This page is filled with information on photography equipment I use or have used and my opinions and observations of it.

LENSES:

Photographing fungi

I currently own six lenses and have come to this arsenal through years of photography and equipment upgrades. I have no desire for any other lenses because I have what I feel is a collection that allows me to capture 99.9% of possible subjects or photographs I can imagine. Of course, I do constantly evaluate my equipment against what is currently available and upgrade when something new comes out that will serve as a better tool for producing better images than what I have. As an example, I'm currently (May 07) considering upgrading my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens simply because I use that lens as a long lens when traveling and believe the IS will help me to capture more sharp images of wildlife. But I'm wary because I think my 70-200mm is the sharpest lens I have and I hate to lose such a fantastic tool! Also, I really dislike how the IS version of this lens is noticeably heavier than the non-IS one. As with nearly all of my equipment purchases, I'll make the upgrade when I find a used IS lens in good condition for a great price. Listed below are all the lenses I've owned and a brief description of them.

Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM (~$1000 USD/ 77mm filter) [BOUGHT USED | WIDE ANGLE]: I never planned on purchasing this lens (or the 16-35mm f/2.8L which replaced it in 2002) because I already had the Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM prime lens. I found a used zoom for a good price, however, so I bought it. This lens is physically longer than the 20mm and also slightly heavier. Contrary to what I had heard I find this lens does an excellent job of controlling pincushion/barrel distortion but still my tests show that the 20mm f/2.8 does slightly better. The lens also comes with a very shallow and very wide (both understandable for these focal lengths) lens shade which I feel is almost useless for blocking stray light. Still, it provides some protection and also works great to keep rain off the front element. The front moves in then back out when zooming from one extreme to the other but does not rotate. This lens has been discontinued and replaced by the 16-35mm f/2.8L (now in second version itself).

Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM (~$420 USD/ 72mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | SOLD]: I bought this lens as a less expensive alternative to the 17-35mm f/2.8L (which I later ended up buying anyway). Of course the trade off for this cost savings was that I had to change composition by repositioning the camera. This lens produces no noticeable barrel or pincushion distortion which is surprising for such a wide angle. One somewhat annoying aspect of the 20mm is that adjusting the focus changes the composition slightly as if performing a minor zoom. Still, I recommend this lens if you need a wide angle and don't want to pay $1000+ for one of the L zooms. Another good alternative is the Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens. It is actually a little less expensive than the 20mm prime but you pay for this in speed (and most likely image quality). I sold my 20mm after purchasing the Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L.

Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L (~$1100 USD/ 72mm filter) [BOUGHT USED | PERSPECTIVE CORRECTION LENS]: I bought this lens for those scenes I find with which I either can't stop down enough to get everything in focus or the movement of the subject makes a faster shutter speed necessary. This Tilt/Shift makes these types of shots possible with the tilt function by changing the plane of focus. It also allow me to make shifts in order to keep subjects like trees and buildings from appearing to lean backwards. In practice, I find I use the shift of this lens all the time but rarely use the tilt. Part of the reason for that is that, as you tilt, the framing changes and it is simply a royal pain in the rear to find the ideal tilt for maximum depth of field while maintaining a good composition. The lens rotates at the back to allow you to quickly change orientation of the tilt or shift between vertical and horizontal and I do this all the time (would be extremely limiting if you were forced into having them in only one axis). From the factory, the tilt and shift are each in a different plane and, although I've heard Canon can easily change this, I'm happy with the lens as-is. From my experience, as you tilt or shift, my camera's built-in meter gets off by as much as three full stops. I'm not sure why this happens since the metering is through the lens but I'm curious to know. I suspect it has something to do with the angle of the light. Regardless, either doing a crazy amount of trial-and-error shooting with film to learn the peculiarities of this exposure shift on this particular lens or shooting digital, checking historgrams, and using manual exposure settings or exposure compensation to fix the exposure error is a must. Also note this lens is manual focus only.

