Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras..

Grab Now Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

289 of 304 people found the following review helpful.
The L-lense that puts the L-lense on the map
By J. Chen
Canon's legendary L-lense reputation is built on lense such as the 70-200mm F/2.8, this is the lense that gives the credit to the WOW factor associated with Canon L lense. Sharpness, constrast is second to none.

I know many people are probably deciding between the F/4L F/2.8L and the F/2.8L IS. If you want the most bang for the buck go for the F/2.8L. Why, because if you're serious enough to buy the F/4L you will eventually migrate to this F/2.8L (like many photographers), why because there is nothing going to speed up your shutter speed better than the f/2.8 at the long end when compared to F/4 especially for fast moving targets. Another big advantage is the canon 2x extender which boost this lense to 400mm at the long end with great results and at F/5.6, it is one of the best performing combo at 400mm focal length especially considering the price of a 400mm lense by itself.

If you have cash to burn go for the IS version, but cost increase is a bit steep ($500+), especially considering using a tripod will make the IS an non-issue, and for a shot deserving attention, a tripod or some sort of stablizer should be used anyway might as well save the $500 and put a bit more in for the 17-40mm L lense. :-)

217 of 229 people found the following review helpful.
You get what you pay for
By Colin M. Burnett
This was my first L lens and I am very pleased; zero buyer's regret for me.

When I first started to seriously consider buying one of the 70-200mm lenses I wasn't sure which to buy. I first thought about buying the f/4 version because it was cheaper but then found out the f/2.8 comes with a case (~ $40), tripod ring (~ $120), and a hood (~ $35) in addition to the extra stop in aperture. For the $600 difference it reduces down by about $200 by including additional stuff that you, frankly, should have.

Most notably is the tripod ring which takes the lens weight off the camera body but also balances the camera at the tripod mount. With the f/2.8 attached to my 300D it balances just fine on the tripod foot (even with a EX550 flash). In shooting with a tripod it's very easy to rotate the lens within the ring to go from landscape to portrait without off-balancing the weight.

The extra weight is an issue depending on your muscular build. I can shoot for a couple hours without the weight being bothersome but my fiancee (very petite) has some difficulties. In actual shooting I find the tripod ring comes in handy to put the weight on my palm thus leaving my fingers free to adjust zoom and focus without a hassle while providing a firmer base for stability.

I cannot comment on the f/2.8 IS version since I've never used it but I have seen people selling their f/2.8 IS because it was too heavy.

All-in-all this is an extremely good lens and you get exactly what you pay for: quality. Some day I intend on complementing this lens with the 24-70 f/2.8L for wider angle shots. Of course, if you have the chance to test all three versions of the 70-200mm lens at a store then you certainly should test them for yourself. And, by all means, buy a UV/protector lens.

282 of 300 people found the following review helpful.
Auto-focus is super fast, quiet and spot on
By Grant Brummett
01-01-2009 Canon 5D Mark II Update

Bokeh

Well, the reach my be less but man on man the Bokeh of this lens using the 5D Mark II has to be seen to be believed. Much smoother creamier and richer on the 5D Mark II. Something like double the Bokeh since you can get twice as close, just make sure when shooting at F/2.8 you have enough dept of field.

Sharpness and clarity

The sharpness and clarity wide open at F/2.8 that was just Ok on the 40D is much improved for some strange reason on the 5D Mark II. I would not have figured it this way but it's just plain better. Putting this lens on the 5D Mark II has transformed it from a so so lens to a sharp, high clarity monster even wide open. You wouldn't know it was the same lens I has used on the 40D.

Reach:
The reach of the lens on a full frame sensor camera is half but when indoors shooting weddings this can be a good thing. On the cropped sensor cameras you often find yourself running out of space to back up when you want a wider shot but on the 5D Mark II the 70mm end is actually useful. When shooting outdoors if you can't get pretty close you will want a longer lens. This is when I reach for my excellent Canon 100-400 F/4.5 - F/5.6 IS L Lens.

Vignetting:
On my Canon 40D and Rebel XTi Vignetting or peripheral illumination problems are practically non-existent, but on my new Canon 5D Mark II I use the auto-peripheral illumination correction as with it off it is a problem. But with it ON its no problem at all.

You can either have the 5D Mark II auto-correct peripheral illumination on board for JPEGs or adjust Raw images using Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) software that came with your Mark II. I have noticed on the full framed 5D Mark II with the peripheral illumination correction turned OFF the 5D Mark II images will severely vignette or be dark in the corners when shot wide open (F/2.8). It's almost like looking through a dark tunnel. It's especially noticeable shot wide open with the sky as a background.

Auto-correct to the rescue!! With the peripheral illumination correction turned ON it's almost magical the darkening in the corners for your JPEG images is gone! If you want you can even shoot in Raw mode and adjust the amount of Vignetting or darkness in the corners for effects such as when shooting portraits and you want to emphasis the person in the middle of the photo. Just open the Raw photo in DPP and click on the NR/Lens / ALO tab and select Lens Aberration Correction Tune and adjust the peripheral illumination to suite by dragging the slider or entering and amount. Or select all the photos in a directory and you can correct all your photos at once. This way you can either have no Vignetting or as much as you want.

Pros:

Tack Sharp at 70-135mm at F5.6 at any distance
Sharp at F2.8 at a distance for some reason but soft up close (10 to 50 feet)
Sharp at F2.8 for indoor non-flash gym / church distance photos any zoom setting. Gets a little soft focused close and at infinity at F2.8
Auto focus tracks moving objects like a laser guided smart bomb! I have many in flight bird photos
Beautifully made with perfect quality
Beautiful deep colors, lots of contrast
Auto-focus is super fast, quiet and spot on even in dim light
White so it's cooler out in the hot summer sun
Comes with nice case and nice lens tripod mount
Pretty good Bokeh better then the F4 70-200 of course but not as good as primes
Really bright in the viewfinder the brightest long lens I've used
This lens has Auto Lens Vignetting correction using peripheral Illumination control see Auto Vignetting comments below:

Cons:

VERY shallow depth of field at F2.8
Costs twice as much as the great F4 70-200
Seems to weigh twice as much as the F4 70-200
Very LARGE and white gets a LOT of attention
Softens a little above 135mm approaching and at 200mm at infinity

Review:

I bought this Lens to use on my Canon Digital Rebel XTi to shoot wild birds, animals at the zoo, sporting events and aircraft shows.

After having taken over 4,000 photos with it and trading out and using my friends F4 70-200 I have the following conclusions.

This lens focuses very FAST!! I have tracked birds in FLIGHT!! It focuses in light so low I don't see how it's focusing.

The F2.8 is MUCH larger then the F4 you have to use these two lenses back to back to really appreciate the difference. Also the lens hood sticks way out on the F2.8 which does protect the lens more but makes a long lens even longer. The F4 is more of a hold all day out shooting lens for the average person the F2.8 more of a tripod lens.

