| Occasionally people ask me what I shoot with - either out of curiosity or want of assurance. On this page I list the pieces of equipment that I own and tell you what I think of them. While I will be the first to admit equipment isn't everything, it is important in allowing me to express my creativity and vision without worrying about the technical limitations of what I'm shooting with. Being strong in math and science, as well as being a mechanical engineer lends me to being very technically aware of both my photography equpment as well as the images that it produces. Many hours of experimentation as well as actual field work has helped me to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of everything I own. Below I distill down this experience into a few basic sentences or paragraphs. If you have any further questions or comments about anything I own, feel free to contact me. I am completely open to questions - technical or otherwise - regarding photography in general and the equipment I own. |
| Current Equipment - Sold Equipment |
| Canon 5D Basically, what we have in this camera is a 30D stuffed with
an absolutely fantastic full frame sensor. What this means
is that you get a mediocre body and autofocus system coupled
with superb image quality. |
| Canon 1D Mark II 6-23-05 - I finally picked up my uber-camera. After extensive use of both the 1D and the 20D, my yearning for the 1D Mark II finally got the best of me. Initially I thought to myself "OK, I'll use the 1D for when I need speed, and the 20D for when I need resolution." Sounds logical, right? Well after a while I become frustrated with the 20D's performance relative to the 1D and I became frustrated with the 1D's image quality (in certain circumstances) relative to the 20D. This brings me to the 1D Mark II - which I consider to be the
perfect digital SLR. Mechanically the 1D and 1D II are very
similar. They are so similar, in fact, that the differences
are hardly worth mentioning. Where the magic begins, though,
is in the electronics. Improvements over the original 1D include:
|
| Canon 10D Infrared This is a really cool camera. While it looks no different than a standard 10D, it captures images using only the infrared spectrum. After a little post processing, it delivers images like the one on the right (click for larger image). This is a very specific tool of a camera and not really for every day use, but it delivers very unique images that cannot be achieved with post processing of normal images.
|
| Sigma 15mm F2.8 fisheye 7-25-08: I traded the Peleng 8mm for this lens. The 8mm was a wild lens, and produced some great images on the 1DII, but I found it to be just a little too wide to be useful on a full frame. After only preliminary shots with this lens, I think I'm going to really like it. Unlike the Peleng, it autofocuses and it is much sharper. This Sigma also focuses very close (closer than the Canon 15/2.8 fisheye) and that is very useful for a fisheye lens.
|
|
After spending a couple months with the 17-40F4 L, I decided to upgrade to the 16-35 F2.8 II. This decision was really based on nothing but aperture. The 16-35II and the 17-40 are equals in sharpness and in general optical performance, but I found that shooting weddings in low ambient light that I just needed the F2.8 aperture. There is also less overlap with this lens and the 24-70 than the 17-40 had. This lens is very sharp at F2.8 in the center. Stopping the lens down increases the sharpness "radius" further and further to the edge of a full frame. By F5.6 I'm completely satisfied with the sharpness of this lens corner to corner on a full frame (barring the strange dropoff at the extreme corner that all Canon FF ultrawides suffer).
