very impressed with how sharp it is (it is sharper than my 18-70mm) and also the focus is fast and quiet. It is on the big side, but not to much larger than any other 70-300mm lens. I'm very happy with the performance of this lens. I find the addition of the VR to be very much worth it.
Granted its not a fast lens and I never intended it to take the place of or performe like an f/2.8 lens. Its not fair to compare it to any f/2.8 lens. Comparing to the previous 2 Nikkor 70-300mm models or any of the 3rd party 70-300mm's, this newest Nikkor addition is the best. For the average amerture hobbiest this is a great lens to compliment any of the kit lenses.
Pro Lens at a Consumer Price?
Reviewed by: David Woeltjen, Northern Wisconsin, USA Review Date: 2007-05-26
This a great fun lens to use. VR works terrific, now the tripod stays in the trunk most of the time. I've taken many shots over the years with some of Nikkor's sharpest single focal length, manual focus lenses fixed to a tripod and this one comes very close to the sharpest. In real life photography, photos from this lens can be enlarged to 36" poster size and only an experienced professional could tell the difference between this lens and a pro quality single focal length lens. Even then they'd need a magnifying glass to discern much of a difference.
Compared to the 18-200mm VR the 70-20mm VR is much sharper and more contrasty at the 200mm end. The 18-200mm VR is a fun lens and great for traveling light, but it does not compare in sharpness to the 70-300mm VR. Once people begin to see this for themselves I believe this lens will reach icon stature. At $600 this is a truly remarkable lens that will bring many terrific wildlife shots to the net within the years to come.
One thing to be aware of (that has been mentioned before) this lens does have some difficulties finding focus in dim indoor light. The easy fix is to get the focus close manually then depress the shutter button half way down to get an autofocus fix. Most gyms are bright enough that capturing your son or daughter's lay up in mid action with autofocus will be no problem at all.
Build quality is better than I expected at this price point. Even though this is a plastic lens it is built very well with none of sloppy play that you see in Nikon's lower end plastic lenses. It seems to have a nice smooth, linear feel throughout the zoom range. Unlike the 18-70mm ED wich seems to bunch up at the long end. The build quality of this lens seems to be a step or two up from the 18-200mm VR.
One week before purchasing this lens I bought the 70-300mm ED non VR version. I returned it within two days, after mounting it to a tripod and comparing it to some older single focal length lenses I was dissapointed that the image quality was not even in the same ballbark as my sons mid 80's Hoya 200mm f/3.5! Forntunately the 70-300mm Ed and the 70-300mm VR are completely different lens formulas.
Conclusion: This lens is capable of producing real world professional quality images when combined with good technique and discipline. I hope to see many fine examples on the net in the near future!!
12 New — prices too low to display (click "More Info" or "Add to Cart" button to see prices)
19 Used from $900.00
The L-series is Canon's flagship professional lens range, designed to include outstanding image performance, ultimate operability and weather resistance. The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM offers a lightweight alternative to the renowned EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. offers the highest possible optical quality with no change in aperture over the full focal range of the lens. This allows photographers to set exposure at the widest aperture and zoom all the way through to 105mm without having to vary the shutter speed. Image Stabilizer (IS) dramatically reduces image blur caused by camera shake. Gyro sensors detect unwanted vibrations, triggering the corresponding movement of a correcting lens group perpendicular to the optical axis. This alters the light path, returning the image to its correct position on the sensor or film plane. The 3 stop advantage means that photographers normally shooting a 105mm lens handheld at 1/125 sec can obtain a shake free result with a shutter speed as low as 1/15 sec, for vastly extended options in low light conditions. The ring-type USM motor found in the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM employs ultra-sonic frequency vibrations to drive auto focus with unrivalled speed and near-silent operation. A powerful CPU and improved AF algorithm contribute to speed performance. Good holding torque stops the lens with precision and accuracy, the instant it arrives at the correct focus point and without overshoot. Photographers can choose manual focus instantly and at any time simply by moving the manual focus ring without first having to switch out of auto focus mode. Circular aperture producing attractive background defocus Inner focusing, ring USM and new AF algorithms for fast and quiet autofocusing Manual focusing enabled even during AF mode (full-time mechanical manual focus) Only environmentally friendly lead-free glass used in lens construction Filter diameter 77 mm / Dimensions (dia x len)
24-105mm standard zoom lens with f/4 maximum aperture for Canon EOS SLR cameras
1 Super UD glass element and 3 aspherical lenses minimize chromatic aberration and distortion
Ring-type USM system delivers silent but quick autofocus (AF); full-time manual focus
Image Stabilizer technology steadies camera shake at up to 3 stops; weighs 23.6 ounces
Dust- and moisture-resistant; measures 3.3 inches in diameter and 4.2 inches long; 1-year warranty
I am a hobbyist and this review is for people like me. What I mean by that is that I take pictures for fun and nobody buys my pictures. I mostly shoot landscape, nature, and portraits of family, friends, and relatives. I will refer to 24-70mm as the 70, and the 24-105mm IS as the 105. I first made the mistake of buying the 70, then I returned it with a hefty restocking fee and bought the 105 - I don't have the slightest regret and I could not be happier. I'm taking my time to write this review so that you can spend your hard earned money wisely. Let's analyze the trade-off between the two:
* Both lenses have excellent build and image quality. So these are not differentiating factors.
