This is not my main site

Just a quick note to those who came here via a search engine – this is NOT my main site, this is only my blog.

Please take a moment to read, if it takes your fancy, then redirect yourselves to:

www.jancranephotography.com

Thank you.

Nikon 70-200 1:2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR in the field

As promised, a few words and pictures from the lens’ outing into the field. Although, not actually a field, more of a hotel to start with.

After spending a few days getting acquainted with the lens it was soon time to really throw some work at at. This opportunity, if you like, was perhaps the biggest wedding booking we have this year. Not a time for anything to go wrong, which is why backups are carried including a borrowed 80-200 f2.8 that I am familiar with.

As well as providing as chance to see the lens perform in a situation where the shot matters more than the technical aspects behind it, it was also a chance to do some comparison test shots with previous wedding on high constrast subjects such as the brides dress next to the grooms darker attire and it also provided an excellent test for the VR with the low tungsten and mixed lighting areas used in the ceremony and reception venue.

My second camera assistant was shooting with a non-VR 80-200 f2.8 lens, and not having VR limited his available settings in the low light. The result of this was that the ISO was bumped up higher on his camera than I was able to work with. Of course, using Nikon’s latest cameras, this isn’t the problem it once was. When shooting at the same ISO I was able to get good results using upto 1/30th and frequently 1/60th second, which with a lens of this size, length and weight is excellent. He was stuck with bumping the ISO up higher to get a usable 1/125th at 200mm, and ideally would have liked to be working with a faster speed than that.

Of course, our subjects were fairly stationery during the service, but humans move all the time at amounts that maybe are unperceptible to the human eye and so my ISO went up to enable me to shoot at 1/60th minimum.

Using the VR did enable me to have more options of movement and position and I didn’t need to rest it on a mono-pod or tripod. Although, with the combined weight of the lens and body a mono-pod would have been a good idea anyway. That is perhaps one of things about this lens – the VR is useful, but given the weight of the thing, you’ll probably end up with a mono-pod or tripod anyway! I had left mine in the car before the ceremony begun and wasn’t in a position to retrieve it, so I paid the price with a sore shoulder for a day or two!

This is a big and heavy lens. I have been advised, talking to some fellow professionals, that its sits better on the D3 as it has better balance against the weight of the lens. With this in mind, it might be preferable to use the D300 or D700 with the additional optional battery grip. It’s certainly something I am considering at the moment, although that will again add weight to the object hanging around my neck or in my hand.

While on the subject of tripod use with this lens, the collar provided is brilliant. The quick but secure double detach foot is a design of genious. I am very impressed and would like to see the collar repeated on several lenses so that the foot could remain on the ‘pod and the lenses slotted into it in an interchangeable matter (are you listening Nikon? You got something right so please repeat the effort elsewhere).

The detachable foot means that moving from tripod to handheld and back again is a joy. It certainly speeds things up, and makes using the lenses handheld a lot more confortable.

Now, for actual performance from the optics:

I am impressed, this could well become a favourite lens. Not having the Nano coating has been moaned at by some, and there are calls for an update for this lens with the new coating added – don’t be so quick I’d say. There is no way you can use a UV filter with the nano coated lens. Even the top quality UV filters cause image degradation, loss of colour clarity, and a significant reduction in sharpness on the Nano coated lenses. The same filter on the 70-200 has, it would appear, no discernible effect. This means you can, if you want, put one on as protection against the front element becoming damaged. Of course, its an option only but as this lens sticks out so damned far in front of you, it is one to consider.

I have not tried other filters with the Nano coated optics but I do wonder what effect the nano-coating has on polarisers etc? If you have any experience of this please feel free to comment and share any info.

During the wedding shoot I used the lens for both inside and outside shots. The VR certainly assisted during the inside shots, and possibly helped retain that extra level of sharpness when handholding outside too. I can’t really say, I turned it on and left it on for the duration. It can however slow the focussing and I noticed this with some practice sessions the day before. If I really wanted to make the most of the AF-S then I needed to turn the VR off, this means you end up with a compromise of having it faster than an AF-D but slower than pure AF-S if you want VR. Turn the VR off and its noticeably quicker, but of course you are then subject perhaps to some motion induced blur. A lot would depend on your individual hand holding abilities and how much practice you have had with lenses of this length and weight.

I think I would still rather use a tripod than VR, and readers of this blog know only too well exactly what I think of tripods!

Here are some images from the wedding so you can see what the quality results are like. All images were taken on a Nikon D700 set to run AUTO ISO (I use this for weddings and have found it really useful with one proviso – set your own limits as to where it can go using the custom menus). Otherwise it’s one less thing to worry about, when the shot counts you don’t have always have time to be messing with heaps of controls and settings. That glance, the look, the turn of head, the smile….they will be gone quicker than you can move a few knobs or press buttons. It’s the ‘desisive moment’ – and auto ISO does help you get it. But I only use it for weddings when I know I will have to move from one light source to another, quickly, and frequently.