I do love this F2.8 lens, but in hindsight I might have bought the cheaper lighter and smaller non IS F4 lens. We tried several tests using a tripod while using mirror lockup and remote release so camera shake and depth of field were not a variable. We found my F2.8 lens is slightly sharper in the middle at 200mm but the F4 is slightly sharper near the edges. Both lenses were tack sharp edge to edge at 70-135mm at F8 with the F4 lens maintaining more sharpness over all from 135 to 200mm. However I found the F2.8 is brighter looking through the view finder then the F4.

The F2.8 does seem to produce slightly richer color but you can easily make up the difference between the F4 in a photo editor program.

This lens also softens some at F2.8 and gets sharper the closer to F8 you get. I tried several test shots on a tripod using mirror lockup and remote release of a photo test card so camera shake and depth of field were not a variable. Speaking of depth of field at F2.8 the depth of field is so shallow at close range F2.8 is almost unusable. You can take a photo of someone and their nose is tack sharp and their eyes are soft. This could be a plus if you are looking for this effect.

So why do I keep this lens?

I shoot a lot using a tripod and love the included lens tripod mount. The camera and lens are MUCH more stable when the lens is mounted to the tripod then trying to shoot with a long lens with the camera mounted to the tripod and the lens hanging out front. Note: You can buy the lens tripod mount for the F4 lens but it's $150 extra.

I need the extra stops F2.8 gives me for low light indoor photograhy I have gotten shots at F2.8 ISO 1600 I could not have gotten with the F4 lens.

I do like the attention I get and questions.

I love the way this lens is SO bright in the viewfinder, noticeably brighter when framing a shot then the F4.

I don't mind the extra workout carrying it around I need the exercise.

I'm thinking about also buying the F4 70-200 and having both.

Why only 4 stars:

If this lens were tack sharp edge to edge at 200mm at any distance I would have given it 5 stars but felt that this was enough to pull back to 4.
Also the min distance switch is too easy to move, it doesn't need this switch anyway the auto focus is great,

Recommendation:

If you have the money and want a bright in the viewfinder, great color, large, imposing presence tripod mounted lens the F2.8 lens is for you.

If you want to save some money and shoot hand held with a lighter lens and don't need the F2.8 for low light shooting and Bokeh then get the F4 lens.

If you have lots and lots of money buy them both!

9-23-2007 Update

This lens continues to impress me. I have been shooting more around F2.8 at longer reach hand held on cloudy days and inside buildings where flash is not allowed and have found this lens really can work hand held at higher ISO say 400 to 800. I'm thinking about buying the 40D which has higher ISO performance then my Rebel XTi so I can shoot at 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO with less noise.

Filter Update 1-3-2008

After much searching I found the perfect filter. The Hoya Multi Coat HMC Pro1 Protection filter is not supposed to filter the shot just protect the front lens element. I was very worried that it would affect the shot after having tried some other premium filters like the B+W UV which caused the photos to be softer and duller. However, after some tests I found that in some weird way the Hoya Multi Coat HMC Pro1 actually makes the photos seem to have just a little more contrast and be a little sharper then without. I thought I had gotten the test shots backwards and had to retest with a little sign in the photo saying with and without filter in place just to make sure. Really amazing!!! I'm sold!

Update 3-1-2008 Arizona Renaissance Festival

Here's a brief summary of my thoughts when using both the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 USM L and Canon 135mm F/2 USM L at AZ Renaissance Festival.

The first thing I noticed was the zoom can be much more versatile especially at the bird show where it's ability to zoom in and out was nice, but it's minimum focus distance is quite a bit farther. I noticed several times taking face shot close ups that I ran into the stop and it could not focus, so I had to back up. Also knowing that full sharpness was not reached until F/5.6 I kept the lens at this stop to make the shots sharp. But there is no denying its ability to reach out and photograph someone at a distance and then turn around and get a shot close up. Also, the Canon 70-200 really stood out to people. I actually had several people ask what lens it was and could they look at it / hold it. Several workers made jokes about my large canon when I had it mounted.

On the Canon 135mm side there is no denying the quality of the photos and the ability to blur the background and still have a sharp subject at wide open apertures. The creamy smooth Bokeh and quality of the photos make them treasures I will show off and print for years to come. There is some 3d quality that these photos possess that the 70-200 just does not have. The Canon 135mm is much more stealthy with people not really thinking you are taking their photo from far away. No one asked to hold it or even what kind of lens it was. The workers didn't make jokes about having a large canon in fact there were a couple of workers that said they had seen bigger.

I love them both, but if I had to choose only one to take to the Renaissance Festival it would be the Canon 135mm F/2 USM L. It's half the weight, black and stealthy and takes photos I will treasure forever.

3-28-2008 Update:

I still love this lens and it was my first L lens. It's funny how much more attention this lens will get everywhere I go. You will be asked what news agency you are working for, can I see it, can I hold it, how much does it cost? Things I have never been asked about my Canon 85mm F/1.2 L II lens which cost hundreds more. So if you want a great 70-200 zoom and crave attention and can carry the weight this lens is for you. I still love mine and plan on keeping it forever!

8-18-2008 Update:

I find myself falling in love with this lens all over again. A friend has borrowed it for a few months to use and I went on a shoot this weekend with it and wow!! When you use Digital Photo Professional (DPP) to make your JPEG from RAW this lens is a razor blade even at F/2.8! There is that much difference in processing using DPP then usin Adobe Camera Raw!!! It makes my Canon 70-200 F/2.8 look almost as sharp as my Canon 135 F2.

The only strange thing when I first got the lens back it focuses more slowly then normal for a few shots about like the focusing on my Canon 85mm F/1.2 which can be a little slow. But within a few hundred shots seems to be back to the milisecond focus speed. I wonder if he left it out in the car in the hot Arizona sun?

Still get's a huge amount of attention. You would think it was a Canon 300mm F/2.8 the way people stare. Guess the white L lenses are still pretty rare out and about. My friends Canon 70-200 F4 L is just as sharp but the F/2.8 lets in twice as much light! But the F/2.8 feels almost twice as fat in the hand and after a day of shooting is heavier!! Still when I was already at ISO 3200 and F/2.8 yeasterday at a very dark church function I was stopping action that you could not do with the Canon 70-200 F/4.

11-07-2008 Update:

This is still one of my most used and versatile lenses. And I've noticed in some of my photos this really cool almost 3D effect around the main subject usually at wider apertures. My only regret is that it does not have IS. After buying two lenses that have it I can see that in really dark situations IS can really make a huge difference. Also there is the one single spec of dust in the middle of the outer most element. But it does not seem to affect the photos.

It's taken many beautiful photos for me and I will probably keep it as long as I live.

