I've had the pleasure or working with, next to, or observing some really good photographers over the past 20 years. I'll name some names. First, Marlin Wagner, now retired, and really a dean of photographers in the Bloomsburg, Pa. region. Gordon Wenzel, a Danville, Pa. based photographer who is our go-to guy for the tricky jobs where there's no second chances (he's especially good at portraits). Then there are the local newspaper photographers, Keith Haupt, Bill Hughes, M.J. McDonald, and Jimmy May, they are all good enough to work in much bigger towns at much bigger papers. And then there's my friend Mike Zarrett (Towne Camera), who in addition to being able to disassemble and reassemble a lens or tune up a Leica, is a very fine shooter himself.
I do a lot of shooting for the Bloomsburg University. Most of what I know, I learned from watching these folks. You can see my work for the university at bloomufocus.blogspot.com.
Now, equipment is just a small part of photography, but honestly, the equipment is cool. It's fun to research and write about.
Here's what I use and my observations of how the items work out:
Camera: Canon 7D.
I chose this for:
1) the viewfinder, which is large and bright for a crop sensor camera. 2) 18 mega-pixels gives me a double-page spread without resizing. The camera feels great in the hand, shoots blazingly fast. Far more customization than I will ever use. I usually manually select the focus point and it's easy to do that quickly. Cons? Nothing major. The 18 mega-pixels seems to be about the limit of what I'd want on an APC sensor. I go to ISO 800 without worrying at all, ISO 1600 if I have to ... but I'm conscious of some slight detail loss. I shoot almost everything jpeg unless the circumstances are particularly unusual or challenging.
Fav feature: Gridlines in the viewfinder. More of a Nikon thing that Canon copied, but I love them and keep them on all the time. I like the control layout and viewfinder so much, I don't think I could ever go back to the XXX or XX series again.
What to improve: Honestly, not much. Noise and dynamic range can always be better. But that's all I can think of.
Canon 50 1.8/1.4
Both lenses are very sharp. A lot has been written about the 1.8, which costs about $125, is built like junk, noisy focusing, but very sharp. If you rarely use the 50, shoot mostly landscapes stopped way down, or are on a tight budget, the 1.8 is fine.
But if you're pretty a serious photographer, use the 50 mm focal length a lot, or shoot a lot of portraits, get the 1.4. The lens is still built lightly, but nicer enough. Cost runs about $350. Focus is fast and silent, helpful for a portrait sessions (80 mm equivalent on crop frame). Things are dreamy wide open at 1.4 to 1.8, but perfectly sharp after. For portrait work, there's simply no more there there that you want to capture ... certainly not anything you'd want to show unless you're deep into dermatology. I use this lens fairly often for both portraits and at dimly lit events, like backstage at commencement.
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Within it's limited zoom range, this is basically is a lens without any real compromises. It's completely sharp, distortion is well controlled. I haven't had a problem yet in the field with CA. Unlike a Canon EFS lens, you can mount it to a full frame camera, and, trying it on a cheap film body, it looks like it will work fine at 16mm, which is still very wide. At about $700, a really good buy for what it does.
Tokina 16-50 f2.8
This is generally a very good lens, though not in the same league for absolute quality as the 11-16. At about $550, it's a good value. Now discontinued I've seen it for sale at about $1,000. That's too much in my opinion. Get the Canon lens instead at that price.
The lens is very very sharp. I haven't had a real problem with flare. There is a decent amount of distortion at 16mm, and the CA at the wide end can be pronounced ... it's not always noticeable, but in high contrast situations, its enough that it needs to be corrected before going to print. A pin came loose inside that prevented the lens from zooming. Had to send it out for repair at Tokina in California for $130.
Canon 85 f1.8 and 100 f2.
These sister lenses are both basically perfect in any way that anyone would notice in print. Perfectly sharp, fast and silent focus, nice contrast. There's nothing not to like. And in the $450 range, they are a bargain as well. You probably don't need both though. The 100 is really nice for events on stage.
Canon 70-300 USM IS/Canon 70-200 f4L (non-IS)
The price is similar enough that unless you are really stuck on the IS, go the extra dollars for the the f4L. I have the 70-300 and optically, I can't point to anything wrong about it, but I just don't like it. Our sports information director uses it all the time. The 70-200 f4. Wow. There's just something special about the lens. Nicer to use, nicer color, nicer contrast, sharpness just seems better. Yeah, you have to hold it steady in low light. I think it's worth it.
Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6
I purchased this lens used at $250 to use while the Tokina 16-50 was being repaired. With a 5x plus zoom range, it's simply much much better than I expected. Color, contrast and sharpness are all very nice. Autofocus is not Canon (or even Tokina) fast and quiet, but it's good enough. Sure the aperture is slow. But the optics are good. This will be a regular outdoor event lens (homecoming parade).
Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5
This lens defines the middle of the road. It's light. Cheap. Not super fast, but not super slow either. There is nothing terrible about it. Sharpness is passable, just though. (It really suffers there in comparison to better lenses.) Color and contrast are flat, but they can be boosted in software. Good for a budget choice. But I will use the Tamron 24-135 over this.
Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5
Got this super cheap on a lark. Very small, very light, attractive zoom range. Not too slow. Better than the 28-105 for color and sharpness, but not nearly as good as the Tokina 16-50 or Sigma 24-70. Lot of distortion on the wide end. It doesn't get used often.
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
I used this lens (non-OIS) for several years on an XT. My colleague uses it now. It's a very nice lens for (as I recall) about $500. Not as sharp as the Tokina 16-50, but doesn't have the CA either. Seems to struggle for sharpness a little at 24mm though.
Canon 28 f2.8
The university had this when we were shooting with film and the 10D. I can't recall anything exceptional about it one way or the other image quality wise. Noisy, like the 50 1.8, and unpleasant to use though.
Canon 18-55 (kit lens)
God, I hate this lens. The university has it for the pool camera. It's just so dim and it feels like junk. I dislike it so much that I can't comment on the optics. We've had our students use it and the results have been okay, but not remarkable. There may not be anything really wrong with the lens. I just hate it.
Sigma 20 f1.8
The university purchased this lens back when we where shooting film. It was unique for the time and did yeoman's work for us. But sharpness wasn't great on 400 speed slide film. It's not going to hold up on digital. I never use it anymore.
Tamron 20-40 f2.7-3.5
This is another lens I purchased used for about $270 while the Tokina 16-50 was in the shop. It was a complete turkey and I returned it. Sharpness was terrible. Color was terrible. Contrast was terrible. With only a 2x zoom range, I thought this lens would deliver. And I expected the Tamron 24-135 to be iffy. The opposite was true. Go figure.
Camera: Olympus XZ-1
This is the camera I use for everyday life.
First to dispense with cons: Not small enough for a pants pocket. No viewfinder. Really though, those things can't be helped.
Everything else is just about perfect. The control layout is different than Canon layout so it takes so getting used to. Ten megapixels is just right. The lens is great. The jpeg output is pleasing to the eye. Noise is fairly well controlled. It's responsive enough for focus and speed. And again, the lens (f1.8-2.5) is just great.
Biases
I'm pretty tactile, so I probably rate things that are particularly cheaply made (kit lens) lower than they would rate on optics alone. Once something reaches an appropriate level of quality, say 50 1.4, I'm not that fussy. The Tokina lenses both feel particularly solid, as does the 70-200 f4L. Though light, the Tamron 24-135 feels nice to use too.
I don't use filters, but I do keep hoods on the two Tokinas and the Tamron.
I do a lot of shooting for the Bloomsburg University. Most of what I know, I learned from watching these folks. You can see my work for the university at bloomufocus.blogspot.com.
Now, equipment is just a small part of photography, but honestly, the equipment is cool. It's fun to research and write about.
Here's what I use and my observations of how the items work out:
Camera: Canon 7D.
I chose this for:
1) the viewfinder, which is large and bright for a crop sensor camera. 2) 18 mega-pixels gives me a double-page spread without resizing. The camera feels great in the hand, shoots blazingly fast. Far more customization than I will ever use. I usually manually select the focus point and it's easy to do that quickly. Cons? Nothing major. The 18 mega-pixels seems to be about the limit of what I'd want on an APC sensor. I go to ISO 800 without worrying at all, ISO 1600 if I have to ... but I'm conscious of some slight detail loss. I shoot almost everything jpeg unless the circumstances are particularly unusual or challenging.
Fav feature: Gridlines in the viewfinder. More of a Nikon thing that Canon copied, but I love them and keep them on all the time. I like the control layout and viewfinder so much, I don't think I could ever go back to the XXX or XX series again.
What to improve: Honestly, not much. Noise and dynamic range can always be better. But that's all I can think of.
Canon 50 1.8/1.4
Both lenses are very sharp. A lot has been written about the 1.8, which costs about $125, is built like junk, noisy focusing, but very sharp. If you rarely use the 50, shoot mostly landscapes stopped way down, or are on a tight budget, the 1.8 is fine.
But if you're pretty a serious photographer, use the 50 mm focal length a lot, or shoot a lot of portraits, get the 1.4. The lens is still built lightly, but nicer enough. Cost runs about $350. Focus is fast and silent, helpful for a portrait sessions (80 mm equivalent on crop frame). Things are dreamy wide open at 1.4 to 1.8, but perfectly sharp after. For portrait work, there's simply no more there there that you want to capture ... certainly not anything you'd want to show unless you're deep into dermatology. I use this lens fairly often for both portraits and at dimly lit events, like backstage at commencement.