* The one and only advantage of the 70 is the one smaller f-stop. For me, this means more blur when I shoot portraits, so this is all good.
* The advantage of 105 over the 70 are as follows:
- You get an extra 35mm, which is 50% more zoom. I like this.
- You get a 3-stop IS. For me, this is a great advantage, because I rarely use tripods and IS saves the day. I would choose the 105 over 70 for the IS alone.
- The 105 is 10 ounces lighter and close to half an inch shorter.
The last part is the most important part: that additional 10 ounces make a heavy lens TOO HEAVY, and that extra length makes a big lens TOO BIG. Carrying the 70 on my 50D was a pain. I can assure you, the 70 is just too heavy to walk around and take pictures for fun. The keyword here is "fun". The 70 is a pain, the 105 is fun. The 105 is still heavy, but not too heavy. It's still big, but not too big. After having the 70 for a few weeks, I lost all my joy for shooting. It just made me very uncomfortable (and I'm 6-foot 2). When I replaced it with the 105, it did make a difference. I enjoy taking pictures now, once again. Pros might like the 70 because they need it for their professional work. But if you're shooting just for fun, stay away from the 70 and get the 105.
An excellent walkabout lens
Reviewed by: L. T. Beasimer, Dallas, TX Review Date: 2006-07-09
I first bought the Canon EF 28-135mm IS lens to use with my Canon 10D along with the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Zoom Lens. About four years later I have sold all my original purchases. The Canon EF 28-135mm was my most used lens, and I still had it until March 2006 when I replaced it with the Canon EF 24-105mm IS f/4L.
Being an L lens, the dust and moisture resistant construction of the Canon EF 24-105mm IS f/4L is sturdy. The lens consists of eighteen elements in thirteen groups including one Super-UD glass element and three aspherical lenses to minimize chromatic aberration and distortion. With a standard twist zoom focus, this lens permits for auto or manual focusing depending on how the switch is set.
Some of the earlier lenses had an issue that caused lens flare. This issue was resolved quickly with a recall. If the control number located on the back cover of the lens begins with a UT and the following number is less than 1,000, then the lens is affected and should be sent in for repair.
The Canon EF 24-105mm IS f/4L lens is compact measuring 5 inches long and lightweight weighing in at about 1.5 lbs/670g, and accepts 77mm filters. Be sure to get a good quality UV haze filter to protect the front lens element. Not only do I see this as a good practice, Canon recommends doing so on their site as well. The f/stop ranges from 4 - 22. The closest focusing distance is 18 in/45 cm. In addition, the lens has a USM drive mechanism for optimum AF performance, and the pulse control diaphragm (EMD) ensures precise aperture control.
The IS system is composed of a pair of gyro sensors to detect vertical and horizontal motion and a microprocessor that compensates for it by shifting special lens elements in parallel with the perceived movement. It is recommended that the IS be off when shooting on a tripod. I have used the IS on my Bogen 3231 monopod with legs successfully. A monopod is not as stable as a tripod though, with or without the legs. Using the IS, you can obtain sharp pictures three stops below where you normally would. This is a huge advantage in dim light or places where flash is prohibited. Just keep in mind, the IS attempts to eliminate camera movement, not the movement of the subject being photographed.