Auto Vignetting peripheral illumination control:

Canon has this super sweet Auto Lens Vignetting correction that works with this lens both in camera with JPEG's and in RAW using peripheral Illumination control in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) when using newer Canon digital EOS cameras (Canon Rebel XSi, 40D, 5D Mark II etc.) . No more vignetting when shooting wide open!!! When shooting Raw open the file(s) in DPP and click on NR/Lens Lens Aberration Correction / Tune and click on Peripheral illumination. The cameras listed above have already picked up the amount of vignetting based on focusing distance, zoom setting and F stop from the lens and the camera has saved the information with the Raw file. You can then adjust the amount under Peripheral Illumination if you don't like the amount automatically suggested. If you shot JPEG then you get the auto amount. SWEET!!!

Verdict:

You can't go wrong if you need 70-200mm and fast speed.

01-03-2009 Canon 5D Mark II Update:

This lens is actually just behind my Canon 100-400 IS L Lens in the zoom sharpness and clarity department but it's no where near as versatile on my 5D Mark II as the 100-400. Still it's a must have lens when shooting weddings when you need the super Bokeh background melting power of an F/2.8 aperture and lower light power of an F/2.8 aperture. The Bokeh that was Ok on the 40D is smoother creamier and richer on the 5D Mark II. Still I almost wish I had bought the Image Stabilized version instead. I'm finding that on the 5D Mark II you can really sharpen up images when shooting in raw and processing in Canon's Digital Photo Professional. As that and the price were my only complaint about the IS version of this lens I now wish I had purchased it instead.

Lenses I currently own:

Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS Zoom Lens Ultra sharp, great colors, great low light, poor zoom action
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Rebel XTi Kit Zoom lens Muddy, slow, pile of junk
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Zoom Lens Fantastic colors, sharp zoomed 17 to 24mm and stopped down, ultra smooth zoom action, light weight
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L Zoom Lens Fantastic colors and contrast, sharp zoomed 40 to 70mm, zoom a little stiff at first, heavy, repair prone!
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Good budget portrait lens, light weight, disposable, sharp from F/2.5
Canon EF 85mm F/1.2 L II The best portrait lens for female and children clients, buttery smooth Bokeh, heavy and expensive it shares sharpness with 135mm
Canon EF 135mm F/2.0 L The best portrait lens for males and tied with Canon 85mm F 1/.2 for sharpest lens I own, buttery smooth Bokeh
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L Zoom Lens Fantastic colors, sharp for a zoom, very versatile ego boosting and attention getting and heavy! My favorite zoom lens that I own!!!
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS Zoom Lens super colors, sharp for a zoom, extremely versatile, variable Bokeh can be great or bad, even more ego boosting and attention getting when extended and 400mm reach!!

My next lens purchase I'm saving for right now: 'Canon EF 300mm F/2.8 IS L the finest lens ever

See all 170 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras..

GET Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

778 of 792 people found the following review helpful.
My walkaround lens
By NutMac
The walkaround lens. This very topic leads to a heated discussion among DSLR photographers.

First, determine your budget, focal length, and aperture needs.

If you frequently find yourself zooming out to get everything in a frame, you will want a wide angle lens such as this. If you frequently find yourself zooming in, this is not the lens for you. On a full frame body such as Canon EOS 5D, this lens becomes ULTRA wide angle. On an APS-C crop body such as Digital Rebel XTi (which I used for this review), it becomes MEDIUM wide angle. But thanks to 1.6x crop factor, this lens expands to more usable 35mm equivalent focal length of 27 to 64mm.

Second, audition the lens if you can.

By definition, a walkaround lens should be relatively portable. At 1.1 lbs., Canon's EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is neither super light nor neck breakingly heavy. In fact, it weighs almost the same as Digital Rebel XTi -- really nice balance. The lens feels very solid with supreme build quality that only L-series lenses offer. Although this lens is weather proof and therefore sealed against liquid and dust, I strongly recommend getting a 77mm filter to protect the front lens element. With it, this lens is made to last.

In terms of looks and feel, it doesn't get much better. Its rubberized full-time inner focus manual ring USM focuses smoothly, quietly, and quickly. Since it's inner focus, the lens will not extend beyond its metal casing whether you zoom in or out. The focus window shows focusing distance from 0.28 meter (0.92 feet) to infinity. The focal length marker indicates 17, 20, 24, 28, 35, and 40mm. The lens exudes quality from tip to tip.

You may tolerate heavier lens or may not mind lesser build quality of cheaper lenses. A walkaround lens will be used very often, so make sure you will be comfortable with it.

This lens is famous for saturated color and deep contrast. Its images are simply stunning. At 17mm wide angle, barrel distortion is noticeable but relatively mild. From 24mm to 40mm, its images are distortion free and perfectly suited at capturing people.

Vignetting (corner darkness) is minimal with mild chroma abberrations (color shadows). At f/4 aperture, details become noticeably softer toward the edges. The center region is very sharp and at f/5.6, edges remain fairy sharp. Thanks to 7 diaphragm blades, this lens can produce very nice bokeh at 40mm (blur effects).

One of the most cited weaknesses is the f/4 aperture. In my experience, a bump in the ISO speed and steady hands are all you need to take well focused images indoor. On the other hand, if you are shooting with very little amount of light, you might wish for f/2.8 or image stabilizer. Although the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is just 1 stop, my other lens, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (too heavy to be my walkaround lens) easily outperforms in such challenging situations. But by and large, I was not handicapped by the f/4 aperture.

Some of the main competitions (sorted by price):
- Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro: Good zoom range with macro, and generally solid performance if you can get a good sample. It does suffer from a bit slow focus mechanism, soft corner, and chroma aberrations. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC: Very good value for f/2.8 aperture, but Tamron's 17-50mm is a bit better lens overall. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: This "traveler's lens" has a wider focal range than most wide angle lenses (widest among Canon) and is equipped with an image stabilizer. While it is a Jack of many trades, it is the master of none. Every lenses on this list will perform better at particular focal length. Then again, none of the lenses on this list has as wide focal range. It is famous for extreme barrel distortion at 17mm and chroma aberrations. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF): This is the most direct competitor. It takes sharper images with faster aperture while costing less. Both the build and focus mechanism are significantly worse, but should be good enough for many. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM: This is THE reference, if you can afford it. Its images have razor sharp details and great performance all around (minus vignetting, which is typical of EF-S lenses). The build quality is worse than L-series but still pretty good. Works only with EF-S mount. This is the best EF-S lens hands down.
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM: One of the most expensive wide angle zoom lenses. It's larger and heavier, but has f/2.8 aperture.

This is how Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM stacks up.

Pros:
- Among the very best build quality.
- Excellent, buttery smooth, super fast front-focus system.
- Top notch color and contrast. Very sharp center resolution.
- Almost non-existent vignetting, generally low distortion, and well controlled chroma abberrations.
- Ideal weight and size for walkaround purpose

Cons:
- Edge softness at f/4 aperture.
- Narrower focal length than most competing lenses.
- Slower than some third party lenses.

All in all, this is an excellent wide angle walkaround lens. It may not offer the most bang for the buck, but if you value full frame compatibility (EF lens mount) and excellent build quality, this is the default choice. This lens comes with a nice pouch and a lens hood. I find the hood to be somewhat ridiculously shaped and because the lens is resistant to flare, I do not use it often when shooting outdoor.

