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.)

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.

The 7D was the first Canon DLSR to include a Speedlite commander mode in its built-in flash, a feature that captured my attention very quickly.  For years now, Nikon users have has commander capabilities built into their DSLRs, SB-800 Speedlights, and dedicated commander units.  Canon shooters, on the other hand, have had…well, very little.

Very little, that is, if you’re looking for TTL control.  If you’re shooting Strobist-style, with manual flash settings, then any “dumb” radio triggers will work (although all units except the Canon 580EX lack PC ports, so you’re left at the mercy of hotshoe adapters).  So long as you don’t mind running from flash to flash to change the output, this works okay.

But for TTL flash, there were exactly two options: the antiquated ST-E2 Speedlite Transmitter, or a 550EX/580EX flash hotshoe-mounted in master mode.  The ST-E2 only shoots forward along the lens axis and only triggers groups A & B; if you want to use group C, you’re out of luck.  That leaves a 550/580EX, and personally I’ve always found the idea of using a $500+ 580EX on-camera as a master unit incredibly annoying; it’s large and somewhat unwieldy, and it seems like a very poor utilization of an expensive flash.

Canon ST-E2 Speedlite Transmitter

The 7D stood to correct this with a built-in master capability; suddenly your Canon Speedlites can be controlled from the camera’s menu system.  Set your groups, ratios, manual output – no more running between flashes, it’s a whole new level of control in the camera, where it should be.

Problem is, it doesn’t work very well.  Consider the physics: the 7D’s flash measures 1″x.25″ in size.  That’s a hugely unimpressive .25 square inches total.  And because of the pop-up mechanism, the flash head will only face forward; there’s no bounce or swivel.  It’s underpowered, tiny, and restricted – puny is the word that comes to mind.

After having used it in a range of situations, I’ve become disenchanted – while it was a good idea, and a noble try at matching the Nikon system, I have to say that it is ultimately of little use.  If your Speedlites are in front of the camera, with no obstruction between them and the built-in flash, then it’ll work pretty darn well.  But start adding in any variables – the sort of variables and setups that you’ll actually find in the real world – and the whole thing falls apart.

Half way through my last studio shoot, with half the Speedlites failing to fire simply because of their physical placement, I broke down and threw the 580EX on the hotshoe and flipped it to master mode.

Whoa.

Instant change.  Immediate improvement.  Suddenly I’m blasting commands out of a flash with a 2.75″x1.5″ emitter (that’s 4.125 square inches).  An emitter that can be tilted and swiveled around a complete hemisphere, with enough power to bounce it off a ceiling.  Where before I was working in a corner with only partial success, I was able to blanket an entire room with command signals.

Overlay of Canon 7D built-in flash vs. 580EX Speedlite flash.

Sadly, there’s just no way around it.  For dependable communication coverage and command capabilities, you need a master-capable Speedlight on-camera.  The built-in mode is more gimmick than useful tool, and frankly I believe that it should be relegated to the Rebel series, as it’s more likely to fit the needs of a hobbyist/advanced amateur with a single off-camera Speedlite than it is a professional with a full setup.

What Canon needs is a whole new unit.  There are faint rumors of a new Canon Speedlite coming soon.  My guess is that it will be a unit designed to challenge Nikon’s SB-900 (which is a very impressive Speedlight).  It will certainly retain a master mode, and will likely interface its menus with the newest EOS cameras.  But in my opinion, this is still a stopgap measure.

I return to what I said before – using a $500 Speedlite solely as a commander, adding little or no actual light to a scene, is like buying a BMW and using it only to run for groceries.  A flash with the power of a 580EX is meant to be used to light a scene!

Canon needs to go back to the drawing board and design a brand new commander unit, one that will bury the pathetic ST-E2 and give professional photographers a real option when it comes to commanding their Speedlites, which they’d then be free to use off-camera as lights.  This new unit would need tilt/swivel capability, and whether it uses visible or IR light pulses would depend on the engineers, but it should be designed to throw an aimable, powerful command pulse, with no option whatsoever for actually adding light to the exposure.

Let us use our commanders to command and our Speedlites to light!

The selection is overwhelming and I almost gave up right there on the B&H page, with hundreds of options listed before me.  Instead I surfed over to the Tamrac site to see what they had.  I use Tamrac bags exclusively and had noticed they carried straps before, but had never really looked at them.