A distance scale ring sits below the focus ring. Turn the distance scale ring all the way to the left and you are set for low magnification close-up photography. Turn it to the right and you are able to set for infinity compensating for changes in temperature as necessary. The distance scale includes figures in red as an infrared index to use when shooting black and white infrared film. Shooting infrared is not available on all cameras. If this feature is a must, make sure this lens is compatible for infrared photography on your camera body.
The Canon EF 24-105mm IS f/4L includes a 1 Year US Warranty, the front & rear lens caps, the LP1219 soft pouch, and the EW-83H lens hood. The hood will decrease chances of lens flare and increase metering accuracy. If you use filters, Canon recommends against stacking.
The Canon EF 28-135mm lens is similar in build a little shorter and weighs a couple ounces less. Of course the Canon EF 28-135mm has a wider focal range. Both lenses have single mode IS capabilities, and are good walkabout lenses. Having used the Canon EF 24-105mm IS f/4L the difference in weight and length is hardly noticeable. The shorter focal distance is not missed, and I have a constant f/4 through out the focal scale unlike the Canon EF 28-135mm with a 5.6-36 on the long focal range. The images using the Canon EF 24-105mm IS f/4L is sharper and clearer than those using the Canon EF 28-135mm.
If the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS lens' price is not a problem, this is the lens to get. Otherwise purchase and enjoy the 28-135mm IS lens. The great thing about Canon lenses is they tend to hold their value. If you want to upgrade from the 28-135mm, sell it on a popular auction site like I did.
PROS:
A compact L standard IS zoom that is an excellent walkabout lens.
Versatile multipurpose lens
CONS:
A price typically found on L lenses
May become your most used lens
Great walkaround, first L lens.
Reviewed by: L. Jones, California Review Date: 2006-01-22
I believe where this lens meets it's expectations is the ability as a walkaround that can shoot everything with quality.
I was looking for a lens that would allow me to have two lenses on a shoot. One being a longer zoom, or one a prime portrait low light, whichever needed, along with my new 24-105Lf4IS... I got tired of lugging alot of lenses around.
The Image Stabilization in this lens is superior to the older version, which makes up for low light situations. It would have been nice though if Canon could have managed a f2.8-4 instead, but the lens takes excellent quality L shots, better quality and color than the 17-85IS. Hand held at 1/7s no prob.
It has become my "always on" lens, the colors are very pleasant, replacing my 17-85IS. If you are looking for a step into the "L" world, this lens is it. You can add the primes later. Now I'm hooked on my first "L".
The 24-105L coupled with the 70-300IS would make a complete package for quality range and pro shots.
Hands Down My Favorite Lens.
Reviewed by: J. Wong, Portland, OR Review Date: 2006-07-15
I've had my 24-105L IS for about two months and have shot everything from jewelry and landscapes to portraits and a wedding reception with it. It has replaced my 24-70L and 28-135 IS as the lens I use for both "serious" work and walkaround duty with my full-frame DSLR. The extra focal length and IS make it more versatile than the 24-70L, and the two lenses run equal with sharpness and color response. The IS works, and to me, more than compensates for the the 24-70L's speed. The 24-105L has the 28-135 IS beat for sharpness and color response. Some post-processing is sometimes called for to realize the lens's full potential, but it captures a wonderful amount of detail. It's also much more manageable in size and weight than the 24-70L. This is a great lens.
This lens is miles above the 28-135 IS, its built much better feels better in your hands and the controls are a delight to work with. Your getting every penny you pay for this in quality and technology with this lens and rest assured it WILL preform.
Of course we all could wish it was cheaper, but professional camera gear is just this way... when I go out to do landscape and wildlife photography my jeep triples in value as soon as I put the camera bag in the back.
The Image Stabilization system in this camera is great, leave it on always, its sensitive enough to even help absorb the flicker of the mirror in your camera. You don't have to switch it off when you mount it on a tripod. While it will not save every shot and blur is always a possibility when you go below 1 60th of a second with any lens but I have had great luck using this to hand hold images down to as low as 1/4 of a second some of them turn out some of them dont but the fact that ANY of them turn out is impressive to me and proof the technology works.