Tokina 11-16 f2.8
Within it's limited zoom range, this is basically is a lens without any real compromises. It's completely sharp, distortion is well controlled. I haven't had a problem yet in the field with CA. Unlike a Canon EFS lens, you can mount it to a full frame camera, and, trying it on a cheap film body, it looks like it will work fine at 16mm, which is still very wide. At about $700, a really good buy for what it does.
Tokina 16-50 f2.8
This is generally a very good lens, though not in the same league for absolute quality as the 11-16. At about $550, it's a good value. Now discontinued I've seen it for sale at about $1,000. That's too much in my opinion. Get the Canon lens instead at that price.
The lens is very very sharp. I haven't had a real problem with flare. There is a decent amount of distortion at 16mm, and the CA at the wide end can be pronounced ... it's not always noticeable, but in high contrast situations, its enough that it needs to be corrected before going to print. A pin came loose inside that prevented the lens from zooming. Had to send it out for repair at Tokina in California for $130.
Canon 85 f1.8 and 100 f2.
These sister lenses are both basically perfect in any way that anyone would notice in print. Perfectly sharp, fast and silent focus, nice contrast. There's nothing not to like. And in the $450 range, they are a bargain as well. You probably don't need both though. The 100 is really nice for events on stage.
Canon 70-300 USM IS/Canon 70-200 f4L (non-IS)
The price is similar enough that unless you are really stuck on the IS, go the extra dollars for the the f4L. I have the 70-300 and optically, I can't point to anything wrong about it, but I just don't like it. Our sports information director uses it all the time. The 70-200 f4. Wow. There's just something special about the lens. Nicer to use, nicer color, nicer contrast, sharpness just seems better. Yeah, you have to hold it steady in low light. I think it's worth it.
Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6
I purchased this lens used at $250 to use while the Tokina 16-50 was being repaired. With a 5x plus zoom range, it's simply much much better than I expected. Color, contrast and sharpness are all very nice. Autofocus is not Canon (or even Tokina) fast and quiet, but it's good enough. Sure the aperture is slow. But the optics are good. This will be a regular outdoor event lens (homecoming parade).
Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5
This lens defines the middle of the road. It's light. Cheap. Not super fast, but not super slow either. There is nothing terrible about it. Sharpness is passable, just though. (It really suffers there in comparison to better lenses.) Color and contrast are flat, but they can be boosted in software. Good for a budget choice. But I will use the Tamron 24-135 over this.
Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5
Got this super cheap on a lark. Very small, very light, attractive zoom range. Not too slow. Better than the 28-105 for color and sharpness, but not nearly as good as the Tokina 16-50 or Sigma 24-70. Lot of distortion on the wide end. It doesn't get used often.
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
I used this lens (non-OIS) for several years on an XT. My colleague uses it now. It's a very nice lens for (as I recall) about $500. Not as sharp as the Tokina 16-50, but doesn't have the CA either. Seems to struggle for sharpness a little at 24mm though.
Canon 28 f2.8
The university had this when we were shooting with film and the 10D. I can't recall anything exceptional about it one way or the other image quality wise. Noisy, like the 50 1.8, and unpleasant to use though.
Canon 18-55 (kit lens)
God, I hate this lens. The university has it for the pool camera. It's just so dim and it feels like junk. I dislike it so much that I can't comment on the optics. We've had our students use it and the results have been okay, but not remarkable. There may not be anything really wrong with the lens. I just hate it.
Sigma 20 f1.8
The university purchased this lens back when we where shooting film. It was unique for the time and did yeoman's work for us. But sharpness wasn't great on 400 speed slide film. It's not going to hold up on digital. I never use it anymore.
Tamron 20-40 f2.7-3.5
This is another lens I purchased used for about $270 while the Tokina 16-50 was in the shop. It was a complete turkey and I returned it. Sharpness was terrible. Color was terrible. Contrast was terrible. With only a 2x zoom range, I thought this lens would deliver. And I expected the Tamron 24-135 to be iffy. The opposite was true. Go figure.
Camera: Olympus XZ-1
This is the camera I use for everyday life.
First to dispense with cons: Not small enough for a pants pocket. No viewfinder. Really though, those things can't be helped.
Everything else is just about perfect. The control layout is different than Canon layout so it takes so getting used to. Ten megapixels is just right. The lens is great. The jpeg output is pleasing to the eye. Noise is fairly well controlled. It's responsive enough for focus and speed. And again, the lens (f1.8-2.5) is just great.
Biases
I'm pretty tactile, so I probably rate things that are particularly cheaply made (kit lens) lower than they would rate on optics alone. Once something reaches an appropriate level of quality, say 50 1.4, I'm not that fussy. The Tokina lenses both feel particularly solid, as does the 70-200 f4L. Though light, the Tamron 24-135 feels nice to use too.
I don't use filters, but I do keep hoods on the two Tokinas and the Tamron.
No comments:
Post a Comment