Tamrac N-25 Neoprene Shock Absorber Camera Strap with Quick Release @ B&H.com

After several years of using the included Canon straps, I’m wondering how I did it.  I’m certainly not wondering why my neck used to hurt at the end of the day.  I ordered one of Tamrac’s N-25 Neoprene Shock Absorber Camera Straps for my 7D and haven’t looked back.  In fact, I just ordered a second one for my 400D.

The Tamracs are stretchy, thickly padded, and very comfortable.  The camera does tend to bob about a bit, but you get used to it – kind of like you get used to the Neoprene smell after a few days.  But gods are they comfortable!

If you’re anything of a serious, time-intensive photographer, do yourself a favor and ditch the strap that came with your camera.  Compared to the Tamrac, my old Canon straps are like the Geo Metros of the strap world.  And aside from being uncomfortable, it’s probably not best to advertise to the world that you’re carrying a 5DMkII; cool for bragging rights, and it’ll get you mugged in some towns.

It’s these little things that ease the load during a busy day of shooting.  And frankly the new straps were cheaper than the boxes of Icy Hot I was buying after each gig.  Sort of preventative maintenance, I guess.

With 2009 now officially behind us, I’ve taken a moment to look back across my body of work in the past year and pull some favorites.  The photos that follow are those shots that I like the best – chosen for technical accuracy, subject interest, and overall aesthetic.  I also want to note that while I had a number of photos from commercial assignments that I felt this way about, I haven’t included them here – this collection is almost exclusively made up of my personal work.

I don’t believe in making new year’s resolutions; a change in calendar years is an artificial benchmark in time without any real meaning.  But still, it’s as good as time as any to look back and review what we’ve done on this last orbit around the sun.  I’m pleased with what I’m able to show for my time; and I’m setting the bar even higher for next year.

So here’s my best wishes to everyone for their coming year – may it be filled with great images!

12►

]]> http://brentpennington.com/2010/01/best-of-2009/feed/ 0 http://brentpennington.com/2009/12/canon-powershot-sx120-%e2%80%93-review/ http://brentpennington.com/2009/12/canon-powershot-sx120-%e2%80%93-review/#comments Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:24:49 +0000 Brent Pennington http://brentpennington.com/?p=1663 Several changes in my system have forced me to reevaluate my current gear load, and some pieces are being replaced. Foremost is my Canon G10, which has been a wonderful little camera. But in reality, it is a point & shoot, and as P&S cameras go, it’s overpowered & overpriced for how I use it. The sad truth is that I haven’t even had it out of the bag in months now; I’m taking the 400D and 50mm lens with me more often when it comes to traveling “light.”

So the G10 is on its way out the door and any plans for a G11 have been discarded. Enter the SX120. A year or so back I had gotten my hands on a refurbished SX100 and during the short time I used it, I was quite impressed. The SX120 is now two generations ahead, featuring Canon’s Digic 4 processor, improved IS, and a 12MP sensor.

What do I like about it?

Size: the SX120 is truly a pocket-sized P&S. It doesn’t need a special bag; it will even fit in my pants pocket if need be (although a jacket pocket is more comfortable).

Zoom: most P&S fall into two categories; 3-5x pocket cams and 20x big boys. The SX120 falls right in the middle, with 10x zoom in a body size that isn’t approaching a DSLR.

Batteries: no Li-ion pack here, the SX series runs on good old “AA” batteries. I use rechargeable NiMHs, but in a pinch plain old Duracells will work, and they’re available at any gas station. (Battery life on the SX120 is somewhat better than on previous models)

Flash: the SX flash folds down into the top of the body, much like the flash on a DLSR. When you want it, you pull it up into position. Call me vain, but it looks cool – and isn’t crammed over in the top left corner, right where most people accidentally cover it with fingers.

LCD: the 3” LCD on the SX120 is huge and beautiful. I’m not crazy about LCD shooting, but if you have to do it, do it big!

Manual Modes: it may be a P&S, but if it doesn’t have M and Av modes, I’m not using it! Come on, Auto modes are for sissies. You don’t want to be a sissy.

What don’t I like about it?

JPEG: since switching to RAW files years ago, I’ve never looked back. I like the options RAW gives me, and I always feel limited shooting JPEG. (But you know what, it’s a P&S. If I wanted RAW, I should have brought a DSLR.)

Megapixels: adding MPs is a marketing ploy; in general (and especially on small P&S sensors) more MPs = more noise. 10MP isn’t bad, but Canon really should have left it at 8MP and instead boosted the noise performance.