You need to know HOW to use the IS however, its important that you allow the internal gyros time to spin up before you take the shot this takes about a half a second. Learning to see the photo before it happens and anticipating the shot is all part of this process, allowing the lens a half second to spin up to speed will allow you to utilize the full potential of IS
The circular aperture of this camera works well and allows you to get the depth of field you want with out the annoying jagged edges in out of focus items that lenses with normal aperture blades will give you. Bokeh is a little weak but we are only at f4 so that is expected.
Speaking of F4 it lets in a fair amount of light, I have not noticed any Vingeting at any focal length, but shooting on a 1.6 sensor crops out the edges...
Compared side by side with the 28-135 on a rebel xti the shots taken with this lens are easily recognizable as more contrasty and sharper. (the 28-135 IS is STILL a great lens however)
As with any lens this one has its own characteristics that you will need to get use to. Flare is very minimal in all but the most extreme lighting situations. However when you do encounter flare (usually only happens when your TRYING to get the lens to flare out on you) you usually get a sharp jagged object with a halo around it, If your trying to create a purposeful flare effect that looks good this is not the lens to use.
If you just bought the rebel XTi this is the kind of lens you are going to need to utilize all ten million pixels on the camera.
So if you buy this lens, congratulations you have just reached the top of technology and optical performance. If treated right this lens will provide you with a life time of images of uncompromising quality.
13 New — prices too low to display (click "More Info" or "Add to Cart" button to see prices)
10 Used from $575.00
With its effective focal length range of approximately 16-35mm in 35mm format, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3. 5-4. 5 USM is a remarkable lens with outstanding image quality that will take your photography into new dimensions and areas of dramatic expression. The super-wide zoom not only gives you the freedom to get exactly what you want in the shot, it dramatically alters perspective to allow for dynamic expression. The lens allows you to get extremely close to subjects, exaggerating the difference in size between a near object and its background. Creative photographers can use this phenomenon to create excellent separation between subject and background for a strong sense of presence, or for a pan-focus effect with everything from foreground to background sharply in focus. Exceptionally light and compact for its focal length range, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3. 5-4. 5 USM also has an incredibly close minimum focusing distance of just 24cm. A ring-type USM works in concert with the camera to provide super-fast, precision auto focusing and predictive tracking - with full manual override available at any time. Designed specifically for digital photography, the lens has specially shaped lens elements and Super Spectra coatings to suppress ghosting and flare, which can be caused by reflections off digital camera sensors. An exclusive optional lens hood can further reduce the incidence of flare. A circular aperture provides a pleasing background blur when shooting with a wide aperture; ideal for creating a sense of depth and getting your subject or model to stand out from the background.
10-22mm wide-angle zoom lens with f/3.5-4.5 maximum aperture for EOS digital SLR cameras
Superior AF performance and speed, with full-time manual focus with the turn of a ring
Close focusing to 9.5 inches; fills the frame with subjects as small as 3.6 x 5.4 inches
Circular aperture design produces natural highlights; EF-S lens mount for 20D and Digital Rebel
Measures 3.3 inches in diameter and 3.5 inches long; weighs 13.6 ounces; 1-year warranty
Reviewed by: Jim Krupnik, Watchung, NJ United States Review Date: 2006-11-20
My take on this lens is that it is an "L" quality optic in a fine, non "L" package. There is nothing else on the market to compete with it (nothing at all), and it produces supurb images. It isn't an f/2.8 lens, but it is close enough for most uses. The competition from Tamron is a full stop slower, not as sharp, and is awful in dim light compared to the Canon 10-22 lens (sorry, Tamron fans, but the Tamron lens isn't even playing in the same ballpark).
I use this lens on a 30D body, and I always keep it on hand if I'm doing any indoor, or tight group photography. It is the perfect solution to the perennial problem of not having enough room to capture all the kids at a birthday party in one shot because your back is up against a wall. This lens will just about get your toes into the picture at the widest setting, yet delivers tack sharp, colorful, and contrasty images. The auto focus is spot on, silent, and fast. It is a must have lens for the active amateur, or any pro using a 1.6 crop factor camera. You simply can't beat this lens with anything available on the market today.
That beng said, do not try to convince yourself that this will make a good "walkaround" lens. It isn't. Even at max length, it is far too short to live on your camera as a standard lens. You need this lens, even if you don't know it yet, but it should not be your first lens, as it will only be used 15 to 20 percent of the time. At those times, it's performance simply cannot be equaled by any other zoom lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera. You will be amazed by the quality of this lens. It rivals the performance of modern prime lenses, presents a bright viewfinder image, and delivers the goods in tight situations.
