“Good bokeh” is highly sought after, whilst “bad bokeh” is generally disparaged – but what actually makes bokeh good or bad?  That ends up being a tricky question, and the answer will vary quite a bit depending on who you ask.  But in general th softer, creamier, and more pleasantly blurred a bokeh is, the better it is appreciated.

So what can you do to get better bokeh?

1.  Shoot wide open

Since bokeh is a quality of the out-of-focus (OOF) area, then the more you can throw the background OOF, the better.  Lenses with wide, fast apertures are very well suited to this – think at least f/2.8, with f/1.8 and faster being even better.  You essentially want to have your subject just within the range of focus, and everything else falling off as fast as possible to maximize the OOF background.

50mm @ f/2

2.  Compose for a better distance ratio

“Distance ratio” sounds complex, but what it really means is that the ideal setup is for there to me a small distance between the camera and the subject, and a much larger distance between the subject and the background.  By keeping the subject near to the camera, and far from the BG, you can maximize the OOF effect on the BG (whereas reversing this ratio will lead to a BG that’s much more in-focus than you probably want.)

Good distance ratio; model much farther from BG than from camera

3.  Pick a bokeh-friendly background

If you’ve got a gentle background with consistent colors and lighting, composed of softer shapes, you’re more likely to have a nice bokeh.  BGs with lots of sharp angles and lines and abrupt changes between colors or lighting conditions aren’t going to look as nice.

4.  Shoot with a telephoto lens

Telephoto lenses are masters of bokeh, which is why so many portrait photographers prefer them.  It’s a physical property of telephoto optics that makes them work so well – even bypassing the requirement for wide-open apertures to some extent.  Check out images taken with the 70-200 f/4 for some great bokeh, or better yet, check out super-telephoto bird and wildlife shots.  So long as there’s a good distance ratio, you’ll see some incredibly blurred BGs, even at apertures of f/5.6.

Bokeh @ 400mm

5.  Use a more bokeh-friendly lens

Not to dump the responsibility on the gear, but it is a fact that there are some lenses that simply produce better bokeh than others.  This isn’t a feature that will be listed on manufacturer specification pages – if you want to find out about the bokeh qualities of a potential lens, you should search for some user opinions.  Photography forums are your friend – there are always photogs there who love sharing and debating these somewhat-esoteric qualities.  Then check out Flickr for user groups who use the lens and see the images for yourself.

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.

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!

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!

It was my first time buying from KEH and I’m pleased to say that the experience was a good one, and I’ll likely use them again in the future.  KEH appears to be an excellent source for used lenses, although their user reviews are a little spotty – the jist of it seems to be that internet orders take second place to phone orders, so sometimes net orders lose out and folks get annoyed.  (Frankly, if you know that going into the deal, I’m not sure what right you have to get annoyed.)

Anyway, I wasn’t really looking to buy this lens – I was poking around KEH just to see what they had, actually looking more at prime lenses when I stumbled across this one.  I’d never even heard of a 70-210mm f/4, so I had to Google it, and what I found was promising.  I’ve had my eye on the new 70-200 f/4 IS lens for a while now, but I just can’t get past the $1200 price tag.  The fact that the old 70-210mm was only $200 sealed the deal – for $1k in savings, I can live without IS.

Unfortunately my order processed just in time to ship out during one of this year’s snowstorms, and it spent 48 additional hours sitting in a UPS facility in GA because of snowstorms.  So I wasn’t able to test it out at this past weekend’s event, but I do have it in time for an upcoming portrait workshop, which will be its real trial by fire.  But given some informal, around the house testing, here’s what I’ve concluded:

First off, unlike its new cousins, the 70-210mm is a small lens.  Even fully zoomed, its overall length is less than that of the new models, and since it has neither internal focusing or zooming, the overall weight is much less.  The front element takes a 58mm filter, which seems radically small.  For me, this is a big deal – I owned a 70-200mm f/2.8 a while back and although it was a good lens, it was simply too big and too heavy for me to use much; the small size of the old 70-210mm, coupled with the constant f/4, means that I’m much more likely to stick it in my bag when I head out.

