Min DOF Photography

I got the replacement for my replacement Sigma. The 18-50 2.8 Macro. I hope it performes well, I’ll test it on my Prague vacations, I’m leaving tomorrow for 6 days. And the last but not least, Widget bucks IS paying (I just got the check today).

I’ve made a few snapshots, it looks like it’s front focus free. That’s always nice to see that, when it comes to Sigma+Canon combo. Besides that, I must say I was satisfied with the non macro version (optically they should be more or less equal), it passed the test nicely, I’ve just had a few AF problems in low light situations on the wedding. I hope this one will perform better, I’ll report about it when I return from Prague. Below you can see the snaps I mentioned earlier.

I focused on the letter M.

This standard FF test was done in a hurry, without a tripod etc. But I can assure you it’s accurate enough to check the focusing accuracy (just not 100% as it would be in case it was made by the book).

I’ve been diggin around photo.net a while ago and came across a photo by Giuseppe Circhetta. Since I liked it, I checked the rest of his portfolio and clicked on the link to his photo blog. I found a few educational studio lighting tutorials, which I believe most novice and intermediate level studio photographers will find pretty interesting. The thing I like best about those tutorials are the illustrations of light set ups and ofcourse the detailed photos showing either the complete setup or just parts of it. And also the end result. The most interesting thing to me, is the way he lites the background, unevenly. I find that much more interesting than evenly/flat lit backgrounds.

Here are the links:

- 1

- 2

- 3

I just got it today, the non-macro version. I wanted the macro version, but it’s out of stock, so I got this one for a couple of weeks, so I won’t be left without a standard zoom - I sold the good ol’ 350D kit last week. I could also keep this one, but I’ve already, more or less, made up my mind. But I’m still interested if there are any optical differences between the macro and non-macro versions, besides the minimal focusing distance. There might be, since the optical configuration is different. I’m mostly interested in sharpness in the f2.8-f4 range, bokeh and colours. There probably is no difference when it comes to AF speed - the macro HSM version is unfortunately available for Nikon only at this time. So anyone who’s had experience with both, or better yet, has owned both is welcome to write down his opinion about it and post same samples. If you found any comparison test (I haven’t) please paste a link.

My first impressions are good, the first thing that I tried was AF speed and accuracy in low light situation using the outer AF points. I’d say it was pretty good, compared to 18-55 kit it was noticeably better - 18-55 won’t focus using the outer AF points at all, not even/or really slowlly with a flashgun attached. And that was the improvement I was looking for. I don’t need a pro standard zoom, since I rarely use it, but when I do, I expect it to perform good (not excellent) in all light situations. It makes a nice combo with 30D too, its weight is still acceptable, while the handling is good, it feels good in my hands. If you don’t know yet, I hate bricks (Canon 1 series, Nikon pro series etc) and bulky standard zoom lenses (all of the 24-70 2.8), especially if shooting for longer periods with a flashgun attached to it (the brick kit). That’s why I also didn’t buy a battery grip for my 30D. It would handle better without a doubt, but it would also feel almost like holding a series 1 DSLR - heavy!

Sigma 8mm f3.5 EX DG circular fisheye. A very nice and sharp lens (at least in the center). And wideeee. If you have ideas on how you could use it and need it, I can only recommend it. Lately I’m thinking about a UWA linear lens. 10-22 to be exact. It’s currently really cheap, priced at 680 EUR -80 cashback (OK that was a limited special offer…), considering the normal 855 EUR price. But I’m not sure I’d use it that much, since I mostly shoot people. Anyway, here are a few 8mm fish samples that I took last year. Click here to see more.

As you can see FOV is really wide.

Woot?

The only thing I really hate about (U)WA lenses is, that it’s impossible to blur the background. This shoot (as well as previous) was taken at its minimal focusing distance (a few cm) at f3.5.

I believe that’s one of the most frequently asked questions among photographers. Some say it does, some that it doesn’t. And those who claim the later are usually more or less hypocritical. Why? Because they either want better equipment and can’t afford it or because they don’t be recognised for what they really are - showoffs. I won’t get in philosophical nor psychological hypothesis and get straight to my opinion on the matter. That’s what you read my blog, right? To read my opinions and thoughts (and ofcourse view my photos) mainly about photography.