I don’t like to trust technology to make decisions for me, and have been known to turn if off once the trickier sections are done with. In this instance, I left it on, because the day was bright and sunny with high contrast outside, lots of shaded area, very low light and mixed sources inside and a requirement for me to be inside and then outside and then back inside again throughout the day at the drop of a hat.

Anyway, enough from me, here are some sample shots:

Bride arrives with her father

The look; the significant moment or expression that you must capture

The ability to capture detail in very difficult lighting conditions is one of the outstanding features of this lens.

The ability to shoot at 2.8 enabled the background to be thrown completely out of focus on a number of shots isolating everything from the background to emphasise the significance of the placing the brides hand into that of the grooms. The length of the 200m zoom allowed even to the wording on the order of service read over a guests shoulder from the balcony above!

So, how do we some up the thoughts on this lens after brief but vital use?

Is the lens worth the money for an upgrade from the 80-200 2.8?

Well, probably not. UNLESS you shoot in low light, a lot. Or, a lot of moving subjects where focus speed is important. Or from a moving vehicle where active VR might be useful [more of that later].

Is is any sharper than the 80-200 2.8?

No, I don’t think its optically any better at all. In fact, on occassion I would have to site a preference for the rendition of the images from the older lens. Perhaps its the older coatings but I liked the colour rendition of the 80-200 rather a lot and this one seems a bit colder (?) to me.

Does it focus faster being AF-S?

Yes, there is a significant improvement over the AF-D focussing, especially in different conditions. But, it’s not perfect and I can still make it hunt if I really want to (or at least I have found it hunt a few times)*.

Is it worth the trade up from a consumer or slower lens – say the 70-300 VR?

That depends. If you have a camera that can cope with a ramped up ISO, such as the D300/D700/D3 then possibly not. Not for low light work anyway. If however you like to use f2.8, f4 etc for isolating details, throwing the background out of focus etc, then yes, its worth every penny.

Is is worth the money?

Now that is the million dollar, or in this case £1500, question. The answer is tricky. If you have the money lying about, then spend it, you won’t regret it. This is a fine lens built to excellent quality standards that will last you for many years, although it will require servicing and it probably not as robust as some of its predicessors. I am always concerned that the more feature something has, the more things there are to go wrong with it. This lens is built in Japan, so unlike with a lot of Nikon’s recent lenses, the quality control should be superb.

Are you earning, or expecting to earn money, from your photography? If the answer is yes, then yes it is worth every penny of the £1500. As a professional, or even semi-professional where image quality is important then the best is only good enough. It will also look much more professional when you turn up to face your client than a lens anyone can buy for a couple of hundred from Dixons.

But, if the budget is tight then the 80-200 f2.8 will serve just as well and cost you around half if not a third of the price. Bare in mind that you can only get these used now, usually as result of someone trading them in for the 70-200 in fact.

In conclusion I have to say that had I not lost my 80-200 in the incident with the cliff, then I would probably not have bought this lens. The 80-200 2.8 AFD, with its accepted limitations, did everything I needed it to do. If I was in a position where I had £1500 burning a hole in my pocket (a position I would rather like to find myself in once in a while but rarely do it has to be said) then I still would think twice. I would probably go with a couple of other lenses I quite fancy first, or possibly put it towards another D700 body if I’m honest. This lens would not have been a priority purchase unless I found myself with a need to replace the 80-200. Which of course, is exactly why I got this lens.

Right now, if I found £1500 lurking about needing a good home, then I would firstly pay for a holiday (I need a holiday), and I would take a new Sigma 105 f2.8 Macro with me. I have a real longing for one of these beauties. There have been several occassions when a macro would have come in real handy recently and I would like to do some personal macro work with one just for interest too.

As the insurance company paid for it, and I am sure they will ensure that they extract the money back from me in increased premiums as a result, then I have to say I am delighted with my new lens. I like it very much, it will become a favourite quite possibly and it will get lots of use, but as I said above – if I still had my 80-200 f2.8 then I probably would have stuck with it. Probably…

*techniques for reducing lens hunt include the fake focus technique – this is where you pick a subject with more contrast that the lens can use to focus on, that is at the same distance as the subject you actually want to take the shot of, then use the focus lock and recompose. It works a treat so long as you are fairly accurate in your estimation of distance (and yes women can do this) AND keep to f5.6 or higher to be on the safe side. If you can absolutely sure of the distance, such as moving the lens only very slightly to one side or the other, then f4 is perfectly good but I really wouldn’t risk f2.8 unless I was absolutely certain and really needed that short depth of field.

ADDITIONAL: In the field, literally.

After I started writing the above I did do some work outside, in a field, with this lens. I also took it to a wildlife part and tried its active mode from a land rover.