This is not a casual assessment, nor a Canon "feel good" moment on my part. I developed my first B&W contact prints in 1964, in my own darkroom at the age of 9 (my parents were concerned:)), and have been an avid photographer ever since. Small, medium, and large format cameras and lenses have passed through my hands over the years, and Canon has become my favorite small format brand. Still, Canon builds some trash lenses that should be avoided. The 10-22 USM is not one of them :).
Before you go out and buy this lens, you should already own the EF-S 17-55mm IS f/2.8 lens. That is the king of 1.6 crop factor standard lenses, and includes the awesome Canon IS feature. It will end up being mounted on your camera 80% of the time, and keep you smiling after every shoot. Get that lens first. Then, get the 10-22mm lens. Then, let your imagination run wild, and plan on serious telephoto lenses for the future. Trust me or not, the two lenses mentioned above will provide you with photographic tools that will astound you. Get them in your kit as soon as you can afford them.
A little warning about either lens.... Some here will argue the point, but with either lens, get a GOOD quality UV filter that is multi-coated on both sides, and built extra thin to avoid vignetting at wide lens settings. A good filter will cost a little less than one hundred Dollars, and can cost up to one hundred forty Dollars. The minimum brand would be Hoya Pro 1 multi coated filters, and the ante goes up from there.
Everything else is garbage, including the Canon "sharp cut" filter that costs less than fifty bucks. No kidding, no conjecture. If you use cheap filters, you will never see what your lens can really do. Ever. No doubt that many will respond with claims that their twenty Dollar filter works just fine, but they simply don't know any better, and have never used their expensive equipment to it's full potential. It's akin to a Chevy owner passing judgement on a Mercedes Benz. The Chevy might feel real good, but until you own the Mercedes, you just have no clue.
Bottom line.... Make sure that the quality of your filters exceed the quality of your lenses. Yes, at a hundred bucks a pop for a 77mm filter, it hurts, but you will never regret it. Also, Amazon does not stock lens hoods for all non L Canon lenses. The price is stupid high for those hoods, but they make a night and day difference in in picture quality. Whenever you order a non L Canon lens, find a web seller who has the hood in stock, and get it right now. Again, you will never regret owning it.
That's it for my review/rant. Buy this lens. Buy the 17-55 IS f/2,8 first. Buy the lens hoods for both. Toss any "kit" lenses that came with the camera in the trash bin (where they belong), and be very happy.
The best lens I own
Reviewed by: M. A. Filippelli, Roseville, CA, US Review Date: 2005-03-30
I have had this lens for several months now and let me start out by saying WOW. I looked at the lens in the store along with the Sigma 12-24 and I was in total awe of what I saw though the view finder with the Canon 10-22. This is an ultra wide angle lens that is incredible. I went home and thought about where I would use this lens and determined that I would use it quite a bit. I went ahead and bought the lens and I continue to be more impressed with it every time I use it. I have used the lens for both close-up (which can give you some very interesting distortion shots)and wide angle shots with great success.
The 10-22mm is equivalent to 16-35mm field of view using a canon 20D which is not a full frame sensor. With a minimum focal distance of .24m (about 9.5 inches) you can get very close to objects and still get alot of focal width in the photo. There is incredible clarity in the lens. The photos I have taken are very clear with only a slight hint of softening at the corners at 10mm; everything else is sharp after that. There is a little barrel distortion at 10mm but everything else up to 22mm is nice. I have not gotten any light flare in my photos. The Ultrasonic motor is very quiet. The depth of field is outstanding. A slim UV filter helps prevent some slight vignetting at 10mm. With a maximum aperture that ranges from f/3.5 to f/4.5, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens is a medium speed lens. I would recommend using a tripod if you are at all unsure about your ability to hold the camera still for action shots with this lens. The lens it's self is fairly light weight. If you are going to use filters the lens requires 77mm.
The lens can produce some interesting distortion shots if you are taking close-ups and are not perpendicular to the object. For close-up shots with out distortion it is best to be perpendicular to the object.
Inside the lens housing there are three aspherical lens elements and a Super UD element that produce clear vibrant shots. The lens it's self sturdily built and comfortable to handle.