The lens is a push/pull style zoom, which isn’t a feature I’m thrilled about, but then beggars can’t be choosers.  And unlike other push/pull zooms, which often have a reputation for being dust vacuums, this one seems to work very well, with nearly no detectable sucking or blowing of air when in use.

I am somewhat saddened to report that it is not super-sharp when wide open.  The whole point of having an f/4 is to use it wide open, but I think that some stopping down will be required, or at the very least, some sharpening in post.  This is a little disappointing, but then I remember what I paid, and I feel better about it.  The good news is that at f/5.6, things are sharp, and by f/8 they are quite sharp.

It’s also noticeably soft past about 200mm.  At full zoom and f/4, the result is disappointing – for portraits you can almost call it “beauty soft” and make it work, but for anything else you’ll need to stop down or hit the Unsharp Mask in post.  I’m fully confident in the lens’ ability to take great photos, but the trick is learning its quirks first.

200mm @ f/4 appears somewhat soft, but works for portraits

Despite the lack of USM focus, the AF is still quite snappy.  It didn’t seem to hunt in low light and overall was quite responsive.  This was a pleasant surprise, since many of the reviews I read for this lens criticized it for having slow focus.  (But also based on those reviews, I have to conclude that many of the reviewers were themselves L-lens snobs who simply don’t like any lens without a red ring on it.)

I’ve got to give props to KEH for their rating: the lens was listed in EX+ condition, and while I forget the exact description that equates to on their scale, the jist of it is that the lens would be about 90% of new.  I looked it over carefully before using it – there isn’t a mark on it.  It actually amazes me how a 21 year old lens can be in like new condition.

The only thing that really annoyed me was the fact that KEH shipped the lens without any caps; I had to dish an extra $20 to get a set of caps from B&H.  After a great deal of Google searching, I managed to find out which lens  hood went with the lens, and I’m going to try and find one on eBay.

As always, the 70-200 range is very useful, and I’m one again equipped for it at very low cost.  Will I keep this lens forever?  It’d hard to say.  I win the lottery, I’ll probably get a new IS version.  But in the meantime, I think this will work out very well.

After further reflection: I was a bit quick to state that I was “fully confident” in this lens’ ability to perform.  Having used it several more times, I became disappointed with it.  At 200mm, it is simply too soft wide-open to be of much use.  Stopped down, it’s not bad – but if you’re shooting in low light, you can forget about getting usable images.  The combination of decreased aperture, low shutter speed, and focal length results in muddy, blurred images, and a great deal of frustration.  Especially when compared to the current f/4 IS model, which has a reputation for being startlingly sharp.

If you can find one of these cheap (around $150) and plan to use it only when the light is good, then it’s still a good way to get into the 70-200 range cheaply.  But if you have any aspirations for it, you’ll quickly outgrow it.  Mine is headed for eBay, and I’ll be picking up the new IS model soon.

Up until now I’ve been working with a Canon 70-300mm IS, a lens that is widely regarding as being near-L quality. I’ve got no complaints whatsoever with its performance, but the fact of the matter is that, for serious critter photos, 300mm is a bit short. (Which isn’t to say that you can’t get good shots with it – hell, I saw amazing own photos the other day, taken with an 85mm lens. 85mm!)

Photo credit of Sigmaphoto.com

I spent several days on the internet researching options before finally settling on the Sigma. Why Sigma? For starters, I’ve owned Sigma pro-level lenses in the past and have been very happy with them – the quality, both optical and build, is very good. Second, the price is much better than, say, the Canon 100-400mm L lens, which runs an extra several hundred dollars. And finally, useability; compared to other lenses in its class, the Sigma offered me the best combination of features. (That said, I’ll admit that I was still nervous about going with Sigma – there are many reports of Sigma lenses arriving with focus or quality control problems.)

The lens arrived, I’ve taken it out several times already, and I’m thrilled. Absolutely thrilled. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I was this excited about having a new lens to work with.

