You’re not likely to find me doing a complete 180-degree flip (although I suppose it’s possible).  But what you can expect is a second, more seasoned opinion.  It’s all too easy to be enamored with a lens right out of the box, only to grow disappointed with it later.  Or, conversely, to poorly rank a feature that you later decide is useful after all.  Hindsight is 20/20.

I’ve decided to include this for the same reason that I do the reviews in the first place – so that hopefully someone else can benefit from my experiences, good and bad.  Hopefully you find it useful!

Below is a partial list of reviews that I’ve updated:

Canon 70-200mm f/4

Powershot SX120

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk I

Canon 28-135mm IS

Sigma 120-400mm OS

Yep, this is ISO 3200 with the 7D.  Sized down for the web, you’d never even be able to tell.  Working with the full-sized files, I was planning to do work with NeatImage, but once I saw the web files, I didn’t even bother.  What’s the point?If you’ve followed the conversations regarding the 7D since its launch, you’ve no doubt heard much about it’s ISO abilities.  Personally, I’m not a high ISO junkie; I prefer to keep it at ISO 400 or lower.  ISO 1600 makes me nervous (although there are certainly situations where it’s needed, and the equipment handles it just fine).  But ISO 3200 is territory that I don’t hardly step into.

And if I were planning to use full-size images, I’d probably continue to avoid it.  But after this morning, I’ll be much less hesitant when it comes to low-res files.

Just for kicks, here’s a 100% crop:

Yeah, up close, it’s pretty rough still.  Although not as bad as past cameras, for sure.  Does the 7D noise have a “pleasing, film grain texture,” as is often stated?  To some extent, I’d say it does.  But I’d still rather have the smoothest-grained photos possible.

The point here is simple – each new generation of camera gets better at handling noise.  ISO 800 is the new ISO 200.  We should  be more willing to push our gear to its limits more often.  Which is something I’ll keep in mind the next time I’m out on a dark morning.

A while back, you may recall seeing that I wrote about my disappointment with the Tokina 15-60mm, which I returned just a couple of days after receiving it.  It was meant to be the replacement to my 17-40L, which at f/4 was just a little too slow for my indoor work.

Well, the new replacement has been here for a while now, and it’s here to stay.  On the advice of a friend I found a mint used Canon 17-35mm L f/2.8, which has earned a permanent place in my bag.

Photo Credit: DPChallenge.com

The 17-35L is two generations old, since replaced by Canon’s 16-35L Mk II.  What this means is that there’s some of these phenominal lenses popping up for sale used, at half the price of a new 16-35L.  Which is excellent news for those of us with budget constraints.

While it may be older, it’s hardly antiquated.  The 17-35L is an amazing lens, or at least my copy is.  It focused nearly perfect out of the box, and a few points of micro-adjustment has it tuned perfectly now.  The images display excellent color and contrast, and wide open it has a pleasant bokeh.

Most importantly, it’s sharp.  Very sharp.  Even wide open, which is somewhat rare, even among the L-series lenses.  How sharp?  Let me put it this way – anytime I share a photo, be it a print-sized file going to a client/friend, or the web-sized images I post on here, one of the final steps in my workflow before saving is a low-level pass with Unsharp Mask.  With images shot with the 17-35L, I skip that step altogether – any application of USM ends up over-sharpening the photo!

I can safely say that using this lens is the most fun I’ve had with any glass in a long time.  It’s just fun to work with!  (My first evening out with it, I was literally charging around the park, chasing the light, and grinning like an idiot – it’s no wonder I was getting strange looks…)  I find  the focal range to be very useful, both for landscapes and, to a more limited extent, portraiture.

Physically it’s got the build you’d expect from an L-series lens, and while it has a bit of a reputation as a dust-sucker, I’ve yet to see any evidence of that myself.  It’s nearly the same size as the 17-40L it replaced in my bag, which happens to be a size that fits well in my hand and balances well on the camera.