Focal range: the SX120 has a 38-300mm 35mm-equivalent range. 300mm is great on the long end, but 38mm isn’t very wide. Definitely won’t be shooting expansive landscapes here (without photo-stitching several shots into a panorama).

Menu system: the menu options are really dumbed down, with the camera doing most of the thinking for you. While I’m not a fan of that, it is what it is.

In terms of performance, the Canon SX120 isn’t going to turn a lot of heads, but it isn’t a slacker, either. It starts up within a couple of seconds and focusing in general conditions is about average for a P&S. Shutter lag is noticeable, but doesn’t leave you tapping your foot. As with most P&S cameras, the burst rate is laughable; the SX120 manages about 1.3 frames/second. You probably won’t be shooting NASCAR races with it.

The Image Stabilization system works well, even zoomed to 300mm, which we’ve all come to expect from Canon. Shooting in lower light levels is possible with this camera, but best done with the lens at its full wide angle to take advantage of the f/2.8 aperture there. When you need more light, pull the flash into position and you’ll find that it’s ample most of the time, although the recharge time between flashes is painfully long.

ISO performance is also about what you’d expect, and falls in line with the rest of the Powershot range. ISO 80 and 100 look nice; ISO 200 is still good; ISO 400 starts to show enough noise to make you hesitant, and anything beyond ISO 400 is better left unused. You can pretty much forget about ISO 1600, although if you encounter Bigfoot by the lake one evening, and just have to get the photo, I’d go for a higher ISO before the flash. Noise reduction software in post will help out, but the molasses-in-January flash recycle rate will make you miss shots.

As I mentioned in the bullet points above, the menus have been dumbed down. There isn’t a lot of fine tuning ability with this camera; it’s more a case of setting the general terms and going with it. For instance, FlexZone focusing is absent; instead you get the center point or Face Detection. Want to format the memory card? Do it from the shooting menu; the playback menu only offers a Delete All option. Oh, and there’s no more Superfine JPEG option; now you get Fine or Standard, although one would assume that’s because the difference between Fine and Superfine was negligible (or so we hope).

Physically, the SX 120 is a pleasing camera to use. There’s just enough of a grip on the front to grab onto. The wrist feels sufficient without getting the way (unlike the neckstrap on the G10, which was reassuring to use, but always managed to get in the way). The dimensions aren’t too big or too small, although the lens housing protrudes a bit from the front, making the camera just too bulky to fit comfortable into your jeans pocket. A jacket pocket, on the other hand, is perfect. And shooting with one hand is no problem.

All your common shooting modes are there, including the three “Creative Zone” manual modes and a full range of auto scene modes, plus a video mode. If you read the online reviews, you’ll see many people complain about the lack of HD video recording. Personally I couldn’t care less if it had a video mode at all, much less HD, but if you’re someone who puts value on this feature, then it might be something to consider.

Canon appears to be cutting costs & waste when it comes to packaging the Powershot SX120. The box isn’t much bigger than the camera, and the reams of paperwork and manuals that used to come with a camera are conspicuously absent – that’s right, no English manual, although they do still include the Spanish version, strangely enough. The English manual is available online from the Powershot website, and Canon is obviously gambling on the fact that anyone who uses this camera is computer-savvy enough to go online and get it. (Which still begs the question of why the Spanish manual comes in the box – it seems they’d either make them both digital, or include them both.) So while I genuinely applaud their efforts “Go Green,” I have to question its effectiveness.

Overall, the Canon Powershot SX120 is a very capable little camera. It falls in the lower (cheaper) end of the “High-End, Advanced Digital Camera” line, so it’s not going to have all the features of, say, a S90, SX20, or G11. But in exchange you get a more compact camera that is travel-friendly and low-maintenance. It is definitely a large step up from the ELPH series, although not such a far cry from the A-series cameras.

You can make no mistake, however, about this being a point & shoot camera. If you expect DSLR performance or quality, you will be gravely disappointed. (That being said, you know it’s a P&S when you buy it.) In my case, that’s why I bought it, because it was a true P&S that I could carry with my, in my pocket, wherever I went. It doesn’t call attention to itself, it’s not a $500 camera I have to worry about, and it’s not going to be used in lieu of a DSLR. It’s my grab-and-go camera.

On a final note, here’s a few quirks that I’ve already discovered:

IS mode: you might be tempted to switch the IS mode to “Shoot only” to save battery life. However, performance tests show that the IS works better when left in “Continuous” mode, netting more blur-free captures.