152 of 156 people found the following review helpful.
Versatility on the Cheap
By Genobambino
No one lens accomplishes every photographic objective. Canon makes each lens at every price point well-suited to various tasks, but with limitations that can only be overcome by graduating to the next higher priced but similar item. A case in point: the wide-angle zooms.

The 17-40mm f/4 is one of Canon's best deals in L-series glass. You have to spend twice as much to get a lens of similar quality, but just one stop faster. Does this make the more-expensive EF 16-35 f/2.8L a ripoff? Not for its own specific use: the extra stop gives you the speed to shoot in more indoor situations. Not all photographers need this. When indoors, we're often taking pictures of people, which are better suited to lengths around 50-100mm. To capture sweeping panoramas of parlors for Architectural Digest (or Coldwell Banker) the f/2.8 is the better lens and worth the step up in price, though in many cases you could use the f/4 lens with a tripod. All this means is that the f/2.8 is priced for professional specialists whereas the f/4 is for more general use. My bigger point is that Canon has its whole lineup positioned: the differences across lenses are specific and appropriately priced, which is good news for the consumer. It's hard to make a mistake buying homegrown Canon lenses, especially L-series lenses. You just have to figure out which set of two or three suits your range of uses.

The 17-40mm is a steal for people who need a walkaround lens for travel and outdoor photography. The shorter focal lengths of the zoom are great on a digital body, with nice reach and minimal distortion; just an ability to grab up landscape and wide situations end-to-end, even when standing close. The focal lengths around 40mm are tight enough for portraits and other local detail. Colors are strong and convincing; contrast deep and impactful. The lens itself is small enough and light enough to grab-and-go, but nicely machined, with solid fit and finish. It has an instantly recognizable profile, with the added bonus of the red ring.

This lens, plus a 70-200mm f/2.8 telescope and a nice fast fixed lens in the range betwixt are all you need. On vacation, and in most outdoor situations, the 17-40mm alone suffices. It makes a good first L-lens, and a staple in the arsenal.

493 of 530 people found the following review helpful.
Only decent in comparison to other L's
By Jesse R. Hunter
(I really want to give this lens 3.5 stars)

This review is written from the viewpoint of someone whom has used many L-class lenses, and as such will be a little harder on this piece of glass. If you've never used a Canon L lens and you purchase this one, I guarantee you'll be quite pleased with your purchase. But this review is really meant for those who own other L glass pieces and are looking into adding this one to their collection.

The good:

L glass tends to mean some heavy-weight glass, however this lens is surprisingly light and small. In fact, it is the smallest/lightest L zoom Canon makes. You find yourself more likely to take it to places where there may not be much of a projected photo opportunity or where there is a higher risk in damaged gear due to its unobtrusive size. It really is one of those few L lenses that you can casually walk around with and not garner much for attention.

As with all L-glass, this ones very solidly constructed. It has a simplicity of design that minimizes risk to moving parts from shock. It is well-balanced and just feels like a tight glass package.

The lens performs very well in color and contrast. Natural saturation is excellent, easily on par with the L expectation. The color and saturation of this lens sits somewhere between the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8.

I initially thought that the zoom range would be constraining (a mere 23mm of range?), but in reality the lens is fairly versatile. This especially true on a 1.6 FOVCF body (20D, 30D, 350D, 400D, etc), where the range is more like that of a normal zoom, at the cost of the super-wide advantage. The lens handles pretty much all composition tasks except those of a telephoto or 1.0x macro. You won't be disappointed in the zoom versatility.

Price. This like, what, the second cheapest L lens available. For those whom are very accustomed to purchasing/collecting L lenses, anything under a thousand dollars really is considered on the cheap side. If this is your first L purchase, this lens or the 70-200mm F/4L are your places to start.

Flare. There's practically none.

Cons: (there's only one, but its a biggie)

Sharpness. This is by far my biggest qualm, and what makes me frown a little at this lens for its L designation. It's nowhere near that of other lenses. One of the biggest uses for this lens is landscape photography, where objects appear very distant and sharpness becomes crucial. 24mm at f/4 on this lens is easily less sharp than 24mm at f/2.8 (!) on the 24-70 f/2.8L. And as a little investigation will reveal, this probelm is also somewhat appearant on the 16-35mm f/2.8L (although it seems less pronounced). 100% crop comparisons of this lens to other lenses such as the 180mm f/3.5L is simply a joke.

Other:

This lens utilizes slight movement of the front element, so it is advised by pretty much everyone that a UV filter be purchased (77mm filter size). I add to that by saying: buy only the Multi-coated from B+W or Hoya if you're shooting digital. Yes, they're usually somewhere around eighty bucks, but spending forty on something that will bring you ghosting/contrast woes is not worth it.

The hood of this lens is hilarious. It's almost five inches wide and maybe an inch and a half tall. I simply don't use it (I can't geometrically see how it helps. I think it may be something of a feel-good-hood if you're not consiencious about flare.) The lens is less conspicuous without it and I really don't have a flare problem.

Conclusion

I'm really not satisfied with the sharpness issue. It seems at least somewhat appearant on almost all Canon's lenses below 35mm. (Except for the 24-70 and 24-105, which is odd). I think they're still working out their wide-angle formula. Appearantly, the new 17-55mm f/2.8 is supposed to be sharper than both the 17-40 and 16-35, so they are probably on the right track of improving the issue.

In the end, if you've never used L glass and are considering this one, buy it. You will be very pleased, I assure you. But if you own a good deal of L glass, you may want to hold off from this one and wait for Canon to improve their optics. You may find yourself like me, using other L pieces and only using this one when I absolutely have to.

See all 318 customer reviews...More...

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras..

Special Price Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras By Nikon

Most helpful customer reviews

2212 of 2250 people found the following review helpful.
One of the best lens for portrait and low light photography. Please check if your camera require AF-S lens instead
By Sidarta Tanu
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.

It is important to note that you will need camera with internal AF motor (D90, D300, D600, D700, D800, D7000, etc) for this AF lens autofocus to work properly. If your camera is D40/D60/D3000/D5000 series (no internal AF motor), you will need to get the AF-S type lens, otherwise if you get this AF lens, only the manual focus will be available to you.

And 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, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200 etc (basicaly D40/D60/D3000/D5000 series. it's best to check if your camera body require AF-S lens). The newer 50mm f/1.8G AF-S, 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

276 of 292 people found the following review helpful.
Dollar for dollar the best buy in a bright sharp lens
By Albert J. Valentino
This lens is probably the sharpest lens that Nikon makes--see lens reviews/specs at [...] 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.

506 of 549 people found the following review helpful.
Possibly a bad sample?
By Glenn Carpenter
I was surprised to find, after reading so many positive reviews of this lens, that the copy I received was so fuzzy at wide-open apertures that I could see it on UN-MAGNIFIED images right on my D90's 3" screen.