I find that I really can’t say enough good things about this one – it really is that amazing.  It’s also the first step on my path to acquiring a full set of professional lenses, instead of working with the mid-level consumer alternatives.  And now that it’s in my hands, I really am glad that I opted for it instead of the EF-S 17-55 IS; while the IS would have been handy, it’s better to have the L build and durability of the 17-35.

(The only downside to this purchase is Canon’s refusal to service this lens anymore.  Goodness forbid something ever happen to mine, I’ll have to find an independent shop to fix it, or I’ll be stuck buying a replacement.  Is this likely to be an issue?  I certainly hope not!  But it is something that you should be aware of if you’re buying a discontinued lens.)

Photo Credit: B&H Photo

One of the top answers is the Tamron.  In fact, there are very few lenses that cover that particular focal range with a constant f/2.8 aperture; Canon and Nikon, Tamron and Sigma, and that’s about it.  Any other options are either discontinued, or have slower aperture ranges.

So what’s the deal on the Tamron?

The deal is this: the Tamron is a $450 alternative to a $1300 lens.  And you get what you pay for.

Folks online are quick to tout the Tamron’s strengths – predominately that it’s cheap, and sharp.  ”Not quite as good as the Canon/Nikon, but close,” they say.

Not quite – at least in my opinion.  I owned one of these a few years back, and while it was a decent performer, I was never wowed by it.  The photos were pretty good, but not great, and I eventually sold it off.  (Add to which it’s built entirely of cheap-feeling plastic, which made me paranoid about bumping it into anything.)

Fast forward several years and I’m once more looking for a fast lens in this range.  It isn’t a range I go to very often, but when I do, I want something good.  There’s just no way I’m going to float the price tag on the Canon 24-70L, especially when it’s not my primary shooting lens.  So that leaves me looking at the third-party market.

I read all the reviews and listened to the forum personalities rave about the Tamron, and finally picked one up.  And was unimpressed all over again.  This particular copy suffered from a nasty case of focus drift; I’d get one end of the range tuned in using the micro-adjustment, and the other end would be out of alignment.  And even ignoring that fact and just looking at the tuned-in end, the results weren’t that impressive.  Pretty good.  But not great.

Bottom line: I don’t understand the hype about this lens.  It would not be one of my first recommendations…nor even a second-string recommendation.  Who is this lens for?  Maybe someone with their first DSLR, looking for something faster than the kit lens.  But not for anyone who’s tasted the elixir of excellent, high-end glass.

I sent the used one back, and my search continues.  I still haven’t jumped on the Canon version – I’d rather have the 70-200 f/4 IS.  So I’m trying my luck on a Sigma.  Hopefully it’s better than the competition.

So in an effort to clear out some of that pollution, here’s a list of 6 common photography fallacies that I’ve come across and would like to clear up. (And you can trust me, ’cause I’m obviously not a crackpot!)

1.) f/6400 will give me super sharp photos with deep depth of field!

Not quite. This is a common fallacy, one that I fell into for a long time. But it turns out that cranking your lens’ aperture down as tight as it’ll go isn’t the best recipe for sharp photos. True, the smaller your aperture, the more depth of field you’ll have; at f/22, pretty much everything from here to the horizon is going to be in focus.

But that doesn’t mean it’s sharp. In fact, it won’t be. Most lenses are sharpest at about f/8-f/11; beyond f/11 they start to get softer because of diffraction. If you want to read up on the physics of diffraction, Google it – for our purposes here, just remember that after a certain point, stopping down does more harm than good. (Do some test shots with your favorite lenses to find out where this point is for each.) 

2.) High ISOs will always show too much noise!

High ISOs have a bad rap that they don’t quite deserve. Yes, if you take your 50D and crank it up to ISO 12,000 there is going to be lots of ugly noise. But if you learn to use it right, high ISO can be your friend. The trick is having enough light – I’ve shot well-lite scenes at ISO 1600 on my old 400D and you’d never know that it was at it’s ISO limit.

