Do you like a good instrumental music?
Listen to new beautiful music from composer Sergei Borodin. Click HERE...
5 0 2139
5 0 3310
5 0 6375
5 0 2005
Built like a tank.
Not a good tank.
Can be used as a hammer.
Used this for 4 years and although I loved it, it just wasn't wide enough on an APSC body.
Never really found it that sharp either which was annoying, but a 10MP body always masked that a little bit. Frankly, the 18-55 Canon kit lens was better.
The other problem with mine was that at 60k it properly failed. The lens quickly developed a mechanical focus isse and the aperture mechanism started freezing/jamming more and more.
Very disappointed in the end with this lens.
Good looks p>
Stable focusing accuracy p>
Good sharpness of the diaphragm 3.2 p>
2.8 is too soft p>
Weight, without the use of the battery pack and wrist strap is difficult p>
Zoom ring a little, but the focus ring is too big. It is better to be the opposite. P>
Hood is not effective, it allows a side flare p>
In general, a good lens for its tasks. With proper sharpening can achieve interesting pictures on the open apertures. Used in the wedding photographies, an acceptable defect rate (with apertures 4.5-5.6, to open more at weddings was scary). Knowing the pros, cons and features of the lens, you still leave it for photography