This is one terrific lens! It solves the problem of wide-angle coverage in the 1.6 FOVCF very nicely. As others have pointed out, the mechanical build and optical quality (with 3 Aspherical elements and 1 Super-UD) probably deserve an "L" stamp and a red ring. This lens appears to be of almost identical build, quality and size as the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM. Even uses the same 77mm filter size as most of the L's. Overall sharpness is excellent, with maybe a little softness towards the corners at 10mm, but I've seen comparisons with other ultra-wide zooms like the Sigma and the Canon blows them away! CA is well controlled too. There is slight Barrel and Pincushion distortions present at the low and high ends, but less than would be expected for a lens this wide. All in all this is one of the best wide-angle zooms available.
The major criticism of this lens usually comes down to; "well, how long will Canon continue to make 1.6 FOVCF cameras?" or "Someday I might upgrade to a Full Frame camera, then what will I do with this lens?" I doubt very seriously that Canon will do away with the APS-C cameras any time soon. My reasoning is that:
1. Canon just came out with the Full Frame 5D at the $3000 price point. Introducing a FF camera to replace the 20D at $1500 would kill the 5D after only a few months.
2. Having the EF-S lens line already established almost guarantees keeping the 1.6 format - mostly because of this lens. To be able to use the EF-S 10-22mm, a chip can't really go any bigger than 1.6 since this seems to be the limit of the useable coverage. Using a 1.5 or 1.4 sensor for example would probably start to introduce significant fall-off at the corners of the larger chip.
As I am writing this, the PMA conference is only four days away. My prediction is that Canon will announce a replacement for the 20D that will, in essence be a 1.6 FOVCF version of the 5D. They will probably increase the (already excellent) density of the 20D's CMOS by shrinking pixel size down to around 5 micron yielding something around the 10 mega-pixel range to compete with the Nikon D200. Maybe they will call the camera the 50D after the 5D since they can't really use the name 30D because D30 was already used.
In any case, my point is that the 1.6 APS-C format will likely be around for some time to come, until the point where the FF price point drops enough to warrant discontinuing the xxD line. Even then, when that happens, doesn't mean you'll throw your 20D in the trash! You'll still want to keep using it and/or sell it, and having this lens will significantly increase its usefulness or resale value.
Now, having said all that, this is the only EF-S lens I plan on buying. From the reviews I've read, the other EF-S lenses are of significantly lesser quality, and all of your other lens needs can be met with standard EF lenses anyway, APS-C or otherwise. Plus you get the option to buy L glass.
So, bottom line is buying this particular EF-S lens for a 20D or XT is a no-brainer. It's the best solution for wide angle in this format. Hesitating to buy it because "I might get a FF camera someday" is also nonsensical. What I might do in the future is just that, for the future. Not buying a mid-priced car today because "someday" I might buy a Ferrari doesn't satisfy my use and enjoyment of the car today!
A lens worth buying a digital slr for
Reviewed by: Todd Salerno, berkeley, ca United States Review Date: 2005-09-02
I've been more or less addicted to wide angle photography for the last 20 years or thereabouts. Unfortunately, ultra wide angle shooters have been left out of reasonably accessible digital slr photography until very recently. Now there are several viable name brand options available, namely the Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 reviewed here, the Nikon 12-24mm f4, and the Zuiko 7-14mm f4. Because of the 3 different crop factors involved, these lenses end up being pretty close in (35mm equivalent) effective range; 16-35 for the Canon, 18-36 for the Nikon, and 14-28 for the Olympus. Many will caution against purchasing these lenses since they cannot cover the full frame 24x36 format, and cannot even be mounted on a regular body. In the Olympus' case, it doesn't matter since the company has staked its fortunes on the smaller 4/3rds sensor format, and has opened it up to other manufacturers such as Fuji and Panasonic. With the Nikon and Canon, you are taking a leap of faith that the companies will continue to produce 1.5 and 1.6 crop factor sensors into the future so that you will be able to take your crop-only lenses to upgraded digital bodies down the line. To my mind, Olympus has already demonstrated the desirable technical characteristics of a smaller sensor format, so there is good reason to believe that smaller than full frame sensors are here to stay. By extending the glass beyond the mount and into the body, and/or covering a smaller circle, Canon and Nikon are providing those same technical benefits to users of their smaller sensor cameras, namely sharp, extra wide angle in a compact package. Besides which, I'm much more concerned with the photos I couldn't take if I stayed away from the product, than I am with its unknown future upgrade path.
