Closure of studio

Due to a change in circumstances, the in-house studio service is currently unavailable and will remain so until further notice.

The mobile studio service continues as normal.

The contact details for Jan Crane Photography have also changed, and the website will be changed to reflect this as soon as possible. Until then, Jan can be contacted on 07976 873853. The email remains unchanged.

All current bookings are NOT affected and the full wedding service is available as per normal.

For any enquiries, please contact Jan on 07976 873853.

I am sick of being ripped off by companies who fail to offer the professional service they offer

I’m sorry but I’m going to have a rant, again.

First it was Nikon with my £1000+ lens. Then my Nikon flashgun (an SB800) which had only been used on four occasions failed (two months out of warrantee of course) which meant I had to fork out £68 to get it fixed (thank heavens it was only £68) and now Nikon are messing about with their software!

Let me explain. I have just upgraded to a Mac. I am very happy with my new mac, except that I can’t put my Nikon Capture NX2 on it because its not compatible. Nikon have been ‘testing’ and ‘evaluating’ with Snow Leopard since the beginning of September. Now the problem is that all new macs ship with Snow Leopard on, which means you can’t do as Nikon kindly suggest and remain on the old Leopard until they sort their shit out.

Not that you’d want to hold up your entire system for one piece of shitty software in the first place of course. And the software isn’t great to start with. BUT, at least they give you a mac version AND a PC version on the same licence.

Adobe want to screw you for double the money. Here is the deal – if you buy a PC licence of Photoshop CS4 you can run it on your PC laptop and your PC desktop under one licence (but not with both copies open at the same time). If you buy a mac licence you can run it on your imac and your macbook under one licence (but again, not at the same time). BUT, if you have a PC desktop and a mac laptop you have to BUY two separate licences! So, you have to PAY TWICE! And we are only talking about £700 software here so we shouldn’t complain too much. BOLLOCKS. I am Sick to death of being ripped off like this. I am one person, who just happens to have two different platforms, I am doing nothing different to someone running two PCs after all PC only stands for personal computer and one of my personal computers happens to be a mac.

So, I have a lovely new mac and absolutely no sodding software for it! Well fucking great.

I am sick of being ripped off.

The same is true for Microsoft Office. I have a PC version. I can’t use it on my mac. I have to buy another copy.

No wonder people go off the rails.

Nikon annoying me yet again!

I just don’t believe this. Nikon has, in spite of the launch of Mac OS 10.6 nearly two months ago now, failed to release an update for Capture NX2 so that it works on Snow Leopard.

You can install it. But you can’t open a NEF file with it. NEF files are not recognised. So, it’s about a much use as a chocolate teapot in a hurricane.

On top of that, my SB800 packed up after just three weddings but unfortunately two months out of the guarantee period. So, another £300 down the tubes then…

I really have had enough.

When is NEF lossless compressed LOSSY?

Hmmm, I found out something interesting this morning.

A lossless compressed NEF file is only lossless if its subsequently opened in Capture NX or Nikons own RAW processing software. If you open it using Adobe RAW it is a lossy compression.

Now, I don’t know how true this statement is BUT I have always used lossless compressed on my NEF files and have found that if I am not happy with the file I get from Adobe RAW then by using Capture NX I do get a better one, usually bigger. So, on that basis I would say that this statement is true. I thought it was all to do with the way that Capture NX dealt with the file during processing that resulted in a bigger save (as a TIFF) but it would appear that I am actually starting with a bigger file because of the way it deals with the NEF info and the decompression from the way the camera compresses.

This being the case, and because Capture NX is such a complete pain the arse to use, I have now switched off the compression of my RAW files on the cameras.

I will be running a couple of test images through both later on to see if I can actually prove this. I will post my results in due course.

I am also going to test the 12bit vs 14bit capture facility on the D700. As all images end up as 8bit for printing I have used 12bit capture and 16bit or 8bit processing depending on the required size and form of the final print.

But, thinking back to darkroom days and using 5×4 and 6×6 negs has made be question this. When I produced a 20″ print lets say, the result from the 5×4 was always better than the 6×6. This works in the same way as having a larger sensor (not more pixels). So a print from a full frame sensor will always be better than one from a DX sensor (well almost, its actually a bit more complicated than that but stay with me).

The film stock also made a difference – a ISO100 fine grain high quality film produced a better final range of tones than a cheapo one did.

Taking this point into the digital age the following should be true:

14bit capture should produce better images than 12bit – because you start with more information (or a better quality film stock)

A lower ISO produces a better image than a higher one – because it’s like grain, the smaller the better, and we know this is true because we’ve seen the results from the earlier D200 at high ISO compared to the newer D700 at the same high ISOs.

RAW produces a better (as in higher quality, more tones, less noise, more colours, and with more possible adjustments) image than a jpeg. This we also know if true.

So, add into the mix the option of capturing more bits (more information), and you should for optimum quality set the camera to 14bit capture, RAW, uncompressed.

But, is it so simple?

If your monitor cannot render the difference, and your printer outputs only 8bit files, and your commercial lab only takes sRGB not Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB then is there any point?

Well, I am beginning to suspect there is. Afterall, in the darkroom amongst the chemicals I was outputting two images onto the same piece size and make of paper using the same techniques and the same chemicals. Thus, I was behaving in the same way as my inkjet does now, yes?

