Tripping with the Canon 20-35mm

Having just received my 5D back from the repairer, and my new 20-35mm lens from Trademe (an internet auction site similar to ebay here in New Zealand), I was keen as mustard to get out and shoot with it. There were a lot of events happening locally this weekend, so we picked one and headed out the door.

We decided as a family to go to the Gypsy Fair. I was keen to go because I knew there would be lots of photo opportunities for bold colour and good wide-angle images - and I wasn't disappointed.

I haven't used the Canon 5D in over a year - shooting with the Nikon D300 instead. I've written about my love for the D300 and initially felt myself really missing some of its features over the 5D. For example, I much prefer the larger, higher resolution LCD screen on the Nikon D300 - it's gorgeous compared to the smaller, lower resolution screen on the Canon.

This may sound like a small thing, but in reality it's huge (no pun intended). Looking on the back of the 5D didn't inspire confidence that I had the image I wanted - even when checking the histogram. The 5D images lacked the punch and pop I am used to seeing on the screen of my D300, although I'm pleased to say this isn't particularly borne out in the final results on the computer.

I was using the 'Portrait' Picture Style on the 5D, whereas with my D300 I'm used to the 'Vivid' colour setting. And I'm pretty sure that therein lies the problem. I've set up my own 'Custom' picture Style on the 5D now - increasing the sharpness, saturation, contrast and colour tone values, and I'm getting much better images on the back of the camera.

Of course I'm shooting RAW on both systems, so these settings aren't of major importance for the final RAW file. But it is better to see a sharp, punchy image on the back of the camera after you've taken a photo. It just inspires more confidence.

I'm also not too inspired by the 9-point focus system on the Canon 5D when compared to the 51 point system on the Nikon. I'm not saying the Canon is bad - and I only tend to use the central focusing point and recompose anyway - but the autofocus system on the Nikon does seem more robust and responsive. Regardless of frames-per-second (which the Nikon also completely hammers the 5D in), I know which camera body I would reach for if the action got really frantic - and it wouldn't be the 5D. Of course for static images - and even for capturing my son on a mini trail bike - the 5D is more than capable (of course).

One of the issues I had with the 5D files when I got them onto the computer was noise. I was shooting at ISO 100, so no, noise isn't that apparent - but surprisingly it is there. Again, I think I've been somewhat spoilt with the D300, which although not the best of the bunch, still handles noise much better than the 5D. I regularly shoot at ISO1600 on the D300, whereas I don't think I'll go much above 800 on the 5D. I also heard recently that Canon sensors perform best at ISO160 and multiples thereof (320, 640 etc). So ISO160 is cleaner than ISO100? Might have to give that a go and see for myself. Place that in the 'strange but true' file.

Anyway, the photo above 'Lucky Star', shot at ISO100, has noise in the dark areas inside the caravan that is simply horrible. Admittedly I underexposed quite a bit to retain detail in the clouds, and then 'opened' the shadows in Photoshop - but even some of the better exposed areas 'cleaned up' noticeably when I put the image through Noise Ninja. Probably a worse case scenario - but the 5D is definitely noisier than the D300 - period.

At this point you may be thinking 'what a dog of a camera'. Surely there must be something he does like? Isn't there? Well I'm glad you asked, because there is indeed. Quite a few things in fact.

First, even though it may exhibit more noise, the sensor on the 5D has to be one of its major selling points - because it's full frame. Yes, I do appreciate that my new Canon 20-35mm is, in fact, a 20 to 35mm optic on the 5D (and not some weird 32-56mm monstrosity). I'm not a super telephoto shooter, so I don't really appreciate the x1.6 crop factor of the ADSC sized sensors. I want a 24-70mm to be exactly that - thank you very much.

Second, I love the ergonomics of the Canon. Using the large scroll wheel on the back of the camera to instantly change EV is inspired bliss. I'm so used to shooting with that big old wheel in the back, I miss it soooooo much when I shoot with my Nikon. 

Otherwise I'm in two minds about the overall simplicity of the Canon compared to the Nikon. I'd like the Canon to have an option to use a two button reformat without having to dig into the menu system a-la the Nikon's, but then again, the Canon 5D seems easier to get familiar with. I can recall it being called a real 'photographers' camera when it was first released, and I must say I agree with that. It's got nothing you don't need (live view, picture modes, video capability etc) and everything that you do to take great images. It's solid, weather sealed, fits my hand perfectly and is part of an incredibly impressive system - especially the Canon lenses.