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM (~$1050 USD/ 77mm filter) [BOUGHT USED | STANDARD LENS]: This lens feels very solid in the hand. It used to be my most-used lens but now I mostly use the 17-35mm, 70-200mm and 500mm. The first thing about it that stood out to me is that the lens shade is huge! I store my lens shades backwards on the lenses and, because of this, they tend to get in the way. The size of the shade is a very small inconvenience, however, and I'm more than happy with the lens otherwise. The hood doesn't attach to the front of the lens and instead attaches to the outer barrel. In other words, although the front element moves in and out if you zoom the lens, the lens shade does not move. I find this to be a simple yet ingenious design which prevents the deep lens shade from causing vignetting at the wide angles. This lens has been discontinued and replaced by the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (~$400 USD/ 72mm filter) [BOUGHT USED | SOLD]: I bought this lens for two purposes. First, to serve as my one lens extremely light travel outfit. Second, to give to my wife along with the Rebel 2000 when she was taking pictures. When zooming the lens it gets physically longer toward the 135mm end but the front element does not rotate. The IS feature should also help to produce sharper images in low light and at slower shutter speeds. According to the manual the image in the viewfinder should stabilize after IS starts functioning on the lens. But I never saw a difference in the amount of movement through the viewfinder between when IS was functioning and when it was not. Because of this, I didn't believe in IS technology at all for several years until I bought the 500mm f/4L IS lens. My main reason for buying th 500mm was the f/4 maximum aperture anyway but it finally sold me on the merits of IS. I did a resolution test on all my lenses and the 28-135mm IS gave the poorest results. That shouldn't come as a surprise, however, since the lenses I compared it with were L or primes. After buying this lens I found I would only use it when I forced myself to so it sat in my closet 99.99% of the time. Instead of carrying it I would carry the sharper, faster, but heavier 28-70mm f/2.8L. And that's why I sold the 28-135mm.

Shooting in a misty forest in Germany.

Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III (~$80 USD/ 52mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | GIVEN AWAY]: Although this lens came with the Rebel G kit and is a cheap consumer-grade lens, it really impressed me! It's got a nice zoom range which covers my most-used angles and it will focus from about 7 inches away which makes it decent for close-up shots. Additionally, it's incredibly lightweight and inexpensive. I no longer have this lens because I gave it away with the Rebel G.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (~$330 USD/ 58mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | SOLD]: I bought this lens to use in low light situations since it was a full two stops faster than my other lenses. It was a great lens to take through museums and other places that didn't allow flash usage and enabled me to get sharp hand-held pictures in the dim light of these locations that would have been impossible with my other lenses. Once I started shooting digital, however, I found I would just increase the ISO of my camera to accomplish the same thing and could then keep using my more versatile zoom lenses. So this lens never got used prompting me to eventually sell it. The lens is very short in physical length and well built. The front element moves in and out a bit while focusing, too, but does not turn. It is also a good lens for traveling light because it's sharp, fast, small, and not heavy. An added benefit of the lens is that, with the large maximum aperture, you can get a really shallow depth-of-field when desired.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (~$1200 USD/ 77mm filter) [BOUGHT USED | TELEPHOTO LENS]: This is a good, fast lens covering the most common telephoto focal lengths. It is built extremely well and produces very sharp images (the best of all my lenses, including a few other Ls, tested). Focusing and zooming are accomplished internally meaning the lens size does not change. The front element also does not rotate. Unless I go out specifically to shoot wildlife and carry only my large telephoto lens, this is the lens I rely upon to bring distant subjects in closer. I love using this thing and it will quickly snap into focus even when coupled with the 1.4x TeleConverter. I can't imagine why anyone would want the f/4 version of this lens because the sizes aren't that different and you'd lose auto-focus with the f/4 and 2X TC while you can maintain it with this lens. The only advantage to the f/4 version of this lens, other than the slight weight savings, is that it is less expensive. But that extra stop is more than worth the few hundred dollars of difference in my opinion. I believe Canon plans to phase out the 70-200mm f/2.8L, however, and replace it with the more expensive and heavier IS version. Because of the increased weight I had no intention of upgrading for many years but now that I've been sold on IS from my experience with the 500mm f/4L IS lens I may do so someday. I briefly entertained the idea of buying the 100-400mm IS lens to take with me while traveling instead of this lens but figure I have that lens already with this lens and the 2x TC (actually a 140-400mm f/5.6 but close enough). The only thing missing is the IS technology and that is why I'm considering upgrading my 70-200mm to the IS lens.