All lenses lose sharpness at wide apertures: this is a matter of basic physics and is the result of something called spherical aberration. Some are much better than others though, thanks to better optical designs that more effectively correct for this tendency. The 35mm f/2, for example, is very good wide open; the 85mm f/1.8 is decent (and very appropriate for portrait use). My copy of the 50mm f/1.8 lost both sharpness and significant contrast as f/1.8 was approached. I would quantify it as follows:

f/1.8: very fuzzy (well beyond "soft"), reduced contrast, almost un-useable
f/2.8: still quite soft, much improved contrast
f/4: slightly soft, good contrast
f/5.6: sharp, good contrast
f/8: very sharp, good contrast

These results were repeatable on my sample and held true regardless of shutter speed and technique.

Notes:

- The advantage of a lens like this is the ability to use wide apertures. A good portrait lens need not be particularly sharp, but wider than f/4 my copy of this lens was soft enough that I would use it for nothing other than casual people-photography. It would not suffice for critical night or low-light photography, or for general photography where sharpness might be desired. For photos of people it was fine at f/2.8, but below that it lost so much sharpness, and enough contrast, that photos of almost any subject looked dull.

- The lens seems like an obvious choice as a first prime due to its price and the many excellent reviews of it here on Amazon and elsewhere. Even besides the sharpness degradation wide open, I found it less useful than I'd hoped. On a crop-size DSLR, it is a short telephoto lens, and it just hasn't turned out to be a focal length I use all that much. I would urge potential buyers to consider the 35mm f/2 before this lens as it gives the traditional "normal" perspective on a Nikon crop-size DSLR.

- Some reviewers like this lens for portrait use, but again, I found it poorly suited for this. The 85mm f/1.8 is admittedly more expensive, but it has far more potential as a portrait lens.

- This is not a high-contrast lens. It does not use any ED glass elements, which seem to be quite magical at improving contrast, and color rendition is noticeably less vibrant than such lenses. For some types of photography this can actually be desirable, but for general or landscape photography I prefer the higher-contrast lenses.

- My sample of this lens may have been below average, considering that most reviews of the lens are very positive. However, if you read carefully, most thorough reviews do mention that it loses contrast and acuity at wide apertures. Ken Rockwell, for example, has reviewed the lens very positively, but when it came time to suggest lenses sharp enough to be used on the new D3x, with its ultra-high-resolution sensor, he gave the similar-performing (possibly better) f/1.4 "G" version only three stars. I would submit that it is really not quite as sharp a lens as its reputation would lead one to believe. My excellent 16-85mm DX zoom, for example (the only lens I've given a five-star review as of this time), is far sharper than this lens up to around f/8 and hold an edge even there and beyond.

- Nikon has recently announced a new 35mm f/1.8 DX lens. I've ordered one and will probably post a review once I've had a chance to use it. I would suggest that it is very likely to be a better choice than this lens for almost any DX user. Being designed for the smaller DX sensor, it will probably be optimized for high linear resolutions within the smaller DX image circle. It is also a fairly inexpensive lens, not much more than this lens now that the 50mm has crept up a bit in price.

- Even if my sample is significantly poorer than average, my experience indicates that it would be a good idea to thoroughly test a copy of this lens before committing to buy it. Be sure to compare images at wide apertures to those made at f/8, where sharpness should be very good, and determine for yourself whether the loss of sharpness and contrast is acceptable for your purposes.

- Focus is plenty quick and accurate, at least on my sample. No problems at all in this regard (and none expected).

See all 1075 customer reviews...More...

Nikon EN-EL15 Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for Select DSLR Cameras (Retail Packaging)

Nikon EN-EL15 Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for Select DSLR Cameras (Retail Packaging)..

Buy Nikon EN-EL15 Rechargeable Li-Ion Battery for Select DSLR Cameras (Retail Packaging) By Nikon

Most helpful customer reviews

71 of 72 people found the following review helpful.
Excellent Battery
By Amazon Customer
I purchased this to have a backup for when I was conducting long shoots. I have found that I typically do not use both batteries on most shoots. Actually, I've found that I will fill up 40gb worth of SDHC cards before I switch out batteries when I'm shooting RAW+JPG on my Nikon D7000.

Nikon gives a couple of different ratings for how many shots you can get on a full charge with this battery.

Testing according to the CIPA standard show this battery can take 1,050 shots on a single charge. Under these test conditions the room temperature is 73.4 degrees Fahrenheit (+/- 3.6 degrees). A Nikon 18-105mm lens is used. The focus is moved from infinity to minimum focus and a shot is taken every 30 seconds. The on board Speedlight flash is fired every other shot. This does not use live view.

Nikon's own test conditions yield much better numbers per charge. At 68 degrees Fahrenheit with a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII lens and an image quality of JPG basic, medium. The shutter release is pressed halfway down and the focus is cycled from infinity to minimum range three times. Six shots are taken in a burst at 1/250 of a second shutter speed. The LCD monitor is then turned on for five seconds then turned off. This is repeated once the exposure meter has turned off.

Nikon's own test conditions yielded approximately 4,500 shots per charge.

This truly incredible. I have easily taken more than 800 to 1000 shots on a charge. A big part of the number of shots I get is how much I review them on the LCD. This is the largest drain of power.

Even though this battery has an amazing life, I would suggest picking up a second. If you have two batteries you should be able to charge both the night before a big shoot and then when you swap them out, place the empty one on the charge. In about 2.5 hours, the empty battery will be refreshed. If you are not shooting 800 photos in 2.5 hours, you should be fine. If you are shooting that many photos or anywhere close to it, you should consider having two or three spare batteries and a Nikon MB-D11 Multi-Power Battery Pack that takes AA batteries in a jam.

Overall, I would recommend you purchase at least one spare to keep in your bag. Its great to have when you need it and there is nothing more disappointing than not being able to take photos when the moment happens.

-Cheers!

26 of 30 people found the following review helpful.
Blows away the EN-EL3e
By Korey
It's a battery so there's not too much to say, although this battery has enormous performance gains over the D90's EN-EL3e, I'm rockin' two of these suckers in my D7000 and I don't know when I'll actually need to charge them again since they've barely gone down at all after a week of heavy usage.

11 of 11 people found the following review helpful.
Very reliable
By kharman
Bought this to have a back up battery for our two week trip to Greece. Ended up forgetting the battery that originally came with the camera and had only this one. Only had to recharge it once during our trip and we took approximately 1500 photos and 2 HD videos.

See all 328 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras..

Grab Now Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

640 of 671 people found the following review helpful.
Don't believe the reviews!
By Mark J. Sebastian
The reviews of the 50mm f/1.2L are useless. All you hear is "Spend your money on the 35L or 85L instead" or "the focusing issues make this lens unuseable". But something makes me think that people are just writing reviews based on what other people have said without actually ever using the product.

If you ever want to shoot snapshots of downtown without a flash at midnight WHILE walking, this is the lens to have. I'm so in love with this lens.

