Stephan Paukner :: syslog

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):

It appears to be very difficult to decide what lens could be optimal for one’s needs. There’s so much to choose from, so many different parameters and prices, but the price is not always a good indication for quality. You really have to search for lens tests, because the lens parameters alone only provide some basic data.

As I secretly wished that the Canon EOS 40D would already get an FF sensor, I planned to take the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM lens, what Sobotka lists at a price of €999. The lens got a recommendation in the 09/2006 issue of the German DigitalPHOTO magazine. As telephoto lens I wanted to take the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM at a later time, and Sobotka lists it at handsome €1,649. That should have been enough for some time, as I plan to do landscape photography primarily, and 24mm is already a reasonable wide angle focal length. Whereas DSLR camera bodies might get renewed after some years, the lenses are usually intended to be kept for some generations. Therefore I’d rather buy good lenses in the first time and keep it for several years, and so I’d intend to keep them usable for a possible future FF sensor.

However, as the EOS 40D now has an APS-C sized sensor with a crop factor of 1.6, this means that the 24-105mm lens would correspond to a 38-168mm, and this is not in the wide angle range anymore. If I really want to insist on it, then I’d need a separate dedicated wide angle lens to cover the region between 24 and 38mm, what corresponds to a real focal length between 15 and 24mm. The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM could do this at a high cost, corresponding to a 25-56mm on APS-C. But the 10/2006 issue of the German ColorFoto magazine gives no recommendation for using it on FF sensors. Maybe the 2nd edition of that lens is better, but it’s even more expensive (€1,649). Sigma’s 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM could be used on FF sensors (ColorFoto 08/2007), and on an APS-C sized sensor it’s a 19-38mm, but it doesn’t allow filters, and polar filters are essential tools for landscape photography. Anyway, that lens got a bad rating in ColorFoto 08/2007 for use on APS-C, but others say it’s quite useable there (DigitalPHOTO 05/2007). The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM seems to be a little better choice, although ColorFoto 08/2007 doesn’t give a recommendation either. It corresponds to a 16-35mm and would even outrange the 24mm of the mentioned lens on FF sensors, but it also costs €759 and I don’t really want to buy two lenses at once, as everything becomes too expensive and impractical.

Of course, Nikon didn’t sleep and placed some serious competitive products on the market. First of all, they also have a full-frame DSLR now, the brand-new Nikon D3 with 12.1MP for €4,850. So, Canon isn’t the only provider of FF sensors anymore.

And they placed their Nikon D300 against Canon’s EOS 40D, just as it previously was with Nikon D200 vs. Canon EOS 30D. They equipped the D300 with interesting design parameters. Besides the MP count, it has a higher light sensitivity of up to ISO 6400, whereas Canon only provide up to ISO 3200. Canon also have a little higher crop factor of 1.6, whereas Nikon only have 1.5, what is better.

The Nikon’s viewfinder covers 100% of the lens view, whereas the Canon only covers 95%. But at least Canon have a magnification of 0.95, whereas Nikon only have 0.94, but I doubt this is of relevance.

A major difference is in their 3.0″ TFT-LCDs. The Nikon’s LCD has a resolution of 920,000 pixel, whereas the Canon only has 230,000 pixel.

The D300 has a shooting rate of 6 fps, and the EOS 40D has 6.5 fps, but if one equips the D300 with the optional battery grip, then it raises to 8 fps. And the Nikon manages a burst of 100 JPEG images, whereas the Canon can only do 75.

Nevertheless, the Canon system appears more friendly to me, and I already possessed some of their compact digicams, so the EOS 40D really will be it.

Finally! Canon announced the successor of the EOS 30D today: The Canon EOS 40D. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a full frame sensor, what I had wished secretly, but it seems that these haven’t reached a reasonable price range yet. So, it still crops the view with a factor of 1.6, but I’ll try to stick to the better EF lenses anyway rather than just using EF-S. Nevertheless, the main enhancements to the 30D are:

• 10 MP instead of 8 MP,
• 14-bit processing instead of 12-bit,
• DIGIC III processor instead of DIGIC II,
• Dust reduction by filter vibration instead of nothing,
• Interchangeable viewfinder screen instead of a fixed one,
• ISO sensitivity icon in the viewfinder instead of no indication,
• 3.0” TFT LCD instead of 2.5”,
• LCD Live View,
• Multiple exposures on mirror lock-up,
• 3 custom user modes instead of none,
• Continuous shooting with a rate of 6.5 fps instead of 5.0 fps, and a burst of 75 JPEG or 17 RAW images instead of 30 JPEG or 11 RAW images.

