5 posts tagged “equipment”
- "What do you shoot with?"
- "Are you Canon or Nikon?"
- "Have you tried the latest version of PS?"
- "What printer did you use to make these prints?"
- If you already have a camera that can make a good enough file stop reading magazines that are just trying to make you want to buy new equipment; instead visit a gallery or museum and get inspired. I have a decent camera but I refuse to buy into the idea that I need to buy something twice as expensive again to be taken seriously. There is no camera in the world that will make me a better photographer; I can only achieve that through applying myself to my work.
- Avoid conversations about gear; seak out conversations about art and artists.
- Spend as little time in PhotoShop as you can get away with. Avoid 'playing' with an image in PhotoShop. Instead look at the original file, previsualize what you would like the resulting file to look like, and work out the shortest route from one to the other.
- Stop studying lighting plans, HDR tutorials and ways to make your digital images look like they came out of a Lomo. Instead, study the history of photography, its movements, key players and iconic images.
- Don't be ashamed of shooting digital when everyone tells you that the 'real art' is made using film (or visa versa). It is a pissing match that has no point or end.
Most despised lens on the planet or what?
Does anyone have a good word for the kit lens that comes with the digital rebel? It is pretty hard to find anyone on the web willing to stand up for this bargain under-dog but let me throw my hat in the ring and say that I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes out.
True, it is light and insubstantial when you pick it up - I don't think there's more than an ounce of metal in it's make up and most of what's there is in the electronics. The lens' mount itself is even plastic which is often a bad sign. It is cheap and it feels cheap ($100 or free with your first DSLR). Being free makes it common and I think this is the 18-55mm lens' biggest problem. Just about everyone who has a Canon DSLR has, or has had, a copy of the 18-55mm kit lens. It's as common as muck. It carries no prestige what-so-ever. L-snobs consider it worthless; enthusiasts think it a badge of inadequates; even beginners see it only as a stop-gap until they can afford something decent and this last view may be the most accurate.
Just about every review I've read of the digital rebels has said something along the lines of, "nice camera let down by the cheap kit lens". It is repeated so often by reviewers and forum pundits that we start to believe its bad press without questioning it. This bad rap is so unanimous among such places as Amazon's comments that I wonder how many of these photographers have really tried this lens and how many just blindly believe and repeat the hype. It's too easy to just blame your equipment for your horrible pictures but take a minute to dig that old kit lens out of the back of your closet and give it another try.
I've already admitted that its build quality is lightweight and plastic but that can be an advantage - after the equally cheap, but much less maligned 50mm f1.8, the 18-55mm paired with a 400D makes for one of the lightest, most compact camera/lens DSLR combinations available. You give up a full time focusing ring, focus scale etc. but it is so cheap you don't have to worry about taking it anywhere - it's so light it will go in a jacket pocket and you will forget you're carrying it. It's range is not exotic but it is very useful (29-88mm in 35mm terms) which covers a large part of the range you need for walkabout, landscape, architectural and portrait photography.
As for image quality, I won't pretend that this is the sharpest lens Canon has ever produced but it is not as bad as some reviews would have you believe. Wide open it is soft, especially at the edges but if you learn to work with this lens' limitations it will reward you with decent images. Avoid shooting wide open so stop down to the middle of the lens' range whenever possible. If this means hiking up the ISO a bit higher than you are usually comfortable with, then just do it and deal with the noise later in post-processing. Use a lens hood whenever possible. If the thought of spending $25 on a propriety hood for a $100 lens makes you wince then just use a cheap generic rubber hood you have lying around from your old film equipment.
If you can afford the 17-40mm f4 L or the 17-85mm EF-S IS is in your budget then, by all means buy, and use, those better lenses. I'm not going to try to tell you that the 18-55mm kit lens is as good as either of those more expensive lenses but don't discount it as trash either. If you need something reasonably wide don't forget about your kit lens gathering dust. I wouldn't recommend the kit lens as your main or only lens in the long term but don't believe everything you read on the interweb - the kit lens is just not that awful.