Pros:
* It's completely silent. Quieter than the f/1.4
* It has no problems focusing in the dark
* It's highly useable at f1.2
* It's sharper than the f/1.4
* Colors are more saturated than the f/1.4
* Images taken with this lens have higher contrast than the f/1.4
* It makes the f/1.4 feel like a hunk of plastic
* It comes with a hood

Cons:
* It costs 4 times more than the f/1.4
* It costs 18 times more than the f/1.8

Pros:
* You can comfortably shoot under conditions that would make the f/1.4 nervous.
* Produces a much higher yield of useable photos
* Aesthetically, it's the coolest looking lens I own!

For those who are concerned about the "back focusing" issue, I will let you know that I haven't experienced any backfocusing at all. I've let others shoot with it, wide open, within low-light environments and even the non-photographers were able to focus/shoot accurately.

This is my review from my non-scientific, real-world, situational testing.

183 of 193 people found the following review helpful.
Don't be scared. It is good lens.
By Dong W. Kim
I am not a professional photographer, or make living with taking pictures. I am just a person who loves to take pictures & enjoys good pictures. And, I know how expensive this lens is, and YES, I am very aware of "Back Focusing" issue with this lens that others worry. I have been using this lens for 3 weeks now, and have been experiencing good & bad about this lens. (I believe "back focusing" issue was way too much inflated.) I have EOS 5D, and wanted to take full advantage of FF factor, and this was why I took a plunge instead of getting acclaimed 35MM or 85MM.

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

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

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

128 of 137 people found the following review helpful.
50mm f/1.2 on 5D Mark II
By Caring
You are probably reading these reviews to decide if you will pay $1,500+ to buy this lens or to get its sibling the 50 f/1.4. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for a year, and currently own the 50L 1.2. Ignore the reviews by those who have never even owned 50L 1.2 (or maybe rented it for a weekend) yet feel they can give you a solid opinion about it. I will give you a run-down of my experience with the 50L 1.2 as a portrait photographer:

*********************************
*** Crop vs Full-frame Camera ***
*********************************

This lens is all about narrow DoF. I will talk about the characteristics relating to DoF further in my review. To get the most out of this lens it is recommended that you use a FF camera to give you the most control over DOF. A full-frame camera will give you approx 1.6 times more blur than on an APS-C camera (such as the 7D).

50mm is very versatile on a FF camera, allowing small group photos, individual photos of bust-up / full length / three quarters. But not so much on the 7D, when you will have an equivalent field of vision of 80mm. 80mm is quite tight, and more suited for headshots and bust-up.

*
*
*

*************
*** Bokeh ***
*************

With narrow DoF comes great bokeh. The bokeh produced by the 8-bladed aperture is round and beautiful, currently matched only by the 85L 1.2. The 50 f/1.4 also has an 8-bladed aperture but the bokeh it produces pales in comparison and is often nervous and distracting. With the 50L 1.2, the bokeh has a soft and beautiful rendition - the subject is well isolated and everything out of focus becomes a wash of creaminess.

*
*
*

*****************
*** Sharpness ***
*****************

This is one of the areas where I feel the 50L 1.2 is most misunderstood. I will open my review of sharpness with this: between the apertures of f/1.2 to f/2.0, this lens is the sharpest of the Canon 50mm family. Period. If you don't like taking my word for it, then you can poke around in MTF charts. You must be skilled (yes, skill is needed, this is not a point and shoot lens) at using single focus points, have a steady camera technique, knowing where the blade of DoF falls, and knowing when to not focus and recompose.

The 50 f/1.4 then takes over in sharpness at around f/2.2 to f/2.8.

The 50L 1.2 will never be as sharp as my 85L 1.2 II. But for me as a portrait photographer, sharpness is relative. If the background is pure cream, then the lovely lady I am photographing will look sharp. Also, I don't mind not having the lens a little soft so the photograph does not capture every pore and imperfection on my subject's face. It actually saves me time when retouching later!

As a further note, I found that shooting wide open with the 50 f/1.4 gave results that lacked so much sharpness so as to be unusable.

*
*
*

************************
*** Color & Contrast ***
************************

The color rendition and contrast from the 50L 1.2 is beautiful, and what you would expect from an L lens. The optics and lens coatings are far superior to the 50 1.4 when it comes to color and contrast between f/1.2 and f/2.0.

When shooting wide open with the 50 1.4, I found out of focus areas with sunlight would exhibit color shifts to red and green. The contrast would also be very low - and at times so faded that the photograph could not be fixed (to my satisfaction) in post. With the 50 1.4 closed up to f/2.8, the color shifting was much more controlled and the contrast at an acceptable level.

*
*
*

*************************
*** 50L 1.2 vs 50 1.4 ***
*************************

The $1,500 grapefruit or the $355 non-L?

I would sum it up this way:

1. The non-L is advertised as an f/1.4 lens. BUT, there will be many lighting conditions in which shooting between f/1.4 to f/2.0 will give you less than perfect results (eg. distracting bokeh, terrible color, washed out photos, or complete lack of sharpness). For a professional, it would be a challenge to practically use the non-L at f/1.4-f/2.0 in less than perfect situations. Shooting at f/2.8 and narrower, the non-L is as good as any Canon lens.

2. The grapefruit is advertised as an f/1.2 lens. AND, it is the wonder lens between f/1.2 and f/2.0 for the reasons given above. The color and contrast is L glass quality at all apertures. However, the sharpness is not as good as other Canon lenses from the more standard apertures of f/2.8 and narrower. The sharpness is also affected by the focus shift that occurs because the 50L 1.2 focuses wide open and the aperture is stopped down an instant before the sensor is exposed to take the photograph.

So where does this leave us? Because what I am going to say might insult some people, I am going to caveat that all of this is my own personal opinion - which is totally worthless anyway. Why have you read all the way down to here, hey? Here we go with a deep breath:

3. The $1,500 grapefruit is the lens for you if you love shooting between f/1.2 and f/2.0 for that bokehlicious cream and narrow DoF. It is a perfect versatile complement to the 85L 1.2, 135L 2.0, and the legendary 200L 2.0. I also consider the 35L 1.4 a fantastic prime, but not for portraiture as it has even less lens compression than a 50mm lens.

4. The non-L is advertised as an f/1.4 lens. HOWEVER, in practice, in most conditions it will only give best results when used as an f/2.8 lens. With this limited 'usable aperture', this leads me to question what is the place of the non-L in my lens bag when there is the 24-70L 2.8. The L zoom is as sharp as most primes, and with the high resolution 24-70L 2.8 Mk II just around the corner, the Mk II will blast the 50 1.4 away in sharpness, color, contrast and versatility. For apertures wider than f/2.8, the grapefruit is firmly rooted in its position. Unless you cannot afford L glass (which you obviously can, otherwise you would not be reading this review), then you are sacrificing image quality for something else by putting the 50 1.4 in your lens bag.

*
*
*

See all 157 customer reviews...More...

Canon LP-E8 Battery Pack for Canon Digital Rebel T2i and T3i Digital SLR Cameras (Retail Package)

Canon LP-E8 Battery Pack for Canon Digital Rebel T2i and T3i Digital SLR Cameras (Retail Package)..