The Sigma 120-400mm is everything that I had hoped for. The additional range has already let me get some bird shots that would have been impossible before, and the optical quality of the lens is superb. Not only is it sharp, but it is very sharp. And although louder than Canon’s IS system, the Sigma Optical Stabilizer system works very well, making hand-holding much easier. Quite simply, this is a lens that is a lot of fun to use because it performs so well.

Physically it’s a big lens and fairly heavy. I definitely need to support it with one hand on the tripod collar foot when I’m carrying it around my neck (when carrying it from my shoulder, I stick the collar foot in my belt). After a couple of hours around your neck you definitely feel it – my suggestion is to hike to your location with it in the bag, then take it out and work with it.

On the other hand, it’s a well built lens. It feels very solid, and when you retract the zoom back to the widest setting, there’s a soft, reassuring “thunk” as the zoom extension settles against the lens body. The zoom dial is nicely firm but not difficult to adjust, as is the focus. Since it is equipped with HSM focusing, there’s a full-time manual override for the focus, which comes in real handy. And being a Sigma lens, all the extras are included – the tripod collar & the lens hood (if only Canon would get its act together in regards to this).

Frankly, I can’t say enough good things about this lens. It is really an excellent addition to my kit. For the price, it’s downright phenomenal. I do not for a second regret buying it. Quite the opposite, I can’t wait for the next chance to get outside and use it. This weekend I’m hoping to go after eagles with it – we’ll see how it does in action against them. I’m not worried.

In closing I want to mention that I bought my copy from someone entirely new to me, Photo4less.com. I’ve know that they existed as a retailer for some time (they used to be known as Sigma4Less, although they’ve sold multiple brands for as long as I’ve known of them). I’m always a little nervous dealing with a new store, and I was definitely worried that I’d made a bad choice when I got an email telling me that I had to call to confirm my order with them. But it went well – they really did just want to confirm the details; there was no high-pressure sales pitch, no bait and switch tactics. In fact, the representative I spoke with even assured me that I could forgo the 2-day shipping I’d opted for & receive the lens by ground shipment just as fast, at half the cost. I checked up on Photo4less before ordering, and it appears that the reviews were true – they’re a good group to deal with!

After further reflection: I don’t regret buying this lens.  Not even a little bit.  It has been phenomenal, both in terms of the photos I’ve been able to take with it, and also in terms of the learning curve that it put me through.  (Working with a super-telephoto lens is not the same as working with, say, a 70-200.)  Best of all, it lets me get the shot.

I’ve found that the optimum settings are f/8, ISO 400, in Av mode (sometimes, if there’s enough light, you can bring the ISO down to about 250, but not usually).  Why f/8?  Because wide open, at f/5.6, this lens just isn’t as sharp as you want – looking back at the sample photos posted here, I can see that now.  But at f/8, with about 10 points of Clarity in ACR, it’s a whole different game.

The downside is, of course, that when you’re shooting birds at sunrise, f/8 eats what little light there is.  ISO 1600 or higher becomes a fact of life.  If you’re able to cope with that, then you won’t have any trouble.  You’ll actually have a lot of fun, because in the end, that’s what this lens is – fun.  These days, you can find them used without much trouble – they’re well worth the price.

Frederick was being a brat and wouldn’t come out of his brush-pile cave while I was standing there, so I worked myself to the end of a peninsula nearby, just distant enough that he felt safe and emerged.  I’m not sure what got into him,  but instead of eating he put on a bit of a show – splashing, bobbing, even trying to take flight at one point!

Frederick splashing around

In the past, there’s been a time or two when I’ve gotten right down to ground level and Frederick has taken it upon himself to defend his territory, demonstrating that it is his, and not for me to intrude.  I’m not sure, but I think it has to do with the positioning – when I’m hunched down, or even lying on the ground – he may stop perceiving me as human and instead as some kind smaller, less-intimidating creature.  At which point he tries to intimidate me, strutting around, flapping his wings, and making a general pest of himself.  Albeit it, a very photogenic pest.