The VR Active is claimed to enable you to shoot from a moving vehicle and whilst this is certainly true it doesn’t hold up to my expections here. It’s still far better to stop the truck. Yes, you get usuable shots you would have otherwise missed, but they are usable. They are not perfectly sharp and if you can stop the truck, then stop the truck. It works better when shooting from the rear or the front of the vehicle. When shooting from a side window, I think that the lens thinks your panning, so it doesn’t do its job as well because it thinks you want some motion blur in it. The panning issue has been raised on a number of sites and whilst initially it seems like a good thing, the concensus seems to be that we would like an over-ride button where we tell the lens if we are planning.

Results in the field were interesting:

Initial shots were impressive, but I did notice that it was terribly prone to flare and ghosting when used wide open, or wide open (resulting in 5.6) with a 2x teleconverter. Using the hood made no difference in the instance and the conditions I was working under. Shots with the sun at a 45degree angle proved fine but shots with the sun behind the subject, but obscured by a building so not directly visible were terrible. The whole image lacks definition as you can see.

Here the sun was behind the building, this image is full frame and straight from the NEF RAW image converted to a JPEG and resized with no other adjustments

Applying some simple adjustments in Photoshop does help the image (see below), but I am still a little unhappy with the results. This shot is also at a slightly different angle, although it should actually create more of a problem given the location of the sun at the time. As you can see, the sun and sky are not in the shots at all.

Dropping the converter also helps (again, result below):

I can only assume that fully open, the converter magnifies the effect of the flare as well as the subject.

This was the first time I had used the converter (a Teleplus 300 PRO DG 2x) with the lens and can at least report that VR etc all continue to function, which is certainly a bonus here.

I will repeat the experiment on the same subject at a different time of day when the sun is not so low in the sky [provided I catch them before they fledge]. These shots were all taken in the early evening following a very hot and sunny day, although the light had dropped sufficiently and the location shaded enough to warrant an ISO of 800 in order to get a usuable shutter speed with this length of lens (200mm/300mm with converter) at f5.6

I also intend, weather permitting, to take the lens for a trial run with some other interesting subjects and locations over the coming week and will keep you all posted as to my observations and results.

It is also possible that using a UV filter could be making matters worse. As you can see from my post of using UV filters I am more than a little sceptical about them.

Now, if someone would like to sponsor me with a nice 500mm lens I could really have some fun….

Nikon 70-200 1:2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR first impressions

Ok, so my replacement for the 80-200 f2.8 has arrived. I am very grateful to the courier for arriving nice an early enabling me to get on with testing the lens, writing this quick first impressions  review, and being able to get on with my day.

Firstly, I think that a next brace should be an optional extra! This is a beast of professional glass and no mistaking. Then, they should supply an instructional DVD on all the buttons. I will have to scan the net for some info on these. The limiter is good news, especially for wildlife.

Being able to limit the focus to 2.5m will save it hunting between infinity and closest distance, although its only a saving of around 1m as the close focus appears to be 1.5m anyway.

There are two setting for the VR (aside from on and off). Normal – for use in normal hand held circumstances, and Active – for use when shooting from a moving platform such as vehicle (think safari) or boat etc. At least, thats what I think they do anyway.

There is a switch between Manual focus and M/A focus. M/A is where this lens will spend probably 95% of its life. The ability to override the Autofocus with a little Manual tweak has already been noted on many discussions and is very useful.

The big brass plate is a nice “industrial” touch, although I am not sure its necessary. It does however leave you in no doubt that this lens means business.

I do like the tripod collar. The removable double locking foot is an excellent idea. I can now grab the lens off the monopod/tripod much more quickly and resecure it when required without hesitation or fiddling about.

The foot needs to be removed for comfy handholding.

The balance on the tripod is very good with the D700 body, I should imaging the D3 is even better.

The petal hood clips on the same way as the one on the 24-70 and I quite like that. They might even be interchangeable but I haven’t tried it yet.

So, what about the results?

Well, initial impressons are positive. There is some distortion at the wider end. Which is quite funny in that this is the same problem as the with 24-70 where the distortion is worse at the wider end. I will compare the two 70mm ends at some point.

Distortion seems very well controlled from 105mm onwards to the 200mm. This is excellent news. Perhaps its a secret Nikon tactic – they make the wider ends distort so you are forced to buy the next widest lens. Perhaps the distortion on the 24-70 is to force you into buying the 14-24 (or whatever the next one is)??

I wouldn’t put it past Nikon to be cunning. They do, afterall, want our money!

But back to the results:

70mm

80mm

Sorry, its my now famous very large shed again.

105mm

As you can see the barrelling is significantly better at this point

135mm

And now we start to see some pincushioning instead

200mm

For a zoom, its not the worst I’ve seen, BUT this is Nikon’s premium lens at these focal lengths (as a zoom)

The colour rendition etc has not been altered from the Raw. The white balance used was actually flash as I had come straight from the studio and shooting the test card for focus quality.

Talking of which, here are the results of that:

80mm

105mm

135mm

200mm

Please note that these were taken from a fixed point and zoomed in. The 135mm and 200mm are full frame as shot. The wider ones have been cropped and show the resolution at the centre of the frame.