GET Canon LP-E8 Battery Pack for Canon Digital Rebel T2i and T3i Digital SLR Cameras (Retail Package) By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

200 of 214 people found the following review helpful.
Beware not all sellers providing genuine Canon batteries
By W. Stohler
I paid $56 for what I thought was an OEM battery (manufactured by Canon). The battery pack I received appeared to be genuine, except for the following characteristics:

1. The battery strength meter in the camera goes from fully charged (all bars) to a flashing red "change battery" icon with no reduction in bars. This is an indicator that the battery pack is not genuine Canon.
2. The battery pack only lasts ~200 pictures with flash (the OEM pack lasts something like 450).
3. The writing on the pack is blurry and not as dark as the OEM battery.
4. The seam of the case on my battery has some warbles at the seam; the OEM battery does not.

Caveat Emptor (buyer beware)!

226 of 243 people found the following review helpful.
Bait and Switch
By Kindle Customer
Don't buy this item unless you want a cheap, imitation battery. It is not a Canon battery and will not perform as it is advertised. I purchased this battery based upon the photograph which depicted the product as being a genuine Canon battery. I have two others, so I know what they look like. The product sent to me was an inexpensive imitation, not an original Canon Battery. In reading other reviews, I see that this seller made this substitution before. This is consumer fraud. I have attached a photo of the comparison between the original Canon battery which I own, and the substitution provided by this seller.

206 of 221 people found the following review helpful.
I can't believe Amazon would sell a fake!
By Anonymous
There is a first for everything! I just received a battery from Amazon as a seller (I paid $10 more assuming that Amazon wouldn't risk its reputation to sell Chinese junk) and I received a battery today. It arrived in a plastic baggie, scotchtaped with a hair on it. I compared it to the original battery that came with my camera and as you can see from uploaded pictures, obviously this one is a fake. For $44 bucks I can buy 10 fake ones on the "auction site". I'm so disappointed. It's going back.

See all 250 customer reviews...More...

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras..

GET Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras By Nikon

Most helpful customer reviews

274 of 282 people found the following review helpful.
Nice lens in the right hands! Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX
By Webtrance
Upon first inspection, fit & finish are on par with Nikon's own 18-200, 16-85, etc. I would say that it's very-very close to the build, size/weight of my 16-85. It's a very decent build, solid plastic, and has smooth operating zoom and focus rings. This lens has a metal mount, weather seal gasket, and a focus distance window.

Why I didn't buy the 12-24 f/4: The Nikon 10-24mm will give me 10mm at f/3.5, which works fine for me. The 12-24mm will give me 12mm at f/4, which is neither wide or bright enough. I hear so many folks state "but the 12-24 is a constant f/4." I've also heard people say that "variable aperture" lenses are indicative of cheaper or consumer-grade lenses. I don't necessarily agree with that. I believe most lenses are a touch sharper when stopped down from their maximum aperture anyway, therefore a constant f/4 with the 12-24mm doesn't necessarily attract me to that lens. I wouldn't shoot the 12-24mm at f/4 anyway, especially for landscapes. In my opinion, the 10-24mm makes more sense with it's wider field of view.

I choose the Nikon 10-24mm for the following reasons:

1. Versatility. This is one of its best attributes. The 10-24mm is versatile due to ultra wide views for landscapes, yet can zoom to a more natural focal length for a quick snapshot or portrait at your home gathering or outing.

2. Landscape photography. For me, it comes down to real-world applications and benefits of having a wide angle. I love landscape shots and though you can make decent landscapes at 18mm, having an ultra wide in your bag allows you to capture expansive vistas, whether at the beach or the mountains.

3. Perspective. The perspective you're able to get with this lens is tremendous. Though there is fair distortion on the 10mm side, it's easily correctable with DxO or Photoshop, among other graphics programs. To be creative with wide angle, read Ken Rockwell's page on using a wide angle lens. He and others will explain that a wide angle is for drawing people into the picture. Use your wide angle to emphasize the main subject. As Ken says, ultra wide lenses are for getting close and bringing the viewer into the photo, not for fitting a subject into a photo.

4. Range. Opting for the Nikon 10-24mm gives more range than both the Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 10-20mm. It can easily be left on the camera all day, allowing landscape shooting and a decent portrait lens from 18-24mm without the need to switch lenses.

So how's the lens? It's outstanding, given the nature of ultra-wides. You'll notice distortion in the far corners/sides of your images below 15mm or so. Those corners will be a little soft at times, depending on your aperture setting. Wide open at f/3.5, you'll get softness away from the center of the image. Depending on your shooting habits, the large aperture will not detract from your images if you place your main subject in the center. Even wide open the main subject or center of the image will be sharp. Stopping down to f/5.6, f/8, and smaller apertures sharpens entire image. For landscapes, I routinely shoot at f/5.6-f/11 or smaller for optimal sharpness across the entire image.

Alternatives to Nikon:

A. Tokina 11-16mm. In my opinion the 11-16 at f/2.8, though a fine lens, is not necessarily a landscape lens. I don't shoot landscapes at f/2.8, f/3.5, or f/4 for that matter. If I want captivating ultra-wide shots with foreground/background in clear focus, I'd set f/5.6 through f/16 or beyond, depending on the lens I'm using. This is not to say you can't bring the Tokina to the Grand Canyon and shoot at f/11 to capture an expansive view at 11mm. You can surely do that with the Tokina, but you can see where I'm going with this. The Tokina's maximum aperture of f/2.8 is not utilized when shooting in a landscape setting. The Tokina makes for a superb low light interior ultra-wide, whereas it's hard to use a flash and light the entire room properly. I believe that lens serves a different purpose all together and you may find the zoom range too limited.

B. Tokina 12-24mm. It's definitely a contender at half the price. Superb build - better than Nikon. However, wouldn't you rather have Nikon for the ultimate in quality, dependability, and resale value?

C. Sigma 10-20mm. It's worth looking at due to fair reviews, better range than the Tokina 11-16mm and its low price point compared to Nikon.

D. Tamron 10-24mm. I wouldn't write it off completely. However the reviews I've read do indicate it's too soft, so and check the user reviews and Ken Rockwell's review as well.

The filter for this lens is a 77mm. I opted for a B&W multi-coated UV filter. B+W 77mm UVA (Ultra Violet) Haze MRC Filter #010 Filters in this size can be pricey, especially a 77mm circular polarizer, which isn't recommended for this lens due to uneven darkening of skies. You'd be better off grabbing a Cokin Z or for UWA lenses, the X-Pro series filter. The Lee foundation kit utilizing 4x6 filters or Hitech's 4x5's would be a good option.