Wanna have! This one will be it. Expect it in my possession at the winter family days (vulgo Christmas) this year.

Update 08/21: Some Austrian vendors already list the EOS 40D at a price of €1,299. My vendor of choice will be Foto-Video Sobotka in Vienna, as I already bought my PowerShot A710 IS there and I got some vouchers for their shop. My first lens might be the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, what Sobotka lists at a price of €999.

Besides my plan for buying a DSLR after finishing my study in spring 2007, I renew my property of a compact digital camera. After my first one, a Canon PowerShot A70 at Christmas 2003, I went over to the Canon Digital IXUS 750 last February, as I wanted to have a more compact camera, which I also could take easily with me on a bike-tour. But I soon noticed that it had to be categorized as a style camera and I was soon missing the enhanced possibilities for photographing, such as time-automatic or aperture-automatic, which now lead me to selling the IXUS at eBay and planning to buy the new Canon PowerShot A710 IS. This is a not-so-compact model again, but—to debilitate the compactness criteria—it won’t waste too much space in my bike-saddle bag anyway if I just wrap it in a plastic bag. What I get is a twice as high zoom (6x instead of 3x) and the very Image Stabilizer for high focal-lengths or long exposures.

I don’t have anything better to do than thinking about which camera I should take: The Nikon D200 or the Canon EOS 30D?

The Nikon has a higher resolution of 10MP, whereas the Canon only has 8MP. At first, clearly Nikon was the leader for me in this case, but now I know that the resolution is heavily dependent on the lens. They both are at the very same level here!

The Canon simply looks better. It has a bended appearance, whereas the Nikon looks like a box. If you look from above, the Nikon looks a bit like it had been hit flat, compared to the Canon.

Only Canon has lenses with their Image Stabilizer in the lower focal length range (about 18-70mm), whereas Nikon doesn’t have their Vibration Reduction in these lenses. On the other hand, Nikon provides additions like a GPS module or a WLAN networking connection. Canon has no optional modules here. But, if I really tend to use such extensions, then not within the next one or two years, I assume. So, there might already be a better DSLR on the market at that time.

Shooting JPEG sequences, they both are almost at the same speed of 5 images/second: The Canon manages a 41 frame burst, whereas the Nikon has a burst of 39 frames. Using their RAW file format, the rates change clearly: Still providing a speed of 5 images/second, the Canon drops down to a 11 frame burst, whereas Nikon manages a burst of 23 frames. On the other hand, I’m no paparazzo, so this can’t be that argument.

Nikon provides a little better support for bracketing with up to 9 images per bracketing shot, whereas the Canon only provides a three-shot sequence. On the other hand, HDR image creators find Nikon’s so many shots a little superfluous.

But, a major drawback of the Canon is its viewfinder: Nikon provides grid lines, and more information is shown in the viewfinder. Also, the Nikon has two more autofocus-spots.

On the other hand, Canon is the leader in camera manufacturing. Only Canon has professional models with a full frame sensor, whereas Nikon still has some difficulties, maybe rooting in the smaller diameter of their lens mounting system. I have the impression that Canon lenses have a larger diameter and therefore larger (and therefore better) lenses, but I’m not sure with this. Paparazzi use Canon.

Nevertheless, in the end I’ll stay with the Nikon, I assume, at least for the current time. But Canon becomes more and more attractive to me. I’m looking forward to the next semi-pro Canon model.

After my holidays in Ireland I was a bit disappointed that I often couldn’t catch the fascinating landscapes in the pictures I took with my Canon Digital IXUS 750. I wondered if I should buy a good video camcorder or a good DSLR photo camera. More and more it became clear to me that it may only be a DSLR, and I’m even absolutely not positive about camcorders: False colors, low resolution, shaky pictures, people waving their hands or hiding their face, unnatural behavior of children, more time spent at filming, need for a TV screen. High quality and good art can only be obtained by DSLRs, in my opinion. Sure, there’s nothing better than having motion pictures of one’s own children, but that time has not yet come for me.