Full frame ones will follow where the camera has been moved to present the card full frame in each shot.

The next test is for attractiveness of the background blur with wider apertures. This, I believe, is called Bokeh although I have no idea why…

Here are the results:

f2.8

f5.6

f11

f22

Now, when considering this information please note that these shots were taken within minutes of the lens arriving and being unpacked. I have not had time to play/test/examine the lens or its results in detail.

This is a first impression only. The only reason I am not out playing with the lens to obtain some more interesting results is that it has just started raining again. I am therefore taking the chance now to write this (and cook my lunch).

A fuller review will be posted at a later date, and this post may well be updated later tonight and into tomorrow.

Please join me again as I delve further into the Nikon 70-200 1:2.8 ED-IF…oh, heavens, its like its got its own dictionary attached. Its Nikons current 70-200 fast professional telephoto zoom lens. That’s all you need to know. Oh, and they are like hen’s teeth to get hold of and cost a cool £1600!

A little word about insurance

This week I learnt a valuable lesson – insurance is not only worth having, but its vital for professionals.

I have insurance, in fact I have very expensive insurance. I often begrudged that money leaving my bank account every month, it was afterall, more expensive than my car insurance, my home insurance, my professional and public liability, in fact it was pretty much the same as those all combined.

However, after a mishap involving my beloved Nikon 80-200 1:2.8 lens, gannets and a cliff, I am so grateful for it.

My policy is for replacment, which means that you get a direct new for old replacement on items that cannot be repaired (in the case of damage) or are lost/stolen etc. This means that as the 80-200 1:2.8 has been discontinued, I am expecting to receive (later today) a new Nikon 70-200 1:2.8 AF-S ED-IF VR lens.

I get my insurance through Photoguard and found them to be most helpful, quick to respond, and very efficient.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Photoguard – camera insurance

Flexible cover options mean you get the camera insurance cover you need and don’t pay for unnecessary extras. For amateur, semi and professional photographers.

Their award winning site makes it quick to get a quote and easy to understand what is covered.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Importantly, I learnt some valuable pieces of advice and I feel it only fair to share that info:

1. Always keep the original boxes and packaging if you have it
2. Always keep the original receipts for your equipment
3. Photograph your equipment, on your premises, in your studio, or in use in the field (preferably at least two of these)

The reason for these? Even though you quoted the serial number of the item (and you have to for any item over a certain value), you will need to prove you actually own that item and were in possession of it. This is where the photos come in especially handy, particularly if you can’t find the original receipts because you’ve owned the equipment for some time.

I am now setting up a seperate file on my computer with images of every single item of equipment I own. I am going to have a back up copy of those images at my remote storage location as well. This would be vital if my studio were to be broken into and my computers/hard drives taken.

Photographing your equipment is not something that springs to mind. I keep receipts and packaging until warrantees run out, sometimes longer, but often they will be disguarded after several years or if I move location for any reason. This is when they become vitally important.

It is also worth having a photo of all your equipment that you take on a trip. If you regularly travel or not, you should carry a copy of your original receipt, and a photo of the items. Why? Well, not only does it work for the insurance company, it also prevents you being charged import duty on your return into the country.

You see, if you can’t prove you owned the lense (or whatever) and paid its relevant taxes in the UK when you come back through customs, they can charge you import duty. If you do buy your good abroad while you’re on holiday then you will need to pay the duty in the same way as if you ordered by mail order. Of course, you may have saved a bundle on the initial cost of the products in question which compensates a bit, and you won’t have to pay the extortionate ‘handling fee’ levied by the post office.

So, next time its a rainy horrible day, spend some time photographing your equipment – you never know when you might need it!

Lens comparisons

I got a little bored this afternoon. I was waiting for the sun to go down a bit, for although its picture postcard in tourist board terms, its not very exciting light for photography.

That and the otters don’t come out for a wee while yet.

So, I thought I would take my Nikon 24-70 1:2.8 AFS-G N series lens, my Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 EX DG lens, and my Sigma 24-60 1:2.8 EX DG lens and run them side by side – all at 50mm focal length

The first shots are taken in the studio, with a single light to the rhs set on lowest setting. ISO is 800 and metering is in camera. The camera is set to Aperture Priority. Camera is D700.

The camera was placed on the tripod (Manfrotto 180XB with Giottos head).

First the f2.8 results (as the 50mm sigma is the only lens to go faster than this, 2,8 was used as the universal benchmark)

Sigma 50mm:Nikon 24-70 @50mm: Sigma 24-60 @ 50mm

Now the f5.6 results, again in the same order

Sigma 50mm: Nikon 24-70 @ 50mm: Sigma 24-60 @ 50mm

Finally, the same shots were taken at f8, again presented here in the same order

Sigma 50mm: Nikon 24-70 @50mm: Sigma 24-60 @50mm

As you can see the Nikon renders everything a wee bit warmer so to test this theory, and to have a look at a real world shot I then took the camera in its tripod into the garden.