Let me tell you an interesting story. I got a 1Ds mkII last june (2006) for the first time in my life. It was a real beast at that time, FF, 17 mpix, with competition not even half close. I really had no special plans with it, the main reason to borrow it, was to take it to the portrait workshop that we organised on slo-foto - click to go to the workshop thread. So I got it on friday, probably took some shots and than borrow it to a friend. Yeah on the first day. So you can see I wasn’t really excited to get the best DSLR in the world at that time. On the other hand he was totally overwhelmed, he drove 320 km to borrow it for half a day (from friday evening to saturday morning when I needed it for the workshop). A few days later a friend of his thanked me because “i gave him the opportunity” to hold it in his hands…It’s really crazy how much people differ.

So as you can see, I really don’t give a damn about the photo equipment. I still use my good ol’ 350D. To be honest, I was thinking about 5D, but I reconsidered, because the complete package (135L, 28-75 2.8, new camera bag and memory card) would cost me around 4k (with really nice rebates that I can get). Besides that, I can borrow 1Ds mkII when I need it. I then decided to get me a 30D. And the only reason is really, that its production stopped this summer, the prices are ridiculous and it still works with Rawshooter. If that wasn’t the case I’d still use my 350 D for half a year or so, because it really works fine for me (I’m just not sure about the shutter life).

And there’s one more reason, why I wouldn’t buy a flagship DSLR; its weight and bulkiness. I really don’t understand why the hell manufacturers always make bricks. That’s why I favor D200 over D2Xs (I use both on daily basis) and 5D over the 1Ds. Ok, the D2Xs noise levels at ISO 800 are ridiculous, but that’s a subject for another post…

To me, since I’m a portrait photographer, it’s much more important what I have in front of the lens, than what kind of equipment I’m holding in my hands…

And what do you think about that? Does equipment really matter?

Yeah only two. I thought I’d had a bunch of samples by now, but the weather totally sucks (12C every day, it’s crazy), the sky is packed with dark clouds as well, so you really can’t shoot below ISO 400, if you don’t set the aperture below f2 (after 18.30, I don’t have the time for testing during the day). And I want to make test samples at ISO 100-200…Anyway, below you can see an almost wide open sharpness sample and a bokeh/colour sample. And some say Canon’s colours sucks - don’t make me smack you a couple of times .

Sharpness sample; looks nice when sized down to web size, only minimal sharpness was added (Rawshooter really adds a minimal amount of sharpness), but adding a lot of contrasts also masks lack of sharpness to a noticeable degree - that’s why a web sample can fool most people. Please view LARGER.

f1.6, 1/80, ISO 200. When you look at a 100% crop you can see that the sharpness is acceptable. And nothing more, it’s not even close to being good, but I’d say it’s still better than my 50 1.8@1.8

I think bokeh and colours are noticeably better than those produced by 50 1.8. They’re much closer to 85 1.8, than to 50 1.8. I was pleasantly surprised by the results (contrast was tweaked) .

I’ll do more testing over the weekend. The weather forecast is pretty good and I’ll have a lot of free time and more friends around to shoot. From what I’ve seen so far, I’ve been a bit disappointed with the sharpness (it’s still a bit better than 50 1.8) and very satisfied with bokeh and colours. And AF seems to work pretty well too, much better than the nifty fifty’s. And I think those all are good reasons for the upgrade/first time purchase.

Related posts: 50 1.4 , 50 1.4? , Lens does matter

Oh yeah, I finally got it. I wanted to rent it on thursday, but couldn’t get it anywhere. I did make a few shots of the 50 1.4 compared to the nifty fifty (1.8). It looks more serious, like the “big brother” should. Ok, I guess it’s not really the big brother, if you think about the bigger, bulkier and even faster 50 1.2L. But I’m not really interested in the L, since it has AF issues if you shoot at close range with it - and I alway shoot at closer range with all of my lenses. Not to mention the sky high price tag and the fact that its focal lenght is not amongst those which I use the most. And I also heard that 50 1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than L. But if you out all your money on bokeh and bullet proof built and shoot on longer distances you might just buy it. The 50 1.4 really looks like a smaller version of the 85 1.8. Shorter really, since the diameter seems to be about the same and the filter size is exactly the same - 58 mm (yeah cheap filters ). It also has a FTM (which doesn’t run as smoothly, but that may be because it’s brand new), although it doesn’t have real USM, it has the micro-USM version. The lens seems to give expectable results when it comes to image quality, but it has a small defect - you have to twist it pretty hard when mounting it on the camera, the mount doesn’t fit perfectly as it should (this happened for the first time and I’ve mounted tenths of lenses on many cameras).

