Perfect product for my canon 70-200mm is ii 2.8 lens, it does protects the lens's front element without costing the bank. I did read a lot of reviews before buying my photography gear, and many people says that this product is identical to the more expensive series of Hoya. So it is just "Marketing!", recomended product, excellent seller!

Best camera in this class for the buck. Period! Very light, great shots from both my 18-55mm & 75-300mm lenses. A big step up from my trusty canon Sx20Is point and shoot. Both cameras have great optics. You simply can't go wrong with the T3. Don't wish to spend forever understanding how to use all the great DSLR features then this is the camera for you. Only negative I have is I wish the T3 had rubber grip.. Still easy to hold steady with or without a long telephoto lens.

This lens was used on a Canon 6D.The "nifty-fifty" or "fantastic plastic" has been a staple in most Canon DSLR shooters bags for years, it's offered us an inexpensive opportunity to test out prime lenses and see what separates them from zooms. Having owned the previous version (50mm f/1.8 II) with mixed feelings regarding the lens due to build I was eager to try out the new design.Sharpness:- For $125 this little guy is impressive although I can't say the results are tack sharp, they are very close and you have to become a pixel peeper to really tell the difference between these results and results from a more expensive lens.- At 1.8 the corner were not as sharp as the center of the frame, 2.8 and higher resolves this- Bokeh, Love it, nothing more needs said.Auto-focus:I've found the auto-focus to be a bit slow in low light situations where other lenses such as the Canon 24-105 and Sigma 70-200 have no problems.Build:- WOW! Canon delivered on the new build. Holding this lens vs the 50mm 1.8 II is night and day. This feel extremely study, the focus ring glides smooth, and THANK YOU CANON for giving us the metal mounting ring. Nobody will be calling this lens the "fantastic plastic" because the cheap feeling is gone!Conclusion:Most of you reading this will be asking these questions most likely:1) Is it worth upgrading over the 50mm 1.8 II?No, the image quality is very similar to the previous version. The biggest upgrade here was the build and slightly improved optics (Very slight).2) Is it worth $125?Yup. After shooting with this lens for two days I've already recommended it to three of my photographer friends3) What is the general use of this lens?-This will depend on your camera body - for a full frame such as the 5D and 6D this lens is great for group portraits, walk around, a natural aspect shots (no compression or distortion).- On a crop sensor (Rebel Txi, xxD) this will be an 80mm focal length which makes it AMAZING for portraits. The fast aperture really isolates your subject well and allows you to blur the background to minimize distracting elements.

I am not a professional one but the circular polarizer is a good quality for the price. I use it with my canon 40D on a 17-85mm lens.However, the box wasn't sealed and I didn't like it because it seemed as it was already used.

I usually write reviews for really good or really bad products.This is very good.I use it with my 5d mkii & Canon 40mm pancake lens.It stretches nicely & the velcro is strong enough to support stretching.It just barely fits but it does the job.I need a very low profile case that will allow me to carry the camera in a backup without taking up space, yet protects the camera from small to medium bumps.It could use a bit thicker material.The material itself is very spongy & looks like would absorb impact adequately, but could've been 2-5mm thicker.

This polarizer helps when I'm looking to enhance the colors and mood of my picture without overpowering it. Makes things "pop" a bit more- blues and greens especially. Doesn't seem to work on my Canon 70-300 lens but perfect for the 18-55mm.

To say I was apprehensive of purchasing this tele-converter would be an understatement. After owning the Canon EF 2.0X mk II and being completely disappointed and underwhelmed with it, it took me years to decide to try another 2x extender. After I did purchase it a few weeks back, it even sat in my bag a week or 2 before I decided to pull it out and try using it.With a tool like this, you want to use it for the right reasons and on the right kind of lenses. With that said, I'm using this on the Canon 300mm 2.8mm professional lens. Because the Canon 300mm has a smallish range, I've always shot with the Canon EF 1.4 MkII telephoto extender tacked on the back of it. The 300 is such a sharp lens, I lose very little sharpness using the 1.4 tele. Being a bird/wildlife photographer, I am always looking for more and more MM, so I decided to go ahead and try it.So far it's been everything I was hoping for. Much sharper than the 2.0 Mk II with the addition of new coating on the glass, this rugged and now very sharp tele didn't disappoint. Without doing any scientific study I would say this is at least 50% sharper, and at least that much better with contrast than its older counterpart.As always Canon L pro equipment is built like a tank, with dust proof and water resistant construction, it keeps up with the Pro L lens standard. The Mk III appears a bit smaller than the Mk II and the "white" coating has changed with the Mk III line of lenses, so the color is a bit different on the outside.Though I still have tons of shooting to do with it, so far I love it, and though it is high priced, appears to be well with it.As with any additional glass added to your lens, you really need to learn how to shoot with this tele. Forget hand holding it, use a tripod. Also because this is a 2X extender, you're losing a LOT of light. With my Canon 300mm 2.8, with the 2.0 mk III I'm now shooting at aperture of f/5.6. You're also losing a LOT of autofocus speeds. Canon is saying as much as 75%, but it didn't feel that high. So you need to use this lens in good to great lighting, on a tripod using already good Canon glass.Ricky