Reviews
- Bob Atkins on Photonet - much of the time it can hold it's own against Canon's full frame coverage mid-range consumer lenses, especially in the center of the frame
- The Digital Picture
- The Luminous Landscape - Of course everyone wants to know what the image quality is like. In three words — not that great.
- Photozone - serious users looking for a good quality lens should save a little more and look elsewhere.
Pictures
A Vox neighbor commented on a previous post asking how I liked the Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS lens I had just bought. In answer, here's a preview of a review I was working on:
I don't think anyone is going to argue the point that the kit lens that comes with the APS sized sensor Canons is a great lens. It's cheap and does an OK job but even if it was tack-sharp it would not be my ideal walkabout lens. I need a bit more reach on my photo haunts so the first lens I hunted down after getting the kit lens and the 50mm f1.8 (undisputed bargain king) was the 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 USM lens.
The 28-105mm gave me the reach I wanted and the quality I was looking for for a good price ($140 secondhand from Craigslist). It felt more solid and more like a lens should and yet was very compact and useful. I was happy with this lens for a couple of years and then a friend of mine, with more disposable income than me, decided to go traveling for 12 months and decided not to take his 24-70mm f2.8L lens with him so I had this classic and legendary lens in my own camera bag and at my disposal for a year. It's a great lens even though it is expensive and heavy, and is ideal for portrait and low-light work. A year with a borrowed lens flies by and it wasn't long until I had to return the beautiful L-series glass. Going back to the old 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 was slow so I started to look around for a more affordable alternative to the red striped lens. I looked at the third party manufacturer's 28-75mm f2.8 offerings that cost less than $500. They are tempting and I may get one as a portrait lens in the future but as a walkabout lens they are just a bit to limiting for me. The 24-105mm f4L IS looks great but was out of my price bracket.
This left only one real choice; the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS ($270, again secondhand from Craigslist). It's an older designed image stabilized (IS) lens but the IS still gives you a stop or two extra hand-holding ability. Compared to my old 28-105 it is huge; compared to the 24-70L it is small. It is pretty solid and heavy with professional features like a metal lens mount, focusing scale and a full-time, manual focus ring. On the other hand, it has more consumer like composite construction than the L-series' metal rigidity. It's plastic nature is sometimes noticeable with the zoom ring being a little staccato at times, especially when compared to the L-series' liquid fluidity. All in all, construction is enthusiast-solid, not professional-rock-solid and not consumer-plastic.
Comparisons in the image quality department are similar. The 24-70mm is legendarily sharp so it seems a little unfair to compare the 28-135mm with it side by side. When removed from the Pepsi taste challenge, images from the 28-135 are impressive. I had read line-counters who claim it is marginally sharper than the 28-105 but the difference is so marginal that I could not notice it in real world situations. So why upgrade then? The IS really works. If, like me, you can't afford the f2.8 but sometimes find yourself in light that demands that speed then the IS is there to help you out. Not that IS is a total substitute for f-stop speed, it can't stop motion blur just camera shake, but does help. Actually, it more than helps. IS can become a bit of an addictive crutch. Pick up any other lens and you start to wonder why your pictures are soft hand holding 100mm at 1/30.
That extra 30mm of reach comes in handy too when you're out and about. In a full-frame equivalent world the lens behaves like a 45-216mm zoom; that's a standard lens to a pretty decent telephoto. It's not going to pull in wildlife from far away, or be wide enough for many street or architectural photographers but in that unfashionable focal range between the two it is very useful. It has become my default lens; the one that's on the camera 75% of the time. It's not perfect but every lens is a series of compromises. As compromises go, the 28-135mm is a pretty good one.