Shooting from under the canopy to ensure flare is reduced, and using the supplied lens hoods on lenses, I repeated the same shot three times, once with each lens.

The ISO has changed to 200, the aperture remained at f8 on each lens, each lens was set (where adjustable) to 50mm.

Again they appear in the name order : Sigma 50mm: Nikon 24-70 @50mm: Sigma 24-60 @50mm

As you can see the colour renditions between the two Sigma lenses is almost identical. So for ease of further comparison I have taken crops from the Nikon 24-70 and the Sigma 50mm lenses only.

To evaluate the lenses ability to capture shadows I can cropped from the same section of the largest tree, where a shadow area occurs.

Nikon

Sigma

As you can see there is slightly more detail in the shadows of the Sigma shot than the Nikon shot, although the slightly warmer tone is perhaps more pleasing to look at.

All shots were taken daylight white balance and no adjustments have been made other than a straight RAW to JPEG resave.

Now lets have a look at the sky:

Nikon

Sigma

As you can see the blue of the Nikon sky its more cornflower than the Sigma, both have had a slightly nasty outcome with the tree there.

Now lets compare the grass:

Nikon

Sigma

Again, another interesting comparison that would mainly be subjective. To my eyes the Nikon appears to have more depth to it, but the Sigma appears to be more ‘accurate’ to what I actually see looking out the window.

Lastly, lets have a look at retention of detail in the highlights:

Nikon

Sigma

What is also noticeable between these lenses in the different interpretation of 50mm. The Nikon seems to be zoomed in a little more, perhaps to around 52mm (although the reading on the EXIF data and on the lens itself was 50mm).

Both these highlight shots are taken from the edge of the frame too. This shows that the Sigma has better retained sharpness at the edges than the Nikon, but then it is a prime lens not a zoom so this should be expected.

When comparing the two zooms, the Sigma zoom is sharper to the edge of frame than the Nikon. Which is quiet surprising, because although the Sigma is 10mm shorter in its zoom capacity, it is a much cheaper lens and I really expected the Nikon to win this one. The colour renditions here are also closer and the shadow detail again it better retained. So, with the Nikon you appear to get more depth to the images but in fact you are doing so at a loss of detail. The Sigma’s colour is perhaps not quite so ‘nice’ initially as the Nikons but does retain greater shadow detail and better edge to edge sharpness.

Nikon 24-70

Sigma 24-60

Of course, these tests are not scientific. I am not comparing like for like. The Sigma 50mm is a prime, f1.4 max aperture lens costing around £350. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 max aperture will set you back a cool £1200 approximately, while the Sigma 24-60 f2.8 max aperture (now sadly discontinued) can sometimes be found for under £200 new and around £100 used.

So, not like for like at all, I will admit. But, I have used all the lenses on the same body, with the same ISO, same aperture, camera in identical position, at the same time of day (each shots taken within minutes) on a day with fairly static weather conditions.

The studio shots are completely controlled within the studio environment and were all taken again with the same settings and the camera remaining in place on the tripod between lens changes.

I therefore conclude, that the Nikon is producing perhaps a more pleasing result without any adjustments, but the Sigmas are both sharper edge to edge, retain greater shadow detail and provide excellent alternative options.

The Sigmas may require a little more post processing, with a few tweaks (and very minor ones at that) to perhaps get the greater appearance of depth within the image.

Nikon standard image with its preferred visual colour depth

The Sigma 24-60 at 50mm and f8, with a minor tweak to the mid-tones using levels in PS4

The Nikon does focus quicker than both the Sigmas thanks to Nikons AF-S motors, but the HSM Sigma is not very far behind at all. The older slower non-HSM Sigma takes a little longer still, but we are talking about fractions of a second here. Would you notice in use? Probably not. Unless, and this is a BIG UNLESS, any of them hunt in low light.

The Nikon 80-200 1:2.8 AF-D that I have hunts like no-ones business and drives me potty. But, the AF-S version if you can find it is like finding a needle in a planet sized haystack (anyone with one is keeping it!!!)

The newer 70-200 1:2.8 AF-S VR is supposed to be the answer to my prayers on this front. Its also a serious amount of money again, which is why I’m sticking with the older version. That and my falling out with Nikon of course.

I am surprised at the results of these tests. In spite of my run in with Nikon over the issues raised previously with the 24-70, and the results here which show it really isn’t worth the extra cash they want for them, I had always hated Sigmas. I have tried, repeatedly, many Sigmas for many years and sold on or returned every one. The 24-60 was the first “keeper” Sigma I have ever owned. It surprised me and given I acquired it from old stock for around £100 it was always going to be an excellent spare or second camera lens.

The 50mm 1:1.4 has shown me that Sigma are capable of making some truly excellent lenses and the bargain I had before was not a one off. Sigma still have terrible issues with inconsistant production and you can try several of any of their lenses (same models just different individuals) before finding the best of the bunch. Which is why they often appear on ebay and on used lists.