The images below show difference in size and built.

1.4 is quite bigger when you put it aside the nifty 50.

The 1.4 also gets more respect “glasswise”. It’s in between the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 in this aspect as well. And you’ve probably noticed, that the mount isn’t plastic either.

I’m thinking about buying this lens. The main reason why, is because 85 is a bit long for people snapshots. I notice that when I’m in a pub (or in a similar environment) with my friends and I can’t just snap the photo across the table with the 85 1.8, because it’s just too long. I have to move back…and by then a moment is already missed. 85 1.8 is ideal for this kind of shots when mounted on FF - it’s ideal. The only problem with it on FF is that the min focus distance is too long for headshots (you can’t frame only the head). The other problem is that I don’t have nor I intend to buy a FF DSLR any time soon.

I intended to buy it when I wear out my 50 1.8. But I can’t wait that long - it still works perfectly. Ok by the word perfectly I mean as it should. But that’s not good enough for me, I hate it’s unreliable (it can miss focus few times in a row in pretty decent light conditions) and noisy AF, sharpness below f2.5 (it’s sharp at f2.8), washed-out colours and ugly bokeh. The 1.4 version is supposed to be better in all of those features, although still not comparable with 85 1.8/100 f2 or any of the L prime non WA lenses. The main reason for me to upgrade is more reliable AF (although still not really good judging by the reviews), better bokeh and I hope the colors and sharpness are not just a tad better. And especially about the last two features I want to hear opinions from all of you who own it or have shot with it (extensively if possible). If you have some interesting samples shot in the f1.4-f2.8 (100% crops), please post them in your comments (links).

And here’s a link to the only 50 mm comparison test . It’s a pretty nice review, but it lacks sharpness and colour comparison. So I’ll be glad for any usefull input that you can provide.

All of the photos below were taken on last year’s slo-foto.net fashion photography workshop. I’ve never published these photos on the web (although one of those was on the cover of ONA magazine), because I didn’t find them good enough. And probably also because I took only a few of the photos of Tina (those pasted below are numbered 7594-7596, so I probably took just 3 shots).

The first three somehow work for me. Can’t really put my finger on it. They just do. Please view LARGER, otherwise it’s no use…

This one somehow doesn’t really work for me. Like a butter knife, it just don’t cut it (yeah don’t not doesn’t;)). Oh shit, now I know why!! Because it’s taken with Canon 70-200 2.8@200 mm f3.2. There’s just too much DOF. Ofcourse that’s just one of the reasons…

And now you see why I would never think for a second about which lens to use for a portrait/fashion/nudes or any kind of people photography. Although Canon 70-200 2.8 is a damn fine ZOOM lens, it doesn’t come even close to 85 1.8 for the kind of photography that I do. No min DOF capabilities, no real sharpness below f3.2 and it weights a ton too - I hate that about it as well. Oh yeah, it also costs 4-5 times more;).

Now I know that some photojournalist, sports shooter etc will come across and start whining. Yeah I know all your arguments and that you will write exactly opposite to what I’ve had. But…Write about it on your own damn blog . I’m joking ofcourse, everyone is welcome to put their 2 cents in the comment section.

According to Amazon it sure looks like that! Specs like 21 mpix at 5fps, 3″ LCD, integrated self-cleaning sensor unit and a lighter 1200g body (without the batteries) sure sound amazing. Priced at 7.990$. Full specs are available by clicking on the Amazon link.

The price of 40D is 1299.99$, full specs are also available on this link. Another great move from one of the major retailers, putting full specs and the price on their site before the announcement. I’m sure they’ll get quite a few more buyers than they would if they waited until the announcement.

If this are the true specifications, Canon will make the competitors life (at least in prosumer class) a lot harder. It will again rise the bar higher, out of competitions reach. We’ll see what Nikon will offer on Thursday the 24th, but if the rumoured D3 specifications are correct it will once again leap behind Canon. Good for Canon, bad for Nikon and the consumers, because prices won’t start dropping.