AF Lock: press the shutter halfway to focus, keep it half pressed, and press the left arrow (MF) button. The focus locks and you can recompose and shoot.

AE Lock: there’s no * button, but the feature is still there; aim the camera at your subject and press the shutter halfway and, while holding it halfway, press the +/- button. The * will show up and the exposure is locked. Keep holding the shutter halfway, recompose, and shoot. (If you let go of the shutter and press another button, the lock is broken.)

Continuous AF: in the shooting menu, this is set to either On or Off. When on, the camera continuously focuses at whatever it’s aimed at until you press the shutter. This is supposed to help prevent missed shots. When turned off, the camera only focuses when you press the shutter halfway, saving battery power. (I keep mine set to Off unless I think I’ll need that feature specifically.)

After further reflection: I’ve used the SX-120 for over 6 months now, and I still reach for it when an event isn’t important enough to carry around the DSLR, but I still want photos.  As P&S cameras go, I stand by my earlier evaluation – it ain’t the best, but it ain’t the worst.  In retrospect, however, I fell victim to the super-zoom feature.  The fact is, optical performance at full zoom isn’t good enough to make it really worth while.  I’d have been just as well off with a standard-range zoom (ie: 28-135mm).

I’ve also found that stopping down beyond f/5.6 is useless – the depth of field doesn’t improve by any real margin, and image quality degrades rapidly.  Surprisingly, it performs quite well wide open at f/2.8, and I find myself doing much of my shooting there (treating my super-zoom camera like a prime lens!).  And because of the physical properties of the lens & sensor, DOF at f/2.8 isn’t very shallow at all, so there’s no real trouble keeping things within the focus range.

For starters, the Canon 50mm is a prime lens.  The battle has long raged over prime vs. zoom lenses, photogs going all out to prove that one is superior to the other.  I’m not interested in that – to me it isn’t a matter of superiority, but rather a matter of one lens being better suited to a particular situation than the other.

The pros of a prime lens are simple: they tend to have wide, fast apertures (usually f/2.8 or better) with a very narrow depth of field (DOF), which is perfect for isolating the subject against a lovely out-of-focus background.   And because of their physical construction, image quality is generally excellent.

50mm @ f/1.8

50mm @ f/2.8

As for cons, well…  I’ve heard several photogs say that zoom lenses “make photographers lazy.”  With a prime you have to physically move your location to alter the composition and perspective.  That can be a challenge, but it’s not usually a con.

So after a hiatus of several years I’m returning prime lenses to my bag for a couple of reasons.  In large part I’ve been inspired by the photographs I’m seeing on Style Me Pretty.  The ultra-shallow DOF and blurred backgrounds appear to be one of the current trends in wedding photography, but more than that, they make for absolutely beautiful images.  Combined that with their isolating power and low-light performance and I wonder why I didn’t do it sooner.

The other major difference in my Canon 50mm is its age.  This lens is from the late 1980s – nearly as old as I am.  Most of the time it’s the newest lenses that garner all the attention, so you may be wondering why I specifically bought a 20 year-old lens.  Simple – because it really is that good.

Sometime in the 1990s, Canon came out with a new 50mm f/1.8 Mk 2 version of the this lens.  This is the version you can still order up new from B&H for under $100.  Why so cheap?  Because it is, well, cheap.  The Mk 2 version is built entirely of plastic, from the lens mount to the focus ring.  And you get what you pay for - a good little lens that will fall apart after receiving the first good shock.  (The net is full of stories about people who knocked their 50mm Mk 2 against a door or wall by accident, only to have it literally go to pieces in their hands – and we’re talking the kind of light knocks that other lenses shrug off without a second thought.)

The difference in quality, combined with a better focus ring, metal lens mount, and supposed higher performance have made the old Mk 1 version a sort of cult classic.  Good luck finding one on eBay for less than $175 (which, granted, is still cheap for a lens).

In actual use I’m blown away by this lens.  The images are good and sharp at f/1.8, but stop down to f/2.8 or f/4 and they get even sharper.  The minimum focus distance is decently close, and the 50mm range (approx. 85mm on an APS-C sensor) is just right for portraits in smaller spaces.  My only real complaint is the auto-focus, which is a bit noisy and tends to hunt a bit in low light.  But given the lens’ age and performance, I’m more than happy to overlook that.

So here’s the final scoop: if you want to experiment with a prime, get a feel for working with shallow DOF, spring for the nearly-disposable Mk 2 version of this lens.  But if you’ve used primes before and know you want a good one, hunt down a Mk 1 version online, and don’t be afraid to pay a little more just to get it.  It’s worth it.