Momentarily airborn

Whatever the reasoning, it’s always enjoyable to watch his antics.  Although I’ll point out here that I try my best to do so from a distance, so I don’t cause him any undue stress; these shots were all taken between 200-400mm.  After a few minutes he seemed to settle down, and I said goodbye.  Of course, that’s all the time it took to take almost a hundred shots of him.  The hard part was weeding them down to the very best!

The end of the year is coming and I’ve spent some time looking back at my work, and in doing so I’ve realized that although I’ve owned several telephoto lenses, I don’t use them very much except for specific subjects.  So in an attempt to broaden those horizons, I spent the morning shooting exclusively with the 70-300mm IS.

Boat left behind

Goldenrod Past

The strengths of telephotos are many, but one of the primary attributes is their ability to isolate subjects and separate them out from the background clutter.  With the boat and mooring post, the background falls away, but remains a viable element in the scene; it’s important that it’s there, since it adds to the story of the boat.  In the case of the dead goldenrod plant, the distances between the lens, subject, and BG are much less; the BG has gone completely smooth and out of focus.  Which is fine here, since it doesn’t matter – a smooth, solid color simply does the job.

Following Lackawanna State Park, I stopped by to see Frederick.  The last time I’d seen him was before Christmas, but he was still doing fine and didn’t seem to be starving; he ate a few bites and then stood on a sunken branch in the middle of his pond and preened.  Still with the telephoto, it was easy to fill the frame with him.

Frederick feasting

This is why I love working with Frederick, the opportunity to get close enough to see behaviors like this, and capture them.

Frederick stretching his wings

Unfortunately, the top-of-the-line Canon version of this lens, including USM and IS systems, runs as much as a DSLR body. Enter the third party lenses, the Sigma model, which has been around for several years, and the Tamron model, released about a year ago.

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 telephoto lens is a very attractive alternative to the Canon or Nikon models, mainly because of its price, which is half as much as the afore-mentioned brands, and about $100 less than the Tamron. And along with the price, Sigma delivers a very competent lens, albiet one lacking some of the features of the Canon/Nikon models.

Sigma has a long history of producing good photographic lenses. Opinions vary wildly among photographers – some are Canon/Nikon snobs who only consider lenses made by their camera’s manufacturer, while others are very happy to use third-party lenses while reaping considerable savings. The fact is that having used the Sigma 70-200mm for several years, I can plainly state that it is indeed a solid lens.

The Sigma 70-200mm is well built and feels physically solid in your hand and mounted to the camera. The adjustment rings are responsive but not flaky. Focus, driven by Sigma’s Hypersonic Motor (HSM) drive, is fast and quiet – and provides full-time manual focus ability. And unlike its Canon counterparts, the Sigma actually comes with the necessary accessories, including a padded case, lens hood, and tripod collar.

The constant f/2.8 aperture makes this lens ideal for a variety of uses. For photojournalists/event shooters looking for reach in often poorly lit settings, or for sports photographers in need of faster shutter speeds in mid-range to close quarters, this lens is excellent. It is also very popular with the portraiture crowd, as the combination of the wide aperture and compression effect make for lovely portraits. Combine all those instances and you’ve got yourself a good lens for weddings.

The Sigma model in particular is quite strong. Chromatic aberrations are present in high-contrast areas, but are minimal and easily corrected in post processing. At f/2.8 the lens is a little soft, but by f/4 sharpness is visibly improved and by f/5.6 it is crisp. Frankly, it is a lens that feels good to use and one that you don’t have to worry about getting good images from.

There are, however, a few downsides, the first of which is the lack of a stabilization system. When the 70-200mm was introduced, Sigma had yet to develop their Optical Stabilizer system, and it’s lack of inclusion in the lens is the leading reason for the price difference between it and the Canon/Nikon models. However, without stabilization, you simply need enough light to get at least 1/160 shutter speed when zoomed to 200mm; even at f/2.8, it’s often necessary to boost the ISO to compensate. (If Sigma were to rework this lens with its OS system while still maintaining a competitive price, I expect it would be a huge hit.)