While the Olympus lens and 4/3rds system was intriguing, I felt that the 7-14mm wasn't worth more than double the price of the Canon for 2 extra mm at the wide end. It's also double the weight - making it impractical for use as an everyday lens, and negating the advantages of the E-1 body. So, I was pretty much down to the Canon or the Nikon (or the always available Waitsomemore).
At this point, I should say I'm platform agnostic. In the 80's I happily used Minolta equipment. In the 90's I bought some Nikon gear to use their 15mm prime lens. Basically, if it suits my purposes, I don't care what the label is.
Back to the lenses. The Nikon is more expensive and less wide, but it does have the continuous maximum apeture throughout the range. The Canon is wider, a tad lighter, and a tiny amount faster at the wide end. Both appear to be excellent choices, but I could not consider them independently of the cameras they would be mated to. Since I did not already own a digital body, it also came down to a decision between the Canon 20d & Nikon D70s. Here, the Canon wins for me on quality of sensor and a host of other details.
In practice, the lens is a joy to use. It's sharp. The zoom allows it to be as wide as you need it, which is an improvement over my previous favorite Minolta 20mm 2.8, though it does lack the depth of field scales which the Minolta has. The zoom also allows for keeping the lens mounted without switching as often, and that's important for keeping out dust. It's a very solidly built, quality instrument. Focus is fast if you're into that sort of thing, and nearly silent with the ultrasonic motor. The lens does not extend in length for zooming or focusing, though the front elements do move slightly inside the barrel. Mated to the 20d it's a tool that exceeds my previous film cameras in just about every way imaginable. I'm finally free to make the ultrawide photos that I want to make in the digital domain and the initial results have been outstanding.
If you're into ultrawide and want to go digital, the 20d with 10-22 is a fantastic setup. If you've already gone digital and want to try wide angle, (assuming your camera can use ef-s lenses) this is a true bargain - you get a 16mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm all rolled into one. It makes me positively giddy. Thank you, Canon!
My photographic "pride and joy", actual score is 4.5 stars
Reviewed by: M. E. Boldt, Arcade, NY United States Review Date: 2007-03-16
I have owned this lens for about 16 months and am extremely pleased with it. I have a Digital Rebel (300D), so the EF-S designation is perfect for me (for now). It took a little getting used to, as I had never shot with a ultra wide lens before, but I love the possibilities it offers. For instance, I can stand remarkably close to a large object (i.e. building, monument, landscape feature) and easily fit the entire object in the frame. There is, of course, considerable trapezoidal effect in these shots, but that can be corrected fairly easily in Photoshop.
While shopping for an ultra wide lens, I visited a local camera shop and compared the EF-S 10-22 to a 17-40 L on my Digital Rebel. The sales guy and I went outside, took several shots with each lens, downloaded them to a computer in the store and compared them side-by-side. We took the same shot with the same settings, then the same shot with each lens wide open. The results were extremely surprising.
There was no noticeable difference in color or sharpness quality between the two lenses in the focal areas of the images. Both lenses produced very good images, but the L lens certainly wasn't better. This was a pretty big surprise to both of us. The even bigger surprise was the EF-S was VERY noticeably sharper around the edges at 10mm f3.5 vs the L lens at 17mm f4. The sales guy was completely amazed, as he had started off by giving me the usual speech about the superiority of Canon L series lenses. I think our experiment has given him something different to tell his customers!
I still believe there are great reasons to buy L lenses, and someday soon I probably will. But I walked out of there with the EF-S lens, especially considering both were the same price and the 10-22 is markedly wider on my DRebel (no surprise!).
Pros: ultra wide angle capability for APS-C cameras, "L-like" build quality and sharpness
Cons: EF-S designation limits compatible cameras (resulting in half star reduction)
In summary, this lens is my photographic "pride and joy", and it travels everywhere with me.
Feedback: 53,107 / 99.6% Top-Rated Seller 
Feedback: 18,561 / 99.5% Top-Rated Seller 
Feedback: 8,444 / 98.4%
Feedback: 433,044 / 99.5% Top-Rated Seller 
Feedback: 3,276 / 99.8%
Feedback: 80 / 100.0%
Feedback: 308 / 100.0%