A few years ago, Peng-Toh and I were talking about mirrorless cameras. At that time, I'd spent some time with the EPL-1. The EPL-1 did a good job of pretending to be a good camera: shutter speeds were fast, and previewed images looked sharp and beautiful. But once you imported the images into Lightroom, the results were ugly: you quickly discovered that most of the time, the focus was off, and while the images were sometimes usable, they were never ones you were proud to share. Even photos from point and shoots such as the S90 were better. The consensus between Peng-Toh and I was that Canon would enter the mirrorless market, and do it right.Canon did enter the mirrorless market a few years ago, in the form of the EOS M, but it did everything wrong. Apparently, auto-focus was awful, so much so that I didn't even consider the camera. Peng-Toh did buy one, but he was disappointed. The one thing that Canon did right, apparently, was that the image quality was superb, but that was apparently insufficient to overcome all the other flaws.Canon had an EOS M3 sale during the holidays (and it's still running today). At $430, it's not cheap (though in the same ballpark as say, the Sony A6000), but online reviews indicated that Canon had solved the autofocus issues with the camera. The photo community seems to think that Canon isn't serious about mirrorless, and to some extent they're right: there are only 4 dedicated EFM lenses, and the M3 doesn't sport any high end features such as in-body image-stabilization, and Canon doesn't have any full frame mirrorless cameras like Sony.Pit against that, however, is that for any long lens work, you might as well stick the full frame EF lenses on the camera. Sure, the lens is huge compared to the camera, and you could have shaved a couple of hundred grams off the lens if you weren't carrying so much glass, but when you have a long lens that weight difference is really lost in the noise. Furthermore, those full frame mirrorless Sony cameras are very expensive, and when you come down to the same price level of the EOS M3, you get cameras like the Sony A6000. Even a cursory glance at the sample images comparing the EOS M3 to the A6000 using the kit lens easily reveals that the combination of a Canon lens and the EOS M3 utterly destroys the Sony equivalent as far as image quality. And if you're knowledgeable, you won't be shooting with the kit lens!With that in mind, I took the plunge and got the EOS M3 for my wife on her birthday. Along with the body, I purchased the EF-M 22/f2 and the EOS M mount adapter. We also bought and returned the EFM 18-55mm zoom. The zoom was surprisingly nice, but it had a strange color cast that I didn't find appealing.When building a new system, my philosophy is where possible build it around primes that provide roughly a doubling of focal length. So paired with the EFM-22, I got out my ancient EF 50mm/1.8. The two lenses yield a full-frame equivalent of a 35mm lens and an 80mm lens, which nicely covers the "normal" range, with the 80mm providing a great portrait lens. The 50mm together with the EF mount weigh just 80g more than the zoom, but provide a 1.8 maximum aperture which lets you isolate a subject in its surroundings. If Canon had made a wide angle prime EF-M lens, I would have bought it as well, since that's what's missing.When the camera arrived, I was impressed by how small it was, especially with the 22mm prime attached. It was tiny, just a bit bigger than the Sony RX100. But what blew me away was that my wife tried the camera, and then declared that she wasn't going to shoot with just her phone again. The biggest feature for her was the NFC wireless transmittal of photos from the camera to her smartphone. She'd always hated having to use lightroom to extract photos from a camera: by contrast, photos that go into her smartphone are immediately available for sharing and posting onto social networks. And the quality difference was obvious: this clearly is a DSLR in a point and shoot body.The nice thing about the EOS M3 if you're already a Canon user is that all your existing accessories work with it. My flashes and my collection of EF lenses were immediately compatible. When you put that together with high quality primes, it blew away anything produced by anyone who owns a crappy 18-200mm zoom instead of a decent lens. To put it all together, we went to a physical store and picked up a Think Tank Mirroless Mover 25i (after trying a bunch of other bags). It fit a flash, a mini tripod, the charger, and various other accouterments for serious shooting. In practice, Xiaoqin mostly carried it around with just the 22mm/f2 attached. With a 24MP image output, even severe cropping still grants usable photo quality.In practice, the camera produces superlative images. Low light performance is impressive:The biggest flaw in the camera is that shot-to-shot times are slow in one-shot mode, and the 50mm tends to hunt a bit. (An upgrade to the latest and greatest 50mm STM would probably solve this problem) But by far the biggest benefit is that the camera's much likely to be traveled with than my ancient EOS 5D2. That alone made my wife decide to keep the camera instead of sending it back to Amazon.Since I'm not the primary user of this camera, don't expect any long term reviews from me. But if you're a Canon user looking for a travel setup (especially if you're a landscape person who needs a camera for backcountry camping or cycling), I won't hesitate to recommend this to you. The image quality is superb, it's small and light (it's smaller than even the G series of point and shoots), and a landscape shooter won't have any issues whatsoever with the shot-to-shot times. Canon might not have "done it right" yet, but for someone who's got 2 kids and would like to travel with a serious camera that's nevertheless still light enough to bring on a trip, the M3 is an great alternative to the DSLR and produces far better photos than even the Sony RX100.Recommended.