Photography

I noticed that a 24-70mm lens definitely cannot be a standard walkaround lens for a 1.6× crop camera, as the equivalent 38mm are definitely not wide angle. I’d have to switch to the dedicated wide angle lens too often. Sure, my PowerShot also starts at only 35mm, but most compact cameras simply lack wide angle focal lengths. Therefore I was thinking about a lens that starts at 17mm or 18mm, what equals 27-28mm on a crop camera. There were several candidates, and I was struggling a lot, as each had its advantages and disadvantages. One promising candidate was the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM, but although it is a Luxury (L) lens and has an ultrasonic motor, it is rather slow and has no Image Stabilizer, what actually makes it a worse choice compared to the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM that I was considering earlier. Competing lenses from other manufactures are faster and cheaper, but they lack an ultrasonic motor and are calculated for the APS-C circle only. In addition, the upper limit of 40mm would have made a dedicated 50mm lens almost inevitable.

I finally broke it down to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM [Review] that I already had in mind earlier. It is definitely the best choice for a crop camera today. It is fast and has an Image Stabilizer, making it a perfect lens for portraits or available light photography. In addition, it has an ultrasonic motor. It could almost be considered as an L-series lens, but it isn’t, as it’s also just calculated for APS-C sensors. All in all it’s rather expensive at €1099, but I’ll definitely make use of it.

And while I’m considering a Canon lens as primary lens, I now keep an eye on the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM [Review] lens. I just prefer it to the Sigma because it’s a Canon, is a little faster and has a little wider focal length range. It has a bit more of a plastic feeling than the Sigma, but the minor weight is no disadvantage. It’s at €759 at my preferred dealer, and I’ll buy it sometime at the beginning of 2008 together with a tripod.

The tele lens, the tele lens. Sure, the Sigma would be a great choice, but why not taking a fast lens that additionally provides image stabilization? The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM [Review] is usable without a tripod and has some reserves for being used together with a teleconverter. Sure, it’s really expensive with €1999, that’s why I won’t buy it too soon, maybe in about one year.

I still want to have a dedicated fast portrait lens like the 50mm f/1.4 by Canon. But I also consider the great Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM [Review]. It is very fast, provides a very narrow depth of field, and is rather expensive at €1369, but it’s really that good. We’ll see what my preferences will be. A flash might be more important for the first time.

The main reason for considering the f-stop of 1.2 or the IS for the other lenses is that my PowerShot also has an IS, what actually decreases the aperture values as if the lenses were faster. The following plot of focal length and aperture coverage of the desired lenses considers this by indicated dashed lines:

I found yet another wide angle lens that could be of interest: The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM [Review]. Although it delivered no overwhelming values in both DigitalPHOTO 05/2007 and ColorFoto 08/2007 due to its vignetting problems in the mid range (though it got a recommendation for the D200 in the same issue), it beat the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 in both the 04/2007 issue of the UK Photography Monthly magazine and the 05/2007 issue of the UK Digital Photo magazine. I found a private tester comparing both lenses to each other and to the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. The main reason why this lens becomes interesting to me is that is reaches a wider angle of 10mm (@16mm) instead of just 12mm (@19mm), what is significant in the wide angle range and provides a noticable wider FOV. Another advantage is that it has an ultrasonic autofocus. A disadvantage is the drop in aperture, but for landscape photography lower f-stops of at least f/8 or f/11 are usual anyway. This already reduces the vignetting, and the effects of vignetting, CA and even optical distortion can be corrected by software anyway; actually, good shots want to be optimized digitally. The lens is at €499 at my dealer.

Btw, that private tester also compares the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses of Canon and Sigma to each other.

I drew the following picture of focal length and aperture coverage of my desired lenses:

I chose a logarithmic scaling for the horizontal axis, as slight changes in the lower focal lengths already produce a large change in FOV, whereas focal lengths in the high range have to be doubled or even tripled to yield a higher view detail in the same amount. There’s now a gap in the range between 20 and 24mm (@32-38mm), but I don’t consider that as problem. But the big advantage is the wider FOV, what I assume to use more often than its wide end of 20mm (@32mm). Notice the difference:

Sigma at 10mm	Tokina at 12mm

I thought a little more about what my first lenses could be, and I got inspired by one photographer’s gallery on the web. He shows many pictures living from narrow depths of field and low f-stops e.g. at f/2.8. He even shows some portraits taken with a 50mm f/1.4 lens at low light or showing awesome narrow depths of field. Therefore I noticed that having a faster lens is more important than high focal lengths, and a DSLR camera body can be used for several years without leering towards FF sensors, what that photographer showed by using an EOS 20D. After some searching I found a different scenario of lenses while coming to lower prices due to the preference of Sigma to Canon. Btw, I found out that the teleconverters can only be used for tele lenses.

Previously I was considering the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM [Review] as first lens. Compared to the miniature film equivalence of my PowerShot, what is @35-210mm with f/2.8-4.8, that lens covers @38-168mm and almost reaches the upper limit of @210mm. However, it only has an aperture of f/4. Sure, the IS allows longer exposures, but low f-stops and therefore very narrow depths of field aren’t possible. In addition, it’s rather expensive with €999. Luckily I found an interesting alternative, what I will mention below.

The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X PRO DX [Review] has no ultrasonic autofocus motor, but it’s simply a good wide angle lens, and a constant value of f/4 is not so self-evident. The low @19mm are really useable. This will be my second lens for sure, and its upper focal length of @38mm should perfectly end at the beginning of the next higher lens. The €549 are quite a bit much at my preferred dealer, I could get it for €485 where I intend to buy the batteries, but I’ll often use the wide angle range, justifying the purchase.

I finally found a very reasonable tele lens: The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM IF Macro [Review] costs only half as much as the equivalent model by Canon, namely €979, what is very reasonable. Sure, it doesn’t have Sigma’s Optical Stabilizer, but a constant f/2.8 is very high, and it even has a macro function (though only with a magnification of 1:3.5). Unfortunately, it got no recommendation in ColorFoto 09/2007 for use on the EOS 20D, but just because the expensive Canon lens provided better values. But it did get a recommendation for the Nikon D200, and other users say that it can compete with the Canon. With that lens I can do good portraits at the lower @112mm at f/2.8, and still have f/2.8 at the upper @320mm, what is quite high. And did I mention it has a macro function?

And because I was so inspired by pictures using low f-stops, I consider the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM [Review] as a possible future lens for high quality portraits. This will enable good pictures at low light, and good portraits with incredible narrow depth of field. And all this for only €369, what is really not the price range of fast zoom lenses.

Now I could draw the following picture of focal length coverage and aperture values of the mentioned lenses (on an APS-C sensor with crop 1.6):