Which finally brings me to the Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5. With the Canon EW-83 lens hood attached it's a bit of a monster lens - not very long, and not very heavy, but man does it have a big front element (77mm)! The ultrasonic motor is lightning quick and whisper quiet, giving the impression of a quality lens. Initial impressions are that the images are plenty sharp enough, especially when stopped down to f5.6 or f8. And so it should be as an ultra-wide optic. 

What I don't like about it is the very short front focus ring. It's too narrow, and too close to the front of that honking great lens hood. The even narrower manual focus ring is better placed and falls more naturally under my fingers when holding the lens. Wish Canon had put the zoom ring there instead. Ah well. 'Pobody's nerfect' as they say :-)

Folks reading this may sense a bit of Canon v Nikon, although that's not my intention at all (really). These are just the differences in the two camera systems that I own, as I see it. And these are also just my initial thoughts, after using the 5D again after over a year. I've already tweaked the cameras picture style to give me a better user experience, and even that little thing has worked wonders.

Ideally I'd meld the two together into one Super-Wayne camera :-)  If only life were that simple. 

Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5

Hooray! Just received news that my Canon 5D is finally going to be fixed!

I had sent it off to a camera repairer who was initially at a loss for what was causing the fault (top lcd and viewfinder info not showing). He thought it might be a couple of things, but couldn't be sure until he'd had a chance to 'test' his theories out using the parts from a working 5D. But that meant waiting until he got another 5D that he could pull apart and use the bits from!

Well, that day finally arrived, and he was pleased to report back that he has found the cause of the fault (one of the circuit boards), and it is the easier of the two possible fixes. It's still going to cost me $500NZ to have it repaired, but that's only a tenth of what the camera initially cost, so I think it's worth it to get it back up and running again.

So I may soon be using two different systems - both Canon and Nikon - when I shoot a wedding! Cool.

Only slight problem with getting the 5D back is my general lack of lenses for it! That won't be a problem on a wedding, since my assistant Nicky is a Canon shooter and has some amazing glass I can use for the day. How about a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8? I could easily shoot a whole wedding with just those two lenses right there!

But for my own personal photography, I really only have a 50mm f1.8 (of my daughters) that I can use, so things are looking a little more limited. So I decided to fix that, by adding a wide angle zoom to the 50mm - picking up a Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 off Trademe today!

The 20-35mm is one of the first EF wide angle lenses Canon made for the 'consumer' market, although they didn't skimp on the build quality. It has a superior electronic USM (ultra sonic motor) focusing system with full-time manual override, a large 77mm filter element, metal mount, and solid construction. What it doesn't have are any aspherical or correctional lens elements.

General reports on the internet are positive - stop the lens down to f8 or f11 and it's a very sharp and reasonably well corrected optic. Which, once again, is fine with me. Just like my Tokina 12-24mm f4 for my Nikon D300, the Canon 20-35mm will be a landscape lens (for the most part), so smaller apertures will be the norm when using it - not the exception.

The 5D will take a few weeks to be fixed and sent back to me, whereas I should have the 20-35mm soon. I might get a chance to use the 5D at my last two weddings for the year - at the end of April and beginning of March. Should be interesting to see how I go switching between the two systems at a wedding?

Tokina 12-24mm f4

I've blogged frequently over the last couple of years about my desire to own a 'super' wide angle lens for my landscape work. In the past I have owned the Sigma 15-30, which is about as wide as I've ever gotten - until recently, of course, having just purchased the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom. But this is a fisheye lens in the true sense of the meaning, and I don't for a moment consider it to be my one and only landscape lens.

So in a moment of weakness (or should that be bravado?) I bid on a Tokina 12-24mm f4 ATX-Pro wide angle lens, and won it!

Of all the third-party lens offerings, I have gravitated towards Tokina for a couple of reasons. Firstly, everyone raves about their quality and finish, some even suggesting that their lenses are better made than the manufacturers own offerings. And I can confirm this with my recent purchases. They really do make beautifully solid lenses.

And second, the quality of their glass is also impressive - which is, after all, why you buy a lens in the first place - right? I believe that the glass in their lenses is manufactured by Hoya, who have always been my preferred filter makers. I like the quality of Hoya glass, which always comes at a pretty decent price.

And thirdly (and perhaps least importantly), I also heard that Tokina was started by lens engineers who left Nikon to start their own company. They wanted to make more 'exotic' glass, but couldn't get it happening through Nikon, so they went out on their own. And certainly if you look at Tokina's range you'll find that they offer a lot less choice than the likes of Sigma. But I think the saying "Quality, not Quantity" aptly describes Tokina's mantra for business. And it's a mantra I'm willing to support.

Anyway, the lens turned up the other day and it is indeed a solid, well made lens. The autofocus action is  quick and quiet, the manual focus is incredibly smooth (like butter), and Tokina's unique 'clutch' mechanism for engaging manual focus work easily and has just the right amount of grip to make the transition obvious (but not forced).