Most high ISO photos look noisy/bad because they’re not properly exposed – the photog cranked the ISO up in a desperate attempt to get the shot, but didn’t quite make it. Simply, if you underexpose a shot at ISO 100 and then try to pull it up in post, it’ll look bad.

3.) Shooting in RAW will let me fix it later!

I hear this one a lot. There’s a misconception among the uninformed that shooting RAW gives you the ability to “fix” anything later. It doesn’t. RAW gives you extra options, more leeway – but it’s not a miracle file. Most of the literature says that RAW files have adjustable by 2 stops without significant degradation. But that’s for a perfectly exposed photo – anything else, and 2 stops is pushing it. (I usually adjust the exposure of my RAW photos by less than 1/2 stop.)

The answer here is to just get it right in-camera. Take the time to learn your gear, learn photography, and do it properly. Forget that it’s digital and shoot as if you were shooting film, where every frame counts, because every frame is costing you money. Do it right – then, if you need to make a small adjustment to get it perfect, you have that ability in RAW.

4.) You don’t need to post-process digital photos!

FAIL! Every time I hear this, I want to suggest a Cat-Scan to the “photographer” who said it. I met a “pro” a little while back who launched into a 5-minute tirade against Photoshop & post-processing, claiming that none of it was necessary and was just used by hacks to ruin photos.

I held my tongue, but what I really wanted to ask this guy was, “So back in the day, when you did darkroom printing, you threw the negative into the enlarger and made a print? And that was it? No contrast filters, no dodging & burning, no adjustments to the chemical solutions?” I don’t believe that for a second – even the crappy photo machines at CVS adjust your prints for color and contrast.

Photoshop takes skill to master – or even be competent in. But not post-processing your photos is, to be blunt, half-assing it. Almost every photo taken will benefit from a slight curves adjustment, at the very least. Don’t over saturate the colors, don’t make the sky electric blue – but please, do finish the photo the way it deserves.

5.) I’m new to DSLRs; my first lens should be a super-telephoto!

I think every first-time SLR owner falls into this trap. You buy a camera with the kit lens and immediately want a telephoto zoom. “I’ve got to have REACH!” you say. Then you finally get that zoom and realize that it was dumb – what you really needed was a wide angle.

Most beginner/hobby shooters will benefit much more from a good wide-angle or standard range lens than they will from a telephoto. Telephoto lenses are difficult to use – they require patience and solid technique, and even then they will frustrate you. They also tend to be slower lenses, in terms of aperture, and will only work well in good light. Do yourself a favor and buy a good starter lenses, like the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, or the Canon 17-40 f/4 and Canon 50mm f/1.8. Then, when you’re comfortable with photography – and know what you actually want to capture way over there – start looking at telephotos.

6.) More megapixels = better!

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again – this is a MARKETING PLOY. More megapixels does not equal better photos, or a better camera, or a better anything. These days, most people never make prints of their photos at all – and even if you are making 4×6 and 8×10 prints, a 6 megapixel camera will make lovely prints. A 15 megapixel camera won’t make a better 4×6 print. What it will do is cost you a lot of money and use up huge amounts of memory on your computer (on my 7D, each photo is around 22MB – that’s big).

In technical terms, consider that they’re adding more pixels, but the overall size of the sensor remains the same – the pixels just get denser. Denser pixels can mean more noise, more heat – things that aren’t necessarily great news. So don’t fall for the marketing ploy – 10MP is plenty; 12MP is more than enough. 98% of photogs don’t need 22MP. (Note: this applies to crop sensors; full frame sensors are physically larger, so can accommodate a higher megapixel count before becoming too dense.)