|
| Canon 50mm 1.2 L
This is a very unusual lens. Some people love it, some people hate it, but nearly all respect it. Its a very difficult lens to use, but if you get it right the results are very impressive. I have been a fan of 50mm lenses ever since getting into DSLR photography and this lens is the pinnacle of the 50mm mountain. Compared to the 50/1.4, the 50/1.2 L: - Is sharper with better contrast wide open. - Has much less obtrusive chromatic abberation wide open. - Has better bokeh - Has much better build quality and weather sealing - Has similar focusing speed So, judging by those three bullet points, you could guess that the main advantages to the 50L over the 50/1.4 would be very close to wide open. You would be correct. At F1.4 the "L" is significantly better. At F2.0 the L is slightly better - mainly in the area of CA resistance, and from F2.8 and beyond they are identical. Are these improvements worth the additional $1000 in price required for the "L"? Only if you use 50mm at very large apertures *very frequently* and you can appreciate the strengths of the 50L over the 50/1.4. One somewhat peculiar thing I have noticed with this lens is that its image quality is markedly lower near minimum focusing distance than far away. Shooting a subject at minimum focusing distance at F1.2 (which is kind of silly, but people - including myself - have done it) will result in a soft image. However if you are shooting a subject 6-10 feet away at F1.2 will result in a very sharp image if properly focusing. Moral of the story: if you are shooting close subjects, stop down. You will need to do this anyway to get sufficient depth of field. Now, moving away from image quality and talking about usability, this lens is a handful. Focusing on a 5D is a bit hairy, especially with the outer focal points. The 5D's center focus point controls the focus of this lens very accurately. However the outer focus points struggle. Using the outer focus points wide open at F1.2 on the 5D is an exercise in deliberance and paitence. If you are hasty or cant be bothered with such deliberate shooting, then you should either stop down or use the center focus point and recompose (yes, you can do this if subject distance is sufficient). And really, if you stop down much you might as well just get the 50/1.4. Focusing on a 1D Mark II is similar for the center AF point, and much better for the outer AF points. You still have to be very careful with focusing though and at F1.2 its always a good idea to take important shots more than once. Basically I view this as a niche lens for people who really love the 50mm focal length. It is by far the most difficult lens I own and requires practice and skill to use effectively. For the record, I have also used the 85mm F1.2 L II and find its user experience similar.
|
| Canon 24-70
F2.8 This lens was purchased because the Tamron 28-75, while great on a crop camera, was very soft on the left hand side on a full frame. The 24-70L, however, is spectacular on a full frame and so far has been worth every penny. The lens is a bit porky and a little clumsy to handle. Its AF is also a bit twitchy on the 5D, but more sure footed on the 1D Mark II. However the pros outweigh the cons for this lens and I'm very happy with the purchase of this lens.
|
| Canon 135mm F2 L USM I have to admit that owning this lens feels a bit like a guilty pleasure. It is *so* good in every quantifiable way that I find using this lens even when the focal length is less than ideal. First of all, its sharp. I don't mean 50/1.8 sharp, 70-200 F2.8 sharp, or 100/2.8 macro sharp. No, this lens is in an entirely different league - mentioned in the same sentence with the 200/1.8 and the 300/2.8 in regards to sharpness. This is the sharpest lens I have ever put on my camera, including everything that is listed on this page. The 20D, with its very high pixel density and relatively strong AA filter, has a habit of making very good lenses (I'm talking "L" quality, here) look only marginal. This lens, however, pulls amazing sharpness from the 20D, wide open at F2.0. My 300/4 L is a very good lens, but the difference in optical quality at wide open aperture on the 20D between it and the 135L is enough to make you go "wow". Its really that good. Color and contrast are equally as good, giving the clearest, best color of any lens I have used, hands down. Build quality is typical of "L" lenses, which is about as good as one could expect. The lens comes with a fancy suede pouch - which I doubt I'll ever use, but it sure does look cool - and a rather large lens hood. The hood is between 3 and 4 inches deep and is lined with felt on the inside, to prevent any reflection. This lens also has a focus limiter and a wide, grippy manual focus ring. Overall, build quality and functional usage of this lens are top notch. There is nothing that would annoy or get in the way of taking pictures.
I have found little reason to use this lens at any aperture besides F2.0. To my eyes, F2.8 is no sharper on my cameras, and the background blur at F2.0 is addicting. After assessing this lenses performance and output at indoor basketball, I'll probably never use my 70-200 F2.8 for that again. The focal length is ideal and the optical quality simply dwarfs any other lens I own at large aperture. Quite simply, this lens gives me the most beautiful photos of all of any of my lenses. It will see quite a bit.