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L USM (~$1300 USD/ 72mm filter) [BOUGHT USED | MACRO LENS]: I love macro photography, and this thing allows me to take macro shots of insects without scaring them away by shooting at a safe distance. If you are serious about macro work, have the cash, can handle the weight, and use Canon equipment, this or the MP-E 65mm is the lens to buy. I estimate I can get 2.5:1 magnification on this lens with my 2x TC and 37mm of extension tubes. The lens has a focus limiter and will focus fast at distance when set to 1.5m-infinity. My only complaint (and a minor one at that) is the eight blade diaphragm. I wish it had nine blades or more to get a smoother background blur (what some people call bokeh - I wonder what the origins of that word are). I use this lens for 99% of my macro photography and the 70-200mm for the rest.

Canon EF 300mm f/4L USM (~$800 USD/ 77mm filter) [BOUGHT USED | SOLD]: What surprised me most when I first picked this lens up was how lightweight it is! For a lens of its size, I think it's very manageable. As with all Canon long glass, it has a focus limiter switch which on this lens is adjustable to either 2.5m to infinity or 6m to infinity. This is a good telephoto for people on a budget but Canon has discontinued production and now offers only the IS version. The IS version costs ~$400 USD more and is heavier so I actually prefer this version. Still, I sold this lens because I have a similar 280mm f/4L lens with the combination of the 70-200mm f/2.8L and 1.4X TC and also to help finance my purchase of a 500mm lens.

Canon EF 500mm f/4.5L USM (~$4000+ USD/ 48mm rear filter) [BOUGHT USED | FOR SALE]: This lens, like all fast telephoto lenses out there, is large, heavy, and difficult to carry around. But it is the smallest of the long telephoto lenses and half the weight of the original Canon EF 600mm f/4L. Still, there is no substitute for big lenses like this when you try to get shots of subjects that you can't get physically close to. Because of its size, I only carry this lens when I go out with the sole intention of photographing birds or other wildlife. I have only one complaint about this lens and that is the f/4.5 aperture. You lose autofocus when using this lens with the 1.4x TC and I really wish this lens was half a stop faster. I tried combining this lens with the 1.4x TC a few times when photographing birds and, even though the images appeared sharp in the viewfinder, when I saw them larger I realized the focus was just in front of or back of the eye of the subject making the eye a bit blurry and the image destined for the trash can. Most of the images I made with the 500mm f/4.5L and 1.4x TC combination ended up in the trash because of this. Apparently, Canon also felt that half stop was really important and made the latest version of their 500mm lens with an f/4 aperture. I'm glad they did because it drove me to upgrade! When I don't have a 500mm lens with me, I rely on the 70-200mm f/2.8L coupled with either the 1.4x or 2x TC as my telephoto lens. This lens, as you probably guessed, was discontinued and replaced by the 500mm f/4L IS.

