Canon 70-200 F/4 L is said to be one, if not THE, of the best lenses Canon ever produced. I've bought it a few days ago, and I can estabilish they talked well. This lens is AWESOME.

The IS one is even better because of the stabilizer, but the optic scheme is the same.

Let's view it in the detail.

First, the body of this lens is white. Or should I say beije. Anyway, it's not the usual black. Every Canon L telephoto lens is white, and there's a reason: L lens all have a metal body, and if you use in a hot sunny day the lens itself could get scorching. Not only that, but chronic dilations and costrictions could cause problems with your lens. That's why Canon decided to make them white: bright colours have an albedo (reflective power) far greater than dark ones, and that limits overheating and ...

Hi guys, it' time for me to write another review of mine. This time I'll deal with one of the most famous Canon L-series lens: the 17-40 F/4 L.

Well, L-series lenses are Canon's models of excellence, top quality lenses provided with top quality construction body. When Canon makes a lens of this quality, it carries that catchy red ring on the extremity near the lens that emanates power and self confidence, really =)

What's so special in this lens anyway? Well...

First thing first, the body. It is made in sturdy magnesium alloy, it's waterproof, and the focus and focal rings run so smooth it's a pleasure tu use them. This is also the lightest L lens available, with a weight of only 475 g. Despite of that, it's a rock-solid jewel.

Quality lens: well, here we come to levels of absolute excellence....

So, I assume you've bought a DSLR and now you are disappointed by the 18-55 kit lens that comes with your camera.

This is mostly true speaking of Canon kit lens, but anyway Nikkor kit lens, though being a much better lens, may be not what you were looking for, in terms of quality.

So, it's time to upgrade to a better lens that has near the same focal range.

Well, there are many options: if you decided for Canon, you may take a look at the 17-40 F/4 L, while if you have chosen Nikon you could be interested in a VR lens. But it will cost you a lot, you're advised.

So, where can you find good quality for little price? Here's where Tamron 17-50 F/2,8 comes into play.

Let's take a look at this product.

Firstly, the focal range is almost the same: you lose something in the tele-range, but you ...

Hi guys, it's my first article, I hope you to appreciate it. So, let's talk about this lens.

Many amateur photographers before or later come to buy this lens: it's cheap, and several websites state it to be an excellent compromise by adding a (relatively) good quality image to a very low price (don't really know how much it costs in USA... here you can find it at about 150 dollars, new).

I used it a lot, in the past on the EOS 350D, and now on my 40D, and I think I know very well this lens to help you out in the case you are interested with it.

So, let's come to the quality image, that's the most important thing in a lens: well, it varies from very good, from 70 and 135 mm, to good from 135 and 200, to become almost horrendous over 230 mm. 300 mm are almost useless. At 300 mm, this lens produces ...