Even the rumor boards are fairly quiet – it seems that nobody really knowns.  (Which is, of course, just how Canon likes it.)  The only thing I’ve heard whisper of is a new 24-70L IS.  This is certainly a lens that would capture some attention; the addition of IS would probably cause a feeding frenzy as photogs tried to get one.  But on the other hand, this rumor has been floating around for years now, so there’s probably not much stock to it now.

So in the absence of cold, hard data, I’m going to sit here and theorize – daydream, some might call it – about what Canon might be releasing soon.  Bear in mind, there’s nothing to back any of this up; this is just me looking at the current lens lineup and thinking out loud.

For starters, how about a replacement for the 24-105L IS?  This is an old lens that’s been relegated to the status of “high-end kit lens.”  It could definitely use a re-design, perhaps go a bit longer, perhaps to 135mm, with the new 4-stop IS system.  If Canon really wanted to make a winner, they’d also convert it to f/2.8, which would collectively negate most people’s gripes with it.

How about a new fisheye?  The 15mm fish is getting old and, on a crop sensor, it really isn’t impressively wide.  A new 10mm fisheye might be a niche-market lens, but it could be a good one – especially if it were make an L.

Sigma just came out with the 120-400 OS & 150-500 OS, plus the new Bigma 50-500 OS, all three of which are getting attention – and providing cheaper alternatives to the Canon 100-400L IS, a lens that already has an inconsistent reputation.  Time for Canon to step it up a notch here!

I don’t pretend to know much about much about the L primes, having yet to put my feet in that pool.  But the 100L IS Macro was a big hit, and I have to think that adding IS to some of the longer, popular primes could only be well received.  The 135L, the 200L?

I certainly don’t know what the future holds, but I do know that when I look at Canon’s L-series lenses, I see a lot of aging glass.  Glass that, while it might have a great reputation and performance, is at risk of becoming antiquated if it doesn’t get an update soon.  Am I alone with this thought?  Maybe, but somehow I doubt it.

Heard a rumor of your own?  Got a fantasy lens that you want to share?  Or just want to tell me that I’m off base on this one – feel free to hit up the comments!

On a scale of 1 to 10 it gets an 8 for DIY coolness, but a 2 for usability.  And that bugged me enough that I was back to the drawing board the next morning.

Actually, the drawing board is where I did end up, in the form of Google SketchUp, where I puttered around with a few more ideas before coming up with this:

(Click for a larger view)

Unlike it’s plastic predecessor, this new DIY multi-flash bracket is all metal; if it dies during a location shoot, it’ll be because someone ran over my lightstand, not from plastic fatigue.  In a twist of irony, the inspiration came from the DIYPhotography blog, which shared a post back in February: “Two Flashes are Better than One + Simple DIY Multi-Flash Bracket Tutorial.” The bracket in that post is a two-flash version of the one above; I saw the picture of it and the thought popped into my head, “Why not just double it?”

The final product is very much like the plans above; I added some locking nuts to keep the horizontal mounting plates in place, and used a spacer instead of a connector between the two plates – once all the parts are tightened down, it’s pretty darn solid.

Each coldshoe mounts to the plate in the pattern of: thumb-screw+nut+fender washer+plate+coldshoe.  The nut is really just a spacer, to keep the thumb-screws from coming up through the center of the coldshoes.  There’s just barely enough space between the two plates for the opposing thumb-screws to fit.  And by using the thumb-screws, I’ve maintained the ability to rotate the coldshoes in a full circle, so I can keep the E-TTL sensor on the flash pointing in any direction.

It’s still lightweight and takes up very little room in the camera bag, although I’m afraid that it’s DIY coolness factor has fallen a bit.  But since usability is up, I guess it’s a small sacrifice to make.  And it does get that 4th flash on-board, which will go even father in terms of lighting power.

Now I just need to use it.  The model I had lined up for last Saturday bailed in the morning, so I’m looking to re-book her for this weekend.  Failing that, I’ll beg my girlfriend to step in front of the camera.  But I definitely want to take this out in broad daylight with my 50mm f/1.8 and see how they’ll play together!