Which is also why I am very reluctant to buy second hand Sigma – its going back out there for a reason…

Tonight I shall be using the 80-200 1:2.8 on the D700 and the D200 (one for the extra reach and one for when the light drops and ISO has to go up). I will also be playing with the Sigma 50mm some more.

If I get any interesting insights, images, or want to make any comments, you’ll read them first – right HERE!

The Nikon saga and some other thoughts

Well, that’s me decided. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is going on eBay. It might be within Nikon’s tolerances but its not within mine. When I pay top dollar for a lens I expect it to be a top quality lens. I do not expect it to be given more than a run for its money by a lens that I can purchase for 1/10th of the price.

Sorry Nikon, just not good enough.

It has been suggested that I should return to prime lenses and that is under serious consideration. For the price of the Nikon beast in question I can purchase a Sigma 50mm f1.4 (which I already have), a 20mm f1.8, and a 105mm f2.8 macro. With these three and a little more leg work, I would be able to cover pretty much any eventuality, including lower light levels and reduced depth of field by comparison.

This will probably be the way I go on this one. I might even throw in the 15mm fish-eye too. If you’re going for distortion, then make it designed and deliberate and part of your art – not just there because the lens manufacturer took a shortcut somewhere.

But, enough of the issues with Nikon.

How is that Sigma 50mm f1.4 shaping up?

Well, I have to say that I am pretty darned impressed to be honest. Having the f1.4 available means I can really isolate my focus point and control depth of field to a very extreme level. With a portrait I am able to focus just on the eyes and even throw the nose and ears out of focus (should I choose to).

Its interesting to get back to using a fixed focal length again. Its a discipline that is sadly forgotten with the all encompassing zoom we are so used to. For me, its going back to film, almost. Except I can experiment more as it costs me nothing but time to processing the images (shooting in Raw and editing post production).

I grew up with using a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 105mm. I am going back to what I knew with film, but a little wider as to me 28mm was never quite enough.

I am also thinking about 300mm with a f2.8 as well and looking perhaps at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 at some point, although that’s one expensive beast!

Something to consider.

But, I digress. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a little more expensive that Nikon’s new equivalent and some reviews have Nikon just ahead and some the Sigma. Well, I can’t compare as I haven’t tried the Nikon (and you all know why).

But, I can say that from a technical point of the view, the jury is out on this one. From a handling point of view, I prefer a heftier piece of glass, especially with the D700 as it counter weights in the hand better. I should imagine that if I find this with the D700 then it would be even truer of the D3 or D3X (and if anyone wants to give me one of these babies to try my theory I would be delighted to oblige!)

The handling, in the field so to speak, is superb. The AF/M switch is nicely located and easy to find without looking. I would have preferred a AF-M/M switch and been able to tweak without using the switch (as you can with a Nikon).

The Sigma does not have an aperture ring, which of course is not needed on the D700 or the D200, but does mean that if I wanted to use it with an old manual film camera, I can’t. This isn’t too much of a problem as I’m not actually likely too, but I do think that Sigma should have left me with the option still.

The filter size is the standard pro 77mm which is also an advantage over the Nikon (and Canon) equivalent and should not be ignored especially if you are found of using polarisers and already have a 77mm one.

If you use a slot in Cokin P system then that’s not going to make for much of an issue.

The HSM motor is a blessing, its quick and its quiet. I really can’t understand why Sigma would make anything without a HSM now. There is not image stabilisation, but to be honest, with 50mm do you need it?

We managed for years without image stabilisation, in fact I have never used it, even when its an option. If I want a shutter speed under 1/30th of a second (above that I can handhold anyway) then I’ll use a tripod. Even with OS/IS whatever, I’m going to need a tripod at less than 1/30th anyway!

The results as far as image quality go are superb. Sigma does have a problem with quality control – you get good ones, and you get bad ones. You get a good one, and its superb, you get a bad one and it really will be a lemon.

I don’t think I got a lemon this time.

I have put some test shots here for you to have a look at, these are just a few.

Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f1.4 on Nikon D700

Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f2 on Nikon D700

Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f2.8 on Nikon D700

Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 HSM EX DG at f4 on Nikon D700

And here’s something I produced in the studio

Now, this is not a macro lens. If it was a macro lens as well as being very very fast then it would be perfect. But, its not. It has a 1:4 ratio of reproduction and this is good enough for many situations. A 1:2 or better still a 1:1 would be even better but probably add considerably to the cost.

And while we are talking about price – this beauty will set you back around £350. Which is a lot, for a standard lens. Especially when the f1.8 and especially the f2.8 are SO much cheaper. If you don’t need 1.4 then the 1.8 is a very good buy. But, for my money, I’ll still pay the extra for the 1.4. Its a quality optic, that has superb handling, excellent results and take you back to the days when the bathroom smelt of salt and vinegar crisps most evenings…

Update on Nikon trouble – the service just gets worse.