Above is a photo taken at 24mm, at f8 - around the sweet spot of the lens and where I'm most likely to shoot with it for landscapes (maybe going to f11 or 16 on occasion). The image is very sharp almost all over - only degrading very slightly at the extreme edges. Distortion is kept well under control at 24mm (and even at 12mm), and the colour/contrast is crisp and accurate - at least to my eyes.

The 100% crop above shows the sharpness boost you get going from f4 to f8 - this is not a lens you should use wide open a lot. But since this is my landscape lens, I'm not going to use it at f4 at all - so no big deal, right? People get so hung up on sharpness nowadays it's ridiculous. For what I want to use the lens (predominantly) for, f8 is about where I'll always be - and this lens is super sharp at f8. For the times that I may want to shoot an environmental portrait, I'll want to be at f5.6(ish) anyway, and it's also plenty sharp enough there too. And from what I've read on other sites, the Tokina at f4 is a match for the manufacturers own offerings anyway - at half the price!

The range from 12 to 24mm is about right for my landscape style. I don't feel the need to shoot at 10mm, so the Sigma wasn't really a consideration. 12mm (18mm equivalent) is plenty wide enough - seriously. Once upon a time (in film days) 24mm was plenty wide enough for most people and 20mm was considered crazy wide.

Nikon's equivalent is also the same focal range and f-stop (constant f4), but is considerably more expensive. Even second hand, they go for twice the price that I paid for the Tokina. Is image quality twice as good on the Nikon? No it's not. And as described, you don't sacrifice construction quality with the Tokina either.

I'm very happy with the Tokina 12-24mm f5 ATX-Pro - well worth the money, and I'm looking forward to many years usage creating some outstanding images with it. Will post some landscapes taken with the lens when I get around to giving it a serious workout. Good times.

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 quick thought

My 50mm f1.4 arrived yesterday and I managed to take it out for a couple of quick shots to test its open aperture capabilities.

First quick thought - yes, it is made of 'better' materials than my 50mm f1.8, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it's therefore better made. My 1.4 has a bit of wiggle and a little jiggle when shaken - something that the f1.8 has to a slightly lesser degree. I'm sure this is normal, however, and not the optics shaking around inside!

Focus speed on the F1.4 seems about as fast as the f1.8 too - certainly not noticeably faster. And focus motor noise is also on par for both lenses. So really, it's in the optics that the f1.4 needs to shine.

Does it shine there? Well, as yet I haven't made a direct comparison, but initial testing with the f1.4 confirms what I've been reading from others. At wide open (1.4) the lens is all-over soft. Not unusably soft - for portraits the softness is kinda nice - but it is soft nonetheless.

You can see from the above portrait of Emily and the 100% crop in on the eye that, although soft, the image still works as a soft portrait. The background is beautifully blurred, and the depth-of-field at f1.4 is just enough so that facial features remain reasonably sharp, but get increasingly blurred out from about the cheeks backwards.

Change the f-stop to f2.8, however, and things improve 100%. The focus point (on the eye) becomes stunningly sharp. Although as you can see, you do gain more depth of field. Lips and chin are now also in focus using my D300 cropped sensor body.

So from about f2 the 50mm f1.4 is super sharp. Again - not sure how comparable that is to the 50mm f1.8, but I'll make that comparison soon. In the meantime, I will use the f1.4 at a wedding this week and see how it performs. Might post a couple of images from the day as well.

Nikkor 50mm f1.4D

I weakened, and I bought one.

Yes, I know I've already got the 50mm f1.8D. And yes, I love it, and use it all the time.

But... I've always been curious about the F1.4D version. It's supposed to be much better built than the f1.8 (although to be fair that wouldn't be hard), and given than it's three times the price, then it damn well should be!

More importantly, it's also supposed to be sharper than the f1.8 (at the wider f1.8 to f2.8 apertures, and with much creamier/smoother bokeh.
That's the stuff that really interests me.

I love my Nikkor f1.8D - and the f1.4D is supposedly all that, and more! Hey, I'm up for that.

I'm not interested in the 'newer' f1.4'G' series lens. By all accounts it's slightly slower focusing than the f1.4D - and I just don't like the way the newer 'G' primes look. Too smooth and sculptured. They just look too plasticky. I much prefer the aesthetics of these 'older' lenses. Oh and yeah, the 'G' lens is also about double the price! No thank you.

I'll let you know what I think after the lens arrives, and probably even do a quick comparison with the f1.8D since I'll have both fast 50's together at the same time. Cool!