The key to all these multi-Speedlight shots is a little unit by Lightware Direct called the FourSquare Block, which Dave appears to have been testing for a while.  Essentially a square of machined aluminum, the FourSquare lets you mount a Speedlite to each side, quickly combining anywhere from one to four of them together on a single bracket for increased power.

Photo Credit: Lightwaredirect.com

Very cool!

Unfortunately, the price you pay for cool is pretty steep – Lighware Direct’s FourSquare is $100.  Start adding accessories, like the swivel mounts that let you keep the E-TTL sensors facing the camera, and the price jumps by almost another $100.  Throw in their softbox and handle grip, and you’re looking at a cool $400+.  Ouch – that’s a brand new 580EX!

I see something like that and my brain instantly shifts into DIY mode.  Since I just love being cheap reverse engineering things like this, I can’t justify spending a Speedlite’s worth of clams on the mount & modifier alone.  I mean, come on, at it’s most simple, we’re talking about a 4-way mount with some coldshoes on it…how hard can it be to make one of those?

Off the top of my head, I’m thinking 2x right angle brackets hooked together into a square.  Or perhaps a 4-way threaded connector, with lengths of threaded steel rods onto which the coldshoes can directly screw.  I don’t care if mine looks as pretty as the FourSquare, it just needs to hold 4x Speedlites securely and mount to a lightstand/monopod.

What all this means is a trip to the hardware store this evening, another hour or two spent wandering aimlessly to see what I can find and convert from its intended use into a flash accessory.  In all honesty, I see this project as being simpler than the last one, my DIY Right-angle Flash Mount.

I’ve got a model shoot tomorrow evening and I’d love to have this built in time to try it out.  Not sure if that’s possible, but either way, be sure to share what I come up with.

Part of what Mike had to say concerned, of all things, gear (yes, that topic that I was trying to shy away from for a while).  Speaking as someone with a few more years of life experience than me, he recommended that if I was going to “go pro,” I should carefully invest in “pro gear.”

I put “pro gear” in quotes because it can be difficult to draw the distinction sometimes.  I personally believe that “pro gear” may often be the gear that a pro is using;  Canon’s 17-55mm IS lens isn’t part of the L-series, but it is widely regarded as being of L performance.  The 50mm f/1.8 certainly isn’t an L lens, but making amazing images in the right hands, is it not a “pro’s lens?”

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - Definitely a pro lens. Photo Credit: Canon USA

Here’s the thing: Canon L-series lenses are marketed with an element of snob appeal, which a certain demographic finds attractive.  But they’re also marketed that way (and have a matching price tag) because they represent an investment for the professional photographer.  An investment because they provide superior optical quality and performance; because they are more durable and resistant; and because they will hold their value for years if well cared for.

Being a bit of a cheapskate, I’ve resisted L lenses for years now, but here’s something that Mike said: “Second best doesn’t fly with your clients and customers.”

I suspect that I’m a bit more open to artistic license regarding this than Mike is; again, if you’re making killer images with your $90 nifty-fifty, then I’m not sure it’s a second-best lens.  But when you really get down to it, Mike is right; if you’re going to be a pro and charge the big bucks to make incredible photos, you need the best tools for the job.  Tools that will perform in any situation you encounter.  Tools that will survive constant use – and a little abuse.  That’s the investment you have to make.