As you will have read from my previous post, and seen the proof, my all singing and dancing pro lens is not what it’s cracked up to be. In fact, I have had consumer grade £100 Sigma’s that perform better.

Anyway, the service level from Nikon leaves more than a little to be desired.

The lens went to Nikon overnight Monday, arriving Tuesday, after the dealer had spoken to Nikon and informed them that I really needed this lens back by the weekend and that I was a registered Nikon Pro Service user.

Well, the lens arrived Tuesday, where it sat ‘in a crate’ for 24 hours (eek) before it was even booked in. I have now been informed it could be up to 10 days (and that’s working days) before they even look at it. Then it will have to be repaired and shipped back.

This means I could be without the lens for three weeks or more.

I my opinion, as the defect is due to manufacture and poor quality control it should simply be replaced. Nikon’s opinion is that it should be repaired, in their own good time, and if that puts by business in danger then tough.

After all, I can always buy another one – that way I would have a spare to cover these issues. Like I have £1295 sitting around just in case! Hello – there is a recession on.

But, it would seem I have no choice.

I have to say that the service sucks.

So, let my offer some advice to all the readers of this blog.

DON’T BUY NIKON

DON’T TRUST NIKON TO HELP YOU

DON’T EXPECT PROFESSIONAL USER SERVICE TO MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEY SEND YOU A CHEAP PEN AND NOTEPAD.

CHECK EVERY LENS YOU BUY FOR DISTORTION AND OTHER FAULTS – REGARDLESS OF PRICE AND EXPECTATIONS – QUALITY CONTROL IS LOUSY

OH, AND DON’T BUY NIKON or have I already said that?

WHEN I NEXT UPGRADE – I WON’T BE.

Lens trouble

Ok, before I start I have to tell you that I am NOT in a good mood.

You see, I have just had to return my very expensive Nikon 24-70 f2.8 AFS-Nano coated, all signing and dancing, lens. Not because of anything I’ve done, but because I have noticed a fault with it.

Distortion – major. I have a pincushioning that I wouldn’t tolerate from a £200 consumer lens let alone a professional over £1000 lens.

I hadn’t noticed it before, simply because I don’t photograph that many straight lines. But, I thought things looked a little off kilter so I did some testing. The result was horrifying.

Now, this is not what I expect from Nikon at all, not from their professional range.

I am not impressed. I had to return it to the shop – a 160 mile round trip – and now it’s gone off to Nikon. Hopefully I’ll get it back before I get really frustrated with my spare (after all, that’s WHY I replaced it in the first place).

I will report back with a comparison shot once I get it back. And, it had better be a serious improvement!

While on the subject of testing – I thought I’d try something else.

Now, the debate has raged for years and crops up on forum regularly – do you use a UV filter to protect the lens, or not?

I have debated this myself and came to the following decision – in iffy weather, or on the beach, or in a non-ideal location: YES, I use a UV filter. Only a top quality Hoya one mind. So as to reduced the likelihood of damage to the front element.

When doing anything with critical sharpness, or where clients are trusting me to get top quality results: No, I take them off.

Anyway, I thought this wasn’t very scientific, although quiet logical. So, today I did a little experiment.

This is the image from a Sigma f1.4 50mm EX lens set to f2.8 with a Hoya UV filter attached

Not very impressive is it?

Now lets try that same lens, with the same setting, without the filter

So, you can guess what I just did can’t you…

…yep, I just took all the filters OFF the front elements of my lenses and through them in the bin (bar one). I am keeping one (they are all 77mm) in my bag for occassions when I just can’t risk that front element. But its going to have to be sandy and blowing a gale before I use it.

Incidentally, the problem shots with the Nikon were taken sans filter. And it was pincushioning, not sharpness, that was the problem anyway.

On the subject of the Sigma 1.4 lens – there will be more of that in another post. (See what happens when I have to go to the pro shop? Yep, I end up buying new toys).

If you do nothing else today, do this

Please visit this link and watch the video:

Joanna Lumley expresses her anger at the decision

Please sign the petition:

Petition

The trouble with tripods

I have trouble with tripods. But then, who doesn’t? Come on, be honest. The damned things are a pain in the arse. You need them, sure. But when folded they are too long, too cumbersome and generally get in the way. If they fold down nice and small when you’re carrying them, then they are nine times out of ten totally useless when you do need to use them to actually support a camera.

There is, you see, the inherent problem – you need size, strength, and weight – in windy conditions especially, and most definitely when using long lenses.

Now, I have tried several tripods over the years and so I’m going to make a few observations about the ones that I actually stuck with for longer than a couple of months.

Firstly: The Velbon Sherpa 750 (with or without the R)

I have to say that I loved this tripod. It did everything I wanted it to do for over 10 years. The only thing I didn’t like was not having a ball and socket head but I adapted. When the leg releases finally gave out, having rusted from the inside out, I was really sad.

Why didn’t I replace it with another one? Well, the price was one consideration but the main one was that head. Oh for a decent ball and socket head that could take a heavy lens….