After further reflection: I keep eying the 50mm f/1.4 lens, but I never pull the trigger on it.  There are too many reports of issues with it, and in all honestly, my old Mk I is still going strong.  For as cheap as it is, it’s an incredible little lens.  Is the f/1.4 version worth 4x as much?  Is the L version worth 14x as much?  Some folks seem to think so…but I really can’t see myself ever getting rid of this oldie goldie.  If you can find a Mk I version in good shape, it’s worth buying it.

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!

ISO 100

ISO 200

ISO 400

ISO 800

ISO 1600

ISO 3200

ISO 6400

ISO 12800

Unlike the indoor scene, which was fairly evenly lit, this scene suffers from the reality of shooting outdoors; the sun is setting and some elements are still in the direct light while others have fallen into shadow.  It’s a full dynamic range and as such, the noise starts appearing somewhat earlier.  As before, these images are straight from the camera, except for being resized to 72 dpi and run through Save For Web, so I could upload them here.  No tonal adjustments whatsoever have been applied, and in-camera noise reduction is disabled.  All were shot with the Canon 7D + 28-135mm @ f/8.

ISO 100 – 200 are beautiful; the colors are clean and rich and there’s good detail visible.  Since landscape photographers have the luxury of fairly stable subjects, there’s little reason you’d ever need a higher ISO, so long as you have a tripod with you.

At ISO 400 there is some noise starting to creep into the darker shadow areas along the grass and in the trees, but it is subtle and does not detract from the image.  At ISO 800 there is noise appearing more or less throughout the image, even in the sky.  By ISO 1600 there’s even more throughout the image, but it still isn’t a photo-killer.  Since it is fine-grained noise, it isn’t as ugly as the noise on other cameras, like the 50D.  I’d still say that 1600 is usable, although it certainly wouldn’t be my first choice.

ISO 3200 shows moderate levels of noise throughout the image and would definitely benefit from noise reduction software.  Even after reduction, it might not be usable for high-end commercial work.  Likewise, ISO 6400 is simply bad; the noise is very visible and detracts from the image.

ISO 12800, as should be expected, is terrible.  Frankly, at this point this level of sensitivity is something of a marketing gimmick – there’s no real practical use for this setting, it just sounds cool on the spec list.  You may not want to even turn the ISO expansion on and if you do, reserve ISO 12800 for sightings of Bigfoot and UFOs.  And even then, expect people to be suspicious of the poor quality.

I’ll reiterate what I said in the rest of the review: I am very impressed with the EOS 7D and absolutely love shooting with it.  There is a marked difference from the 50D series cameras and the combination of new features and performance makes it well worth the investment for any serious photographer.  This one was designed for us.

ISO 100

ISO 200

ISO 400

ISO 800

ISO 1600

ISO 3200

ISO 6400

ISO 12800

It is my personal opinion that the ISO performance of the 7D is the best of any of the Canon’s I’ve owned.  It is certainly an improvement over the 50D.  In a properly exposed scene, I would have no reservations about shooting up to ISO 1600 while still receiving perfectly usable results.

Even ISO 3200 is acceptable; ISO 6400 is there if needed, while ISO 12800 should be reserved for times when a photo is necessary and there are no other options.  In the case of all ISO speeds, I further believe that when present, the visible noise has a much more appealing look than in the past.  As other users have noted, noise generated by the 7D has a look reminiscent of  film grain – so even when noise is present, it is easier to use artistically.

As you might expect with an 18 megapixel camera, the file sizes have grown, easily reaching between 20-25 MB.  And since Canon has continued with its policy of altering the specifications of the CR2 files, the RAW images are currently unreadable by all Adobe products.  Canon would prefer that you use their horrid Digital Photography Professional software to work with the files (see my post with full details on DPP).  However, until Adobe releases an update the CameraRAW in Photoshop CS4, there is Adobe DNG Converter 5.5, which includes a Beta profile for the 7D, which allows to to covert the RAW files to DNG files, which AdobeCameraRAW will then read and process like normal.

The beta profile appears to be working well, however it’s advisable to hold on to and RAW files for any shots you are particularly fond of, in case the official conversion software release does a better job.

Overall, based on the image quality and the combination of features present, I am thrilled to be using the 7D.  I love the look of the photos, and the overall performance of the camera.  For the first time while shooting digital, I feel I can finally say that this is truly a photographer’s camera.