JPMuller's reviews

  • Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Excellent Lens... As good or better than Canon 16-35 2.8 II at a fraction of cost.
    Slower autofocus, CA.

    I was having a tough time trying to find an ultra wide for my full frame Canon. At first, I was hoping not to spend a lot of money, so I tried the Canon 20-35 2.8... Good lens and worth the money, but I really wanted something wider and it was a bit soft at the corners.

    I continued to do extensive research on alternatives... I considered the 17 - 40 but wanted something with a wider aperture for low light work... I considered the first version of the Canon 16-35, but after reading reviews, bit the bullet and bought the newer version.

    I was disappointed with the Canon 16-35 2.8 II... for $1500, I expected more from a lens.... I realized that wide angles are often soft in the corners and edge of the frame, but I was hoping a Canon L would help solve that problem - but it didn't. So I started to look for alternatives, since I figured, if a Canon L wide angle is going to be soft, then I shouldn't have to pay that much.

    I came across this lens... SLR gave it a poor review for full frame... I suggest they test another copy. It was sharper than the Canon 16-35 2.8 MKII... I could barely believe it.... This is an amazing lens, forget about the fact that you can get one for under $400... It is sharper all across the frame except at 17mm - where in the corners, the Canon was a wee bit sharper. From 20mm up, this lens is noticeably sharper - especially at 24-35mm... At 35mm, the Canon MKII is horrible.

    HERE IS THE FULL REVIEW WITH SAMPLE PICTURES SHOWING DISTORTION, SHARPNESS, CA'S, ETC..

    http://johncarnessali.com/lens-tests/2995


    I returned the Canon and this Tamron is the one I kept.

    Autofocus is not as good as the Canon... The Canon is blazing fast, but I find this lens fast enough... I lost 1 mm - big deal... CA is also very good on the Canon...

    Buy this lens if you are looking for an ultra wide for Full Frame... you won't regret it, unless you need blazing speed and are willing to compromise Image Quality - Then get the Canon.

    If you want it sharp right to the corner, then forget getting a zoom and get a prime.

    reviewed June 27th, 2010 (purchased for $350)

  • Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

    8 out of 10 points and not recommended
    Center Sharpness, Fast AF
    Corners soft, PRICE

    I recently ran into an issue with my beloved Canon 35mm 1.4 L lens. After many years of exceptional quality and loyal service, it started to back focus when photographing an object or subject from that was more than 3 meters away. I find the 35mm focal length to be essential for wedding photography.. especially when it is a prime and can capture subjects in dark situations and help them to pop with its wide aperture. In a pinch with a wedding in a couple days, I picked up the Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG HSM Art Lens from a local vendor. I have read really great reviews so I decided to give it a try. Price when purchased was $899 plus tax compared to the Canon 35 f/1.4L USM which is presently going for around $1,499 plus tax.

    After the wedding and after getting my Canon back I decided to do a head to head to see how the two lenses compared to one another. When it comes to lens comparison and reviews, I love to do it, but I don’t consider my methods to be super scientific or clinical. In addition, I often test the lenses only at the widest aperture. I do this because when buying/using a prime lens, my intention is to isolate the subject and/or use it in low light. Therefore the performance at the widest aperture is most important to me. Therefore for this particular comparison every shot was taken at an aperture of 1.4. No retouching or editing was done whatsoever. I simply shot in RAW and then exported as sRGB Jpegs

    Here are the results!

    http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/6141

    I cannot recommend this lens after comparing it side by side with the Sigma. :(

    reviewed November 16th, 2010 (purchased for $1,350)

  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    The PERFECT lens for portraits.
    Slow autofocus.

    This lens was part of the reason I decided to go with Canon gear over Nikon, Sony, etc..

    It is the best portrait lens I have come across.

    Sharp even at 1.2

    Buy this lens if you have the money. I am not sure this lens is worth it if you are a casual photographer or even a pro, unless you really, really, really, love creamy bokeh.

    reviewed November 16th, 2010 (purchased for $1,800)

  • Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    SHARP! - even wide open.
    Zoom creep. Plastic. An EF-s Lens.

    It is too bad this lens is only for cropped sensors. I have tried the Canon 16-35 2.8 II on my 40d, along with various other Canon and non-Canon wide angle zooms... nothing compares to this lens. I just wish Canon would make an "L" version (throw some metal around it and let it fit on full body camera's).

    It does collect more dust than any other lens I own, but at the same time, the dust does not have ANY impact on the image quality (dust particles will not show in the image).

    Major negatives for me are;

    Zoom creep...
    Seems delicate.
    Only for cropped camera's.

    Major positives;

    Sharp across the whole frame, even wide open.
    2.8 aperture
    Image Stabilization.

    Is it worth a $1,000?

    yes - if you want the best wide angle zoom for Canon cropped sensor camera's.

    reviewed November 16th, 2010 (purchased for $1,000)

  • Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    Sharp, Low Distortion, Controlled CA's, Price
    Heavy Vignetting

    I recently ran into an issue with my beloved Canon 35mm 1.4 L lens. After many years of exceptional quality and loyal service, it started to back focus when photographing an object or subject from that was more than 3 meters away. I find the 35mm focal length to be essential for wedding photography.. especially when it is a prime and can capture subjects in dark situations and help them to pop with its wide aperture. In a pinch with a wedding in a couple days, I picked up the Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG HSM Art Lens from a local vendor. I have read really great reviews so I decided to give it a try. Price when purchased was $899 plus tax compared to the Canon 35 f/1.4L USM which is presently going for around $1,499 plus tax.