This was replaced by the tripod now known as “the beast”

Now, my one of these is silver which was not my choice as I much prefer black (its non-reflective) but they didn’t have black at the time.

It will hold pretty much any camera you care to put on it. Its very very stable, even in high wind, and pretty well made at the price. The leg releases are user serviceable (handy if you stand them in salt water every now and again as I do) if you’re familiar with Manfrotto type releases.

They are NOT as self serviceable as Manfrottos, neither is the finish up to the same quality. But, then again, the price isn’t anywhere near it either!

This tripod is great…IF…and here is the BIG IF (and why its called “the beast”) you can afford to hire a porter to carry the damned thing!

I am not joking – you could do yourself some serious back damage with this thing. Its huge, its very heavy, it folds down to the perfect length to repeatedly stab yourself in the foot or bang your shins with, if you put it on the side of your rucsac then beware of low bridges….

Its great, I have one, in the studio. I wouldn’t dream of taking it out of the studio again.

Which is a shame.

The head is not good enough for the legs either. The legs would probably be able to support my landrover if I wanted to change the wheel (although I wouldn’t actually try this and DON’T ADVISE anyone else to either!!!), but the head is not much to shout about.

It works, but I have yet to get it to lock fully where I want it.

The plates are also manufactured to an interesting tolerance. It is worth ordering several before you get one that doesn’t have an odd shaped lump or bump on it and that actually sits securely in the head. If you can’t sit this securely, it doesn’t matter how good the rest of the tripod is – you aren’t going to let go of your several thousand pounds worth of lens and DSLR – so what is the point?

This is a major fault in my opinion. Cheap nasty little plates are letting down a good tripod. Exceptional value, for a heavy duty tripod, let down by a £5 plate.

Lastly in tripod (although I’m going to mention a mono-pod too) is my beloved Manfrotto. Yes, I pushed out the small dingy and bought a Manfrotto (I wanted a Gitzo but I couldn’t justify the mortgage for it).

My legs are the 190XBs – its well made, easy to use, perfect to carry (within reason and yes a carbon fibre would be nicer), user serviceable (I take the legs to bits and clean inside them after every coastal trip). Its great.

I doesn’t take the weight of my largest lens though – well it will, but the head won’t.

Manfrotto’s non-fluid heads are good, but stiff and don’t allow for fine movements. There fluid heads are too expensive. So, I put an oil filled Giottos head on it.

And hear comes the long story.

Head no.1  leaked oil on its first outing having been over-packed, all over my new and expensive down jacket. Oil on down = specialist cleaning? Nope, oil on down = new jacket.

Head no.2 has been fine, except that it won’t take the weight its supposed to. I have checked the website for its recommended max weight. I have weighed my camera, with lens, battery etc all in place and it is below the recommended weight (by about 500g). But, it won’t hold it. It locks, and then slowly moves in whichever direction the heaviest part of the camera is towards the ground.

IF I balance the camera so that the plate is attached to the centre of weight, and then set it at perfect horizontal etc, its fine. But if I want to put it at an angle and hold it – forget it.

In spite of this, I did repeat my Giottos purchase with my new mono-pod. Now, firstly let me say I am not a great fan of mono-pods as they really do half the job. You still have to hold the camera and they really only take the weight off your arms – which is what I use them for.

My Giottos MML3270B is a great mono-pod. Its very well made, robustly finished, a pleasure to hold and use, goes to well beyond my height allowing me to use whilst on steps (you won’t believe how handy that it until you try it).

The completely manual MH7002 head is a little stiffer and less fluid than the one on the tripod, but it doesn’t leak and holds the weight (just) of my 80-200 f2.8 lens with a 2x converter on it (although I wouldn’t let go of the camera with a mono-pod anyway)

The quick release plates for both heads are well machined and fairly precise although they don’t lock in as quickly as I might like. I can live with it.

So, in my view – would I buy any of these again?

No. To be honest, they all do a reasonable job but not a great one. They all have faults. Manfrotto would probably recommend put their own heads on their legs, and if they want to demonstrate this with a free fluid head for me to test (and keep) then I’ll be happy to oblige. But, I ain’t buying one.

For the money – go for the Velbon Sherpa. Ten years of solid use with 6×6, 35mm pro bodies, lenses to 300mm f2.8 etc. Can’t be beaten. But please can we have the option of a ball and socket head? I know I could by the tripod as it comes (and pay for a pan and tilt head I won’t use) then by another head, but why should I be forced to pay for a head I don’t want?

What would I buy? Well, to be honest I have my heart (and head) set on a Gitzo now. They may live up to their reputation, they may not, but I would LOVE to find out.

Perhaps a carbon fibre mountaineer with fluid ball and socket head? I don’t know. I’d want to try a few in the metal (or carbon fibre) in the shop to decide. But, I do know one thing…I will be saving for one. They are expensive, but I do believe, that so long as you choose the right model for you then you will get a tripod that lasts a lifetime.