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM (~$5500 USD/ 52mm rear filter) [BOUGHT USED | WILDLIFE LENS]: As I explained in the 500mm f/4.5L lens section, this lens was worth upgrading in my opinion simply because it is half a stop faster with a maximum aperture of f/4 instead of f/4.5. That lets me couple it with the 1.4x TC giving me a 700mm f/5.6 lens with autofocus still available. I use this lens with the 1.4x TC probably 90% of the time I have it mounted. The next improvement is that this lens focuses closer which means you can get greater magnification on subjects which allow you to get close to them. The final improvement is, of course, Image Stabilization. I first tried IS with the 28-135mm lens and was very unimpressed. Because of that, I would have bought this lens even if it didn't have IS but I'm now glad that it does! This lens has turned me around 180 degrees in my opinion of IS. I did some handheld tests when I first received it to compare it with the old lens and set both lenses to Av at f/4.5 (to ensure I was not comparing apples to oranges). The IS simply gave me more sharp pictures than the non-IS lens when using the same aperture and shutter speed. I do actually have one complaint about this lens. It weighs more than the 500mm f/4.5L! Of course, that is a ridiculous complaint because that half stop of additional speed means the front element must be larger to let in more light. Making a smaller or lighter lens of the same materials that was also faster would defy the laws of physics. Why didn't I upgrade to the 600mm f/4L IS instead? Because it weighs considerably more than the 500mm f/4L IS and I don't think that great increase in weight is worth the extra 100mm. Sure, if I was rich, I'd buy both but unfortunately I'm not. The 600mm would be perfect if you didn't have to carry it far but I regularly walk for literally miles with the 500mm mounted on my tripod and my tripod across my shoulders. After just a day or two of that, my back and shoulders get sore. I can't imagine how uncomfortable I'd be trying to pull that off with the 600mm and its extra weight! I actually miss the 500mm f/4.5L lens at times when walking around with the f/4L IS because I can still feel the difference. To give you an idea of the weight differences, the 500mm f/4.5L weighs 3000g, the 500mm f/4L IS weighs 3870g, and the 600mm f/4L IS weighs 5360g.

Quantaray 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (~$200 USD/ 58mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | STOLEN]: I bought this lens right after buying the Rebel G and going to Yellowstone. There were so many animals that I wanted pictures of and the 80mm setting on the included Canon lens just didn't get me close enough. The Quantaray is a nice lens, for being an off-brand name, and I was using it for Macro work too until I bought the Sigma 50mm macro. I no longer have this lens, however, because it was stolen while being shipped from Panama to Portugal.

Sigma 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (~$100 USD/ 55mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | STOLEN]: I bought this lens to replace the Canon 35-80mm lens because I found I couldn't get everything I wanted in the frame at 35mm. I later upgraded from this lens to the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX zoom and the Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM lens for wide angles. This lens was stolen while being shipped from Panama along with the Quantaray.

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX zoom (~$290 USD/ 77mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | SOLD]: This lens is a great alternative to the Canon L equivalent. It's the lens I left on my camera and used most before upgrading to the Canon. I even had to have it cleaned once to remove some fungus from an inner element. The only things I don't like about it are the lack of FTM (Full-Time Manual) focusing and the fact that the front element moves in and out while focusing and zooming (the Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L does this too). I recommend this lens to anyone who wants a quality zoom in this range but can't justify spending $1,000 for the Canon L. It is an excellent value and took some serious abuse from me with only missing paint, a slightly loose zoom ring, and some extra play in the autofocus motor as a result. I no longer have this lens because I sold it after purchasing the Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L.

A common yet unusual (for English-speakers) roadsign in Flam, Norway.

Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro (~$240 USD/ 55mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | SOLD]: This is another great macro lens. If you're interested in macro photography and don't want to break the bank, give this lens a try. Although I now use the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L lens for almost all macro work, this lens is much more portable and considerably less expensive. One fault with this lens is its focal length which forces you to get REAL close to your subject to get 1:1 magnification. I've found that most insects fly away before I can get 1:1 because they don't like having a big, black, shiny object one or two inches away from them! Perhaps a better (and slightly more expensive) alternative would be the 105mm Sigma version of this lens. Neither lens has FTM which really shouldn't matter since 99% of macro photography is done using manual focus. The front element of the 50mm moves in and out while focusing. It is also extremely sharp and I took some great pictures with it. I sold this lens because of lack of use (the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 gave me the same focal length in a faster lens and the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L is a better macro lens).

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX zoom (~$750 USD/ 77mm filter) [BOUGHT NEW | SOLD]: This lens easily competes with the Canon L equivalent lens optically. I do have two minor complaints about it, though (other than the EX finish which I don't like on any lens because it rubs off too easily). First, the lens has no focus limiter switch, so at times it takes longer to achieve focus while it hunts through the entire focal range. The tripod collar's adjustment knob is also on the side of the lens barrel, which increases the bulk the lens takes up in my camera bag considerably. I prefer the design of Canon collars which have the knobs on the bottom next to the tripod mount (Sigma engineers take note). The lens is great, though, and I produced some great pictures with it. It is definitely worth its price. I sold it after buying the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L.