    I was instantly taken with the great, sleek look of the lens. I liked how it felt on my camera and to the touch. I can’t say I really missed the red ring that is synonymous with Canon’s professional “L” series lenses. The Sigma felt and looked like a really well made lens. With only a couple days until the wedding, I needed to take some pictures to make sure the automatic focus ( AF ) working and that there weren’t any other issues with sharpness, etc..

    First thing I noticed is that the AF seemed a tad bit slower. Because I have used the Canon 35mm 1.4 so much, I really have gotten to know it. The AF is blazing fast.. probably one of if not the fast AF out of all the lenses I own. The Sigma wasn’t slow by any means, it just wasn’t quite as fast. Not a super big deal since it WAS fast, just not AS fast.

    Another thing I noticed was that the Sigma seemed to be a bit warmer. I didn’t mind this at all when working in post. I always felt the Canon was a bit cool (or more blue). However, to be honest, when shooting in dark situations with low light, I often liked the coolness of the Canon since it helped to balance out incandescent and ambient lights which can make the image look orange or yellowish.

    Lastly, it felt like the Sigma was a bit underexposed in a lot of the shots. I came to find out what that was about, but I will explain that more in detail down below.

    After the wedding and after getting my Canon back I decided to do a head to head to see how the two lenses compared to one another. When it comes to lens comparison and reviews, I love to do it, but I don’t consider my methods to be super scientific or clinical. In addition, I often test the lenses only at the widest aperture. I do this because when buying/using a prime lens, my intention is to isolate the subject and/or use it in low light. Therefore the performance at the widest aperture is most important to me. Therefore for this particular comparison every shot was taken at an aperture of 1.4. No retouching or editing was done whatsoever. I simply shot in RAW and then exported as sRGB Jpegs

    Here are the results!

    http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/6141

    reviewed May 30th, 2014 (purchased for $899)

  • Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    SHARP! BOKEH! Accurate Focus
    none

    I love this lens. Super sharp and renders beautiful creamy bokeh. It's bokeh is comparable to the 85mm 1.2 but IMO not as nice.

    It also focuses really fast and accurate and is light. I mainly use for head shot photography.

    I have done a review comparing the sharpness and quality of bokeh to the Canon 70-200 2.8.

    Click on following link to view images

    http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5109

    reviewed August 19th, 2013

  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

    8 out of 10 points and recommended
    Excellent Lens For The Price. Close To The Canon 1.2
    Bokeh kinda busy. AF not as accurate.

    For the most part I have not been that interested in the 50mm focal length, since in the past I found it a somewhat boring. Many say 50mm is what the eyes “see” and thus it is a very intuitive and natural focal length for most people. I suppose this is true, and one of the reasons I have not been drawn to it since I like to offer a more interesting perspective with my photography.

    Canon’s 35mm 1.4 has been my go to lens when I only wanted to carry one prime. However I often found it too wide and not suitable for individual portraits. I was looking for a fast lens that I could carry around with me regardless of the situation… one which, if I had to choose just ONE lens (fast 2.0 or faster) and the 50mm seemed like the logical choice. It is good for portraits and wide enough to capture a scene if need be. It is a fast lens (1.4 or 1.2 aperture) so it is good for dark or dimly lit situations).

    Since I had a 30 day return option, I decided I would purchase both the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Canon 50mm 1.2 L and see if I got to love this focal length and if so, which would I choose.

    I ultimately decided to go with the Canon 1.2 since I am a professional photographer and make my living photographing people. So the small difference was worth it to me. However, it might not be for everyone. To see the results of my head to head comparison of the 1.2 vs the 1.4, click on the following link:

    http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5338

    reviewed August 22nd, 2013

  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Nice Bokeh. Quick AF. Decent Sharpness Even in Corners
    $$$ Too Expensive When Compared To The 1.4. 85 1.2 is Sharper With Better Bokeh

    For the most part I have not been that interested in the 50mm focal length, since in the past I found it a somewhat boring. Many say 50mm is what the eyes “see” and thus it is a very intuitive and natural focal length for most people. I suppose this is true, and one of the reasons I have not been drawn to it since I like to offer a more interesting perspective with my photography.

    Canon’s 35mm 1.4 has been my go to lens when I only wanted to carry one prime. However I often found it too wide and not suitable for individual portraits. I was looking for a fast lens that I could carry around with me regardless of the situation… one which, if I had to choose just ONE lens (fast 2.0 or faster) and the 50mm seemed like the logical choice. It is good for portraits and wide enough to capture a scene if need be. It is a fast lens (1.4 or 1.2 aperture) so it is good for dark or dimly lit situations).

    Since I had a 30 day return option, I decided I would purchase both the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Canon 50mm 1.2 L and see if I got to love this focal length and if so, which would I choose.

    I ultimately decided to go with the Canon 1.2 since I am a professional photographer and make my living photographing people. So the small difference was worth it to me. However, it might not be for everyone. To see the results of my head to head comparison of the 1.2 vs the 1.4, click on the following link:

    http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5338


    Thanks.

    reviewed August 22nd, 2013