My standard zoom conclusion? If the only lens you currently own for your Canon is the kit lens and/or the 50mm prime and money is an issue (isn't it always?) the 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 is a pretty good bargain (currently $230 at Adorama). Just make sure you get the f3.5-5.6 not the cheaper f4-5.6 or you may be sorry. If you already own the 28-105mm is it worth stepping up to the 28-135 (currently $410 at Adorama)? If you need a little more flexibility in low-light, then maybe, but if you use it mainly outdoors during the day, perhaps not. I leave formal lens tests to men with more free time than I have but to my eye there's not much in sharpness, contrast or color accuracy between the 105 and the 135. If portraits are your main thing but the 24-70L is a bit spendy check out something like the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 ($370 at Adorama). If I had a grand or more burning a hole in my pocket I'd get the 24-105mm f4L IS for sure. Until that day the 28-135 works for me.
Links
There is one thing that bugs me about these communities; it's just a small thing but it has to do with signatures or profiles of a certain segment of my wired brethren. I'm talking about those photographers who list EVERY item of gear that they own so we can be in awe of their good judgment and disposable income every time they post to their favorite forum. Now, I love the technical aspects and toys associated with photography as much as the next man (and let's face it, women are far less guilty of this than guys). I'm even vaguely interested in what brand and model of camera you are using, whether you're a film die hard or a digi-lover, even what lens you are using but I am much more interested in your photographs than the contents of your camera bag. I certainly do not want to know what brand your camera bag is, or your flash card, or your filters and why are you listing the batteries that you use for your off-camera flash? If you refer to your lenses as "glass" you will have to work hard to win back my respect. I don't care how much memory your laptop has or if you of one of the mac-faithful or a windows fanboy. None of this matters so why do so many "photographers" (I use the term loosely) feel the need to try to impress everyone with these lists?
Does how much you spent on gear denote how serious you are about your art (I use this term loosely too)? Is my opinion worth less than yours because you have a red stripe on your lens or a full-frame sensor in your camera? To tell you the truth, the only time I am impressed by these lists is when I see amazing work being produced by the most modest of equipment. If you have the best equipment available you better be producing the best images too; funny how that correlation hardly ever works.
Does this sound hypocritical coming from someone who devotes a good part of his site to writing opinions about his own cameras? In my defense, visitors to that part of my site pay for all my hosting fees. Also, as I said, I do love equipment but there's a time and place for it. Your signature is not that place. Your forum signature should contain one thing, a link to your work. Your bag full of L-series glass may impress the newbies but I want to see what you can do not what you own.
Back in the film days there was a common saying; "Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer; it just makes you a Nikon owner." The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Canon 24-70mm f2.8L is a legendarily good lens among Canon lens snobs. It's legendarily sharp, legendarily heavy and legendarily expensive. When my friend, Garry, bought his DSLR he did what many advocate, but few actually do; bought the best lens he could and spent less on the camera body. He walked-the-walk and bought the beautiful L series lens and the Rebel XT. With the 1.6x crop factor it makes a great portrait and standard lens.
A year later, being a man of convictions, he decided to leave the company where we worked together, to leave the rat race altogether and go and spend a year with a non-profit in Thailand. It was then that the L series lens' legendary weight and expense came into play. He didn't want to risk this beautiful lens by throwing it around in a rucksack. I pointed Garry in the direction of the much more modest Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 (which I also own) and generously offered to look after his expensive glass while he was gone.
That was a year ago and Garry is back to claim the more expensive lens. The L-series lens is undeniably good and I loved having it available to use for a year; thanks Garry! It produces beautiful images but I'm not sure I will miss it that much. Perhaps it is because it wasn't my lens and I wanted to return it in just as good condition as when I became its steward, so I didn't take it out of the house that much. It is a great portrait lens but for a walkabout lens it lacks a bit of the reach I need for my typical shooting style. Looking at the pixels 1-to-1 you can see a difference but who looks at your pictures that close, in that much detail?
So tonight Garry comes by to pick up his baby. I will miss the respect that red stripe demands from other photographers when I out and, if I had L-series funds I, would have replaced it with the 24-105mm f4L IS. But I don't so I've replaced it with the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS which I picked up used from CraigsList for less than $300. I look forward to putting that lens through its paces on our upcoming road trip. The 28-135 IS is a great walkabout lens; not perfect but good enough ... for now ... I think.