Neutral Density (ND) Filters. Many of you may wish to make cool wide angle shots of a waterfalls, creeks, rivers, or oceans with the silky smooth water movement you see so often in these pictures. To do that you need a neutral density filter if shooting in daylight conditions. I would recommend an inexpensive Hoya 77mm ND8X. Hoya HMC NDx8 - Filter - neutral density 8x - 77 mm If you're worried about vignetting with the Hoya, please don't. I use it on the Nikon 10-24mm and see absolutely no vignetting at 10mm. The ND8x is a 3 stop filter and will allow you to get between 1-2 second shutter speeds during broad daylight. With those speeds and by using a tripod, you're able to get the silky water movement in your waterfalls and such. Better still would be to wait until later in the evening or find a shaded cove or dense foliage location with a waterfall or creek. Your shutter speeds in those conditions may be upwards to 5-6 sec or more.

Circular Polarizer's (CPL): Not recommended for UWA lenses due to uneven darkening of skies. However, I carefully and strategically use a 77mm Marumi Super CPL with no issues with uneven darkening and no vignetting. The Marumi is fantastic with a solid 5mm thin build, superb polarization quality, and smooth operation. It's almost equivalent to B&W's top end CPL and less than half the price. What I mean by strategic use of a CPL is to use clouds, trees, buildings, etc, to "mask" any uneven darkening of skies. Moreover, you don't have to use your CPL with its maximum effect. It works very well at giving you a touch more blue in your skies, while helping to bring out details is clouds and brighten & saturate your foregrounds. On cloudy days, the CPL can help you with your reflections, so it's not only good for those sunny days. I would avoid using it for landscapes with clear blue skies that fill the frame. If you are to do that, you'll clearly see a dark striation down the center of your image. The CPL effect can't cover the field of view at 10mm and there's no getting around it, less "masking" your shot with clouds, trees or buildings as mentioned earlier. Marumi CPL is here: Marumi DHG Super Circular Polarizer CPL PL.D 77 77mm Filter Japan By the way, I can stack the Marumi and the Hoya ND8x down to 11mm with no vignetting.

Regarding my copy of the 10-24mm, with thourough testing, 10mm seems sharpest at f/5.6 - f/8. Depth of field appears as broad at 10mm f/5.6-f/8 as it is at smaller apertures. At 24mm, my sharpest setting is f/11.

Bottom line: The Nikon 10-24mm is a superb ultra wide lens for DX cameras. Its build quality is typical Nikon with a solid plastic feel, smooth zoom & focus, weather sealed gasket, metal mount, and quick/quiet auto focus. It's capable of sharp landscape pictures and offers any photographer the ability to take creative pictures with tremendous perspective and depth.

148 of 158 people found the following review helpful.
Excellent on DX and works on FX too
By Doctor.Generosity
Another work of Nikon lens genius which gives the ability to take dramatic, unusual, never-before-available, super-wide pix. As recently as a few years ago, before Nikon learned to mass produce aspheric elements, manufacturing this complex 14 element lens at reasonable cost would have been impossible. Compared to the earlier 12-24mm, significantly wider angle.

A nice suprise is that this DX lens can also be used FX, with some limitations of course. Although it will give the full zoom range only when used on the smaller DX format, it actually covers the frame of an FX camera - not over the full range but from 24mm down to about 18mm focal length, with acceptable vignetting (edge darkening). I am using it that way on my film Nikon F6 and digital D700. (For the D700, turn the DX Crop default OFF and turn the Vignette Control to HIGH.) This is pretty cool because it means that someone who wants only occasional use of an 18-24mm lens on a full frame camera does not have to go out and buy a new lens if they already have this one.

I disagree with the reviewers who complain about the plastic, Made in China construction. If this lens were made of brass and steel like a Leica, it would weigh twice as much, cost much more, and be no better photographically. Is it more important to have the controls be smooth than to capture new kinds of photos? In my opinion Nikon has taken the right approach - state of the art computational design, innovative manufacturing of aspheric elements, good enough construction, and breakthrough capability affordable for the amateur photog.

115 of 132 people found the following review helpful.
Soft in the corners
By GroovyGeek
I have owned and shot with the Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, and three copies of the Sigma 10-20. With the exception of one recent bad copy of the Sigma they were all notably better than the 10-24 in the corners. My copy of the 10-24 is nice in the center, but all four corners were uniformly degraded. Every other WA lens I have owned cleans up very fast in the corners at 10-12mm and by f/5.6 was nearly as good as f/11. Not so with 10-24, which is mushy in the corners at f/3.5 and improves only gradually as it is stopped down, with peak sharpness at a bit over f/11. At f/11 it mostly catches up with the third-party lenses mentioned above and Nikon's own 12-24. I have posted sample images on DPR, photo.net, [...], look them up to see what I am talking about.

The 10-24 range is ideal for my needs so it is a shame that the performance is not as good as the 12-24, even at 12-14mm. The MTF numbers would have suggested that it would be better. My copy is not. Since all four corners are nearly uniformly degraded I don't think that I have a lemon, it may be just inherent in the lens design. I am tempted to call it curvature of field, but with the extreme DOF at 10mm even at f/5.6 I am not sure this would be a reasonable explanation.

While not as terrible as the sample images I have seen from the Tamron 10-24mm, my copy of this lens would not seem to be as good with flat-field subjects (aka brick walls :-) as the other WA lenses I have owned. However, in real-life images with variable depth the corner softness is very difficult to see. Not sure if this is because of the possible field curvature mentioned above, or because it is very rare that I shoot something that has good detail all the way to the corners.

Overall I am a bit disappointed. Given the price it should have been unambiguously better than the competition. Not 2x better as other reviewers have suggested, I am prepared to pay a decent premium to Nikon just for the consistency of color rendition I would get between this and my other most used lens (70-200). However, my expectation was to be able to say "about the same as the Sigma 10-20 in most respects, better at X and Y". Right now I am not sure what X and Y would be, at least in comparison to the excellent copy of the Sigma 10-20 I used to have.

I will probably end up keeping the lens. The 10-24mm range is just too convenient for me, and there is no way I would consider replacing this with the Tamron 10-24, which is absolutely terrible in the corners at 10mm according to numerous reviews.

===========================
Update on 1/7

I need to amend the review. I am leaving the original text unchanged for reference purposes, so it is clear what I said earlier and how my views have evolved.

After using the lens for a few months I need to retract my "soft in the corners" assessment. Not sure how I came to this conclusion with the original tests, the softness was clearly there, but try as I might I cannot reproduce it now with careful focusing. My best guess is that I slightly mis-focused, AF can be unreliable on WA lenses. If you test it against a brick wall make sure to be square and use LiveView with manual focusing. With careful focusing the lens is at least as good as the Sigma 10-20 that I loved so much. Not corner-corner sharpness, that would be a small miracle at 10mm, but slightly better than anything I have seen from the competition. Overall the lens is still not a great value for the quality delivered, but if price is a secondary concern you will love the range and consistency of color rendition with your other Nikon lenses. If you want the absolute best bang for the buck go for the Sigma, just make sure you test it carefully, there are many documented instances of significant copy variation. The colors a slightly different, not better or worse, just different.

See all 103 customer reviews...More...