|
| Canon 300mm F2.8 L USM I finally bought a 300mm F2.8 lens and it has not disappointed. I was laboring over the decision on whether to purchase the Sigma 300/2.8 or the Canon 300/2.8. I was very close to purchasing the Sigma when I found an old, non-IS Canon for a really good price ($1950). The lens itself is fairly beat up, with manual focusing no longer working. Autofocus works great though, and thats all I was planning on using it for anyhow. Focusing is very fast and fairly accurate. Wide open is occasionally exhibits some softness, which I believe is primarily due to slight front focusing behavior. When focus hits just right, its very sharp at any aperture. Image quality is great at F2.8, and it hits its peak at F4.0. Its performance with the 1.4x and 2x TCs is good wide open, and very good one stop down. Essentially the optical performance of this lens is right on par with my old 300mm F4 IS. The big difference, of course, is the extra stop in aperture. Do I miss image stabilization? Not really. Anywhere I go, I have this lens on a monopod. In my experience the extra stop of aperture, combined with the monopod makes up for lack of IS in low light situations. Yes, if you want to show off to your buddies, you can hand hold it for brief periods, but this is not something I would recommend unless you are specifically looking to get a good arm and shoulder workout. This thing is heavy. I'm not ashamed to say this lens has been my most profitable. Its indispensible for sports photography in general, especially in low light. It wasnt cheap, but its been worth every penny and if/when I decide to sell it, it will have held its value very well. I'm glad to finally have this lens.
|
| Canon 1.4x II Teleconverter I finally broke down and bought a *real* 1.4x teleconverter. With the 1.4x, the 300 finally becomes a serious sports lens on the 1D. Without it, the 300 was just a little too short for a lot of field sports. Using this teleconverter on the 135mm F2 has also yielded satisfactory results, though the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 gives very similar results. In regards to optical quality, I have found this teleconverter to be very good. Lens sharpness takes a bit of a hit, but that's to be expected. There is also very slight chromatic aberration in some circumstances, though *far* less than the third party teleconverters I have used before. Before I got this converter, using the 300mm on the 1D and the 70-200 on the 20D was a bit strange. Given the crop factors, the 300 on the 1D isn't that much longer effectively than the 70-200 is on the 20D. Putting the 1.4x on the 300mm lens really makes this lens/camera combination more useful. I now get better, tighter shots with the 300, and I use my 70-200 a lot more at close range than I did before.
|
| Studio Lighting Setup
I finally purchased a nice off camera lighting setup. The setup
currently includes: I have recently upgraded my JTL setup with an Alien Bee setup.
I sold the JTL Mobilight 300 and kept the Versalight 200. The
300 had a lot of fundamental design flaws which just made it
a nightmare to work with. The 200 was, on the other hand, a
decent light, so I kept it for a background light. The Alien
Bee lights are just wonderful. Power is very consistent and
the lights recycle very quickly. The built in optical slave
works great as well. In short they have done everything I have
asked of them and they easily keep up with fast paced shooting.
|
| Canon Speedlite 580ex
I finally broke down and upgraded my flash. The 420 served me well for a long time, but it was really time to move up. It wasnt so much the 420's lack of features that was holding me back, it was the slow recycling time (it really was slow) and the power. When shooting events, the faster the recycle time the better, and that is where the 580ex really delivers. The extra power (almost a full stop I think) is also very welcome. Other features such as manual head zoom and flash exposure on the flash will also come in handy. At $340 second hand, it wasnt cheap, but it was well worth the price.
|
| Compact Flash cards Current flash memory cards are as follows:
|
| Canon SD600 Yes, thats right. I own a point and shoot. I picked up this little gem in January of 2007 just as a fun camera to goof off with when around friends. No, its not something I would ever use on a real job, but its makes a much more practical camera in the off hours. Its absolutely tiny, has a nice polished metal finish, has a big LCD, and takes video. In all honesty, I priimarily go this camera for video. As good as my DSLRs are, that is one thing they absolutely cannot do. The video from this camera at 640x480, 30fps is surprisingly good. I can fit about 15 minutes of that on a 2GB SD card. Whats also good about it taking secure digital memory is that I can swap it out with my 1D Mark II when/if needed.
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