Second, while 70-200mm is a highly useful range, there are a number of applications where 200mm just isn’t enough. Wildlife photographers, for instance, may be drawn to this lens because of the price, but will quickly find that unless they are photographing buffalo, there isn’t enough reach to fill the frame with, say, a small mammal or bird.

Building on that issue is the Sigma’s terrible performance with the 2x teleconverter. Since the Sigma 2x teleconverter is only $200, it is a logically attractive option for photogs looking to boost the 70-200mm’s range to 140-400mm. Don’t waste your money. While the boost in range does make the lens more useful, the degraded performance is not worth it. Images taken with the teleconverter suffer from a noticeable decrease in quality & sharpness and are afflicted with bad chromatic aberrations. Worse yet, the resulting f/5.6 aperture slows the focus to a painful – and often inaccurate – crawl.

Overall, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is an excellent choice for a photographer needing a competent telephoto with a fast aperture, especially if they want to keep the cost reasonable. Weddings, events, & portraits are all easily and well handled by this lens – so long as there is sufficient light. If you know you’re going to shooting a lot in dim light, however, consider spending more for a model with a stabilizer, or be ready to increase the ISO. I’ve owned mine for years and have always been very pleased with it, although these days I find myself using it infrequently due to a shift in my shooting style. Yet I’m still hesitant to part with it, since I know that as soon as I do, I’ll need it again.

After further reflection: Sigma has just announced a new version of this lens, now with OS added.  It’s yet to hit the streets, so nobody knows how good it is, but expectations are pretty high.  It’s got my interest.  I ended up selling the copy I reviewed here, mostly because without the OS, it was a beast to try and hand-hold, especially in low light.  I wasn’t always a stabilizer convert, but on telephoto lenses, it’s indispensable.

If you’re comfortable without IS, then the Sigma 70-200 is still a viable alternative to the Canon/Nikon versions.  It may not be L glass, but it’s darn good.  Although on a final note, I stand by my original thoughts regard this lens and teleconverters – don’t waste your money!

I’m not a stranger to manual focus; back when I shot film, my Canon A-1 was strictly manual. It had a truly excellent focusing screen that employed three different measures to show you when the focus was spot on, and by golly when it said it was, it was.

Today’s cameras all sport fancy – and expensive – autofocus systems, utilizing all manner of focus points, configurations, and sensor types. Focus system can be directed to work in either a stationary or tracking mode – and on many cameras, there’s even a mode to let the camera decide for itself.

Simply put, autofocus clearly rules the day. And since AF has become a technological process, viewfinders no longer sport MF screens, but instead show digital overlays. In fact, the viewfinders on most DLSRs are designed with anything else in mind, making MF difficult to work with altogether. Without accurate indicators, achieving perfect manual focus requires a trained eye and a bit of luck. (Or a top-of-the-line series camera, which have focus screens that can be swapped out.)

Frankly, I’m not sure how the holdouts manage. For some applications, like landscape photography, the stationary nature of the subject would seem to make MF simple enough. But then you hear about photographers using MF for portraits and weddings – events that clearly have a lot of action going on. Not only are these photogs tracking motion and adjusting exposure on the fly, but some are apparently tracking focus by hand as well!

I’m not sure I understand the desire to work that way, especially after spending big bucks on a DSLR with a fancy AF system. And I’m certain that I couldn’t work that way myself. In fact, aside from tuning the AF micro-adjustment on my camera, I can’t remember the last time I used MF. I’m quite content to select focus points and let the camera do the work.

All I can think of is, perhaps the folks who still use MF are the ones who grew up on it. They must have enough practice and comfort with the technique to utilize it on the fly and get results. For that, I tip my hat to them – it’s an impressive set of skills. If anyone reading this is a MF photog, hit the comments – I’d really like to hear your thoughts on the matter.