Fisheye Fun

My Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye arrived today, and yep, it's FUN!

At 10mm you can fit a whole room in - including most of yourself if you're not too careful!

And it has that great fisheye look which, although admittedly can get old real quick, is also undoubtedly a unique spin on an otherwise dull image. This is just a snap of Emy in our lounge - literally the first shot I took with the lens on my D300, but it's also kinda neat. I love how you get sooooo much in, although when kept in the middle the 'subject' still looks relatively natural.  I can see the wedding potential already.

So I took the kids outside and fired another a few more quick shots. just to get a feel for the lens. Not surprisingly it's very snappy to focus, and beautifully sharp, especially in the centre, even wide open. I may not use this lens a lot, but I can tell I'm going to love the results when I do.

Another shot at 10mm - showing again how the central figures can stay reasonably normal, while the horizon and edges bend for the funky fisheye effect. Great portrait of the kids.

Never ask your son "How close can you get to my lens?"
"Is this close enough Dad?"

Seriously, how can you not have fun with this lens?

Tokina Fisheye for my D300

Digital has taken a back seat over the last few months as my passion for film photography has really blossomed. I've written extensively on my experiences over at filmisback.blogspot.com and poor old digital hasn't got a look in!

That's not to say I haven't used my D300 - I shot my second wedding for the season last weekend, and am still all digital on a wedding shoot. I've also got a 'Trash the Dress' session booked in for next month, which will also be digital (although I may sneak some medium format film in there somewhere?). So while I might have been ranting and raving about film over the past few months, digital remains a big part of my work - and will remain so. I still love my Nikon D300.

So to that end, I've decided to give my D300 a little present - jut to say 'sorry' for neglecting it for so long  :-)  I've always yearned for a funky fisheye lens. Something compatible with my cropped sensor D300. When Brian and Emily Hatch visited from the States last year, I got to play with Brian's 16mm FX (Full frame) Nikkor Fisheye, and while I fell in love with it, it really wasn't fisheye enough on my crop sensor. To get true fisheye with a Nikkor lens, I'd need to get the 10.5mm DX lens, taking it back up to the 16mm of Brian's lens with the crop factor added in. But since a new 10.5mm costs over $1400.00NZ, that wasn't about to happen any time soon.

But there are decent alternatives in the third-party lens realm - probably the most tempting of which is the Tokina 10-17mm f3.5/4.5 DX fisheye - the world's only true fisheye zoom! Of the third-party offerings, the build quality of Tokina is legendary, and even though it isn't considered one of their 'pro' lenses, the 10-17mm still gets very good reviews for build quality.

I've been keeping an eye on the lens auctions recently, in the hope that a manual focus fisheye for either Olympus or Minolta would show up, even tough they are both as rare as hens teeth. Not surprisingly, nothing has. But what did pop up, at an amazing price, was a Tokina 10-17mm DX fisheye for Nikon. So I bought it.

What a sexy little lens it is! And most reviews are very positive - except for two things!

First, all the reviewers stress that this is a true fisheye lens, it hasn't been corrected for distortions in any way. Images, especially at the 10mm end, will distort wildly! Great, that's just what I want. You don't buy a fisheye to get rid of the fisheye look - you want to use it! Well at least I do. And yes, while I know that the fisheye thing can get madly overdone, I'm also willing to bet that when my brides see one or two fisheye images in their proof book they'll go nuts over them. I reckon I'll use it at least once for every wedding. And then there's my own landscape work as well. So the fisheye distortion argument doesn't phase me. This is a specialty lens to be used sparingly. Dually noted.

Second, and perhaps more damning, is the lenses tendency to purple fringe in places of high contrast within the image. While on the face of it this is a problem, the D300 (and other high-end nikon bodies) will actually reduce this problem 'in-camera' so I don't believe it will be as noticeable as many of the (Canon using) reviewers have suggested. It's also something that is fairly easy to fix in post processing as well. It does have an aspherical element to correct for aberrations, but that's a great big bulbous hunk of glass on the front of that lens, so it's not surprising it struggles a little with harsh light.

And while we're on the subject of the front element - it may have a tiny built-in hood, but the front stays mainly unprotected. No filters will fit on the front, and Tokina have not made any allowances for rear-fitting gels. No biggy, and I have seen a D.I.Y work around a landscape photographer posted on his blog if I want to go down that track. But I'm not worried, since I won't be using it for every shot. It is, as I've already pointed out, a specialty lens.

Can't wait for it to arrive. I'll definitely be posting some images and my initial thoughts on the lens when I've had a play with it on the D300. After 25+ years in photography, I'm finally going to own a fisheye lens. Yeeehaaaa!