But, when I started with a 5×4 I would always get a better result than with the 6×6 and that was always better than the 35mm etc.

Incidentally, some printers CAN output the 16bit files. So, there is again further argument for using the maximum file information.

Of course, you know what this all means don’t you? It means that really, to get the best quality possible, I need a nice shiny digital hassleblad with the 6×6 sensor! Well, if I become rich (and not necessarily famous) then I might.

But they are going to have to do something about improving their range of lenses – not to mention the prices! LOL

Tests to come.

On the 3rd anniversary of my father’s death, we still have no answers

Today is the third anniversary of my father’s death. I have not slept well. We still, three years on, don’t know what really happened to him. No-one has been held to account for his injury or his untimely death.

I have a theory, one I cannot prove but which fits the evidence far better than the whitewash presented at the inquest:

My father had ticklish feet. On that fate-full morning, towards the end of a hard night-shift, the staff went to dress him as per normal. As they put on his socks they tickled his feet and, unable to explain what was irritating him owing to his Alzheimer’s, he kicked out, probably as a reflex action.

Pergaps the person putting his socks on, grabbed his foot and pushed it away, resulting in the break to his hip. Perhaps when he kicked out he struck something and the resistance was enough to cause to the break? We don’t know.

While there was a body to examine he was never diagnosed with any degenerative bone disorder, he had never broken anything before. Of course, after he’d been cremated the NHS suddenly found some ‘evidence’ of osteoporosis and this was disclosed as a shock revelation at the inquest by the doctor who appeared to have been assigned to take the fall.

As he screamed in pain it was decided to move him to the bed to help take weight from the affected area, and that is how he ended up in bed, half dressed and in pain.

It sure fits the evidence better than this presented scenario that a man who had never fallen, had suddenly had a fall so severe as to brake his hip socket. Especially when there was NO EVIDENCE that he had fallen in the way of bruises to ANY part of his body after the incident and lord knows the nurses kept looking for them, and so did my mother.

For a man who was physically fit, who never shuffled or used any aids to walk, who would simply get up unaided and follow you about if you asked him, it makes a whole lot more sense that the rubbish presented at the whitewash (I refuse to call it an inquest because it wasn’t – it was a whitewash).

Even IF, and I don’t personally believe it, he did have osteoporosis, my argument for what happened is still more feasible than the explanation presented at the inquest. If fact, it actually makes it more likely as it would have taken much less force to inflict the injury and simply pushing his foot away could then have quite easily resulted in the damage caused. Of course, people involved in elderly care, should realise the possible fraility of their patients bodies.

There was never any evidence he fell, just a speculation. No-one claimed to have ever see him fall at any point in the time he with the NHS or afterwards, and everyone admitted he had never fallen before. No-one could explain who it would be possible for a man who had fallen, and injured his hip to the extent his leg had to be surgically lowered and placed into traction, could then have (unaided) got back up and returned to his bed. The theory presented at the whitewash makes no sense.

My theory does.

After months spent on the ward in the regular hospital he was moved, during one of the hottest summers on record, to a nursing home miles from where the family could keep and eye on him.

In pain and unable to communicate his confusion, frustration or fear, he was left in his room during the height of the that summer without water. Unable to feed himself he clawed at his food with his bare hands, there was evidence of this when my mother went to visit him. The chair seat was covered in the remains of several dinners and his nails were caked in grime which she had to clean out.

There was no water in the room on any occasion that she managed to get relatives to take her the long uncomfortable journey to visit him.

Unable to get to water as he couldn’t walk now thanks to his injury, and unable to communicate what he needed, shouting from his room to a world that didn’t care, he succumbed to emaciation and dehydration siz weeks after he was taken there. Rushed into hospital where the A&E staff described just that, and were shocked to find he had come from a care home, too late to save him.

The A&E doctor said he could usually bring them back but for my father it was too late. They pumped him full of fluids but the damage was done and he died.

Yes, the inquest was right in respect that the hip injury did not directly kill him. DIRECTLY being the operative word here. It was afterall over six months between the injury and his death. He had been fine on the normal hospital ward where my mother paid, almost without fail, daily visits to him. Where she helped to feed him and where the nursing staff were used to helping him.

The care home’s incompetence was demonstrated again by the fact that when we did finally get to the inquest every single one of the original staff who were at the care home at the time of his death no longer worked there. Did they all leave? Were they sick of what they saw there? Or were they fired?

The care home’s incompetence was demonstrated again, when they billed my family for my families contributions towards his room and food etc for over a month after his death. They didn’t even know he had died!

And again when it came to light that the cheque mum had sent for his hair cuts and personal care had gone missing, never cashed.

Would the outcome be different if the police hadn’t taken weeks to bother to interview the people who were there the morning he was injured? Maybe.

Would the outcome be different if the police had bothered to interview anyone from the care home before they disappeared? Possibly, the inquest throught it possible because it was adjerned so this could happen. But it was almost a year down the line and the staff that were found gave almost identical responses that basically said nothing at all.

I suppose that all of them had no only left but moved house as well. Otherwise, they would have been contactable at their home addresses which would have been held in the personel files of the care home head office. Or did no-one look there?

We don’t know.

We have not forgotten my father, or what the system did to him.

We will not forget, and we will continue to strive for answers.

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!