Mike’s parting advice to me was this: with all that in mind, make a wish list of pro glass, and acquire it.  So here’s my wishlist:

Zoom Kit:

Tokina 10-17mm fisheye

Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L

Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS

Canon 1.4x Teleconverter

Prime Kit:

Canon 24mm f/1.4 L

Canon 50mm f/1.2 L

Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro

Canon TS-E 24mm L II

(Depending on the work I’m doing, I like to have an option between zoom and prime lenses  And hell, it’s called a wish list for a reason – I am doing a little daydreaming here. )

Yes, there are a few odd choices on here.  The Tokina fisheye, for instance.  But it’s the only zoom fisheye produced, and having had one before, I know that it is a first-class lens that fills a niche.  Likewise the 24-105mm f/4 amid all the f/2.8s; I tend to have shaky hands (too much coffee?), so I value IS over the extra stop.  As for the final one, the TS-E, that’s a lark – I’ve read about tilt-shift lenses and they sound like fun.

Personally, I think that Canon’s L-series lenses are getting outdated and are long overdue for an overhaul.  Yes, a few Mk II models have popped up in recent years, but the real workhorse lenses, especially among the zooms, are getting old.  Some updated optics, added/improved IS, maybe a whole new lens or two, and I believe that the whole series would become more attractive.

In the meantime, this gives me something to work towards.  Will I ever own all of these?  Probably not.  Looking at the list now, I don’t even want to add up the cost.  But it does give me something to work towards, a sort of long-range goal to go hand-in-hand with my 5 year plan.  And like the plan itself, I’m sure this wishlist will change with my particular needs.

Taking Mike’s advice to heart, I’d suggest that other aspiring photogs make their own wishlists.  Don’t do it for the sticker shock of the final price; don’t do it just to pick out fun new “toys.”  Do it to identify what tools you’ll need to shoot professionally.  If you can’t identify the tools, that probably means that you still need to figure out what your specialty is – or perhaps that you’re not really interested in being a full-time pro (there’s nothing wrong with staying semi-pro).

And if you can come up with a wishlist of your own, maybe it will help guide you along your track.

Thanks, Mike!

Now that Daylight Savings Time has kicked back in and there are signs that spring is here, hopefully I can get back outside in the next few weeks and really start shooting again, and posting about photos instead of equipment.  But before that happens, I want to take gear once more, and give a shout-out to a camera that continues to impress me:

The Canon 400D.

Photo Credit: Canon USA

I can see the raised eyebrows, the scornful looks.  The 400D?  A camera that’s 4 generations old?  From the Rebel line?

Yes.  To all of the above.  I picked up my 400D refurbished several years back.  At the time I needed a backup body to my 30D, and the price was right.  It is a move I have never, ever regretted.

The 400D (also known as the XTi) is fairly old, fairly small in my hands, and doesn’t have the heft or build of any of the x0D series or higher cameras.  In terms of technology it’s almost antiquated, featureless alongside it’s new cousin, the T2i.  And frankly I couldn’t care less, because this camera performs phenomenally.

It never hesitates or stutters.  It plays well with any lens I’ve ever put on it.  The photo quality is always excellent.  And whereas I’m hesitant to push any other camera – even my 7D – to it’s highest ISO setting, I have no qualms about pushing the 400D to ISO 1600 and shooting away.  So long as I there’s ample light, I am completely confident in the little camera’s ability to render good photos.

I made this photo of a university karate class with the 400D a couple of years back.  I had three SB-25s in a triangle around the class, bouncing them off the high gym ceiling, shooting ISO 800 and f/2.8 to get the shots.  They came out great.

A few weeks back I shot this photo at a sweet sixteen party, in a dark fire hall, lit my a mix of window and candle light.  ISO 1600, f/4.  Sure, there’s some noise visible, but it’s not ugly or distracting.  Another perfectly good shot taken in tough conditions.

Whatever Canon did when they designed this camera, they got it right.  This is the one camera I have no desire to upgrade, the one that, when the shutter finally goes, I’ll get it repaired despite the cost.  It may be my backup camera, but it’s also the one I reach for for certain types of shooting – when I’m heading out with a single prime lens, or when I want to travel smaller and lighter.  It’s always dependable.

Canon simply got it right.

(From what I hear, they may have likewise gotten it right with the XTi’s successor, the XSi, although I’ve never shot with one to confirm.)