Saturday, December 29, 2007

And the capstone

this year in lenses

I'm not going to lie... I did the border treatment because I screwed up and didn't level the image in the viewfinder while I was taking this picture. Whatever.

This is the 156th three-a-week image, which means I successfully completed my goal from January 2. That time has seen me acquire these three lenses, the 25mm extension tube (not pictured or involved in this picture), and the off-camera flash cabling I needed to do the light this way. I took 5464 pictures between the first and last in this series. Not all of the pictures I've labeled three-a-week were technical masterpieces; most of them were little more than snapshots of things I found amusing. The important thing is that I ended up using my camera during the year, especially at times I might not have thought to otherwise.

I have yet to select a goal for next year, but I doubt it will be as formal as this year's resolution. I also doubt I'll need the formality - I seem to have gotten into a habit of taking more pictures regardless of my intent to post them online, and I actually haven't had a picture printed in quite some time. Maybe that should be a goal as well, regardless of what I set up for myself as far as tripping the shutter.

My walls are pretty barren, after all.

I guess, though, that's half the draw to working with digital anyway; I'm no longer bound by the delay, so I choose not to incorporate it at all. I do miss the experience, though, and I'm really looking forward to popping the 43 onto my MX and killing a couple rolls of black and white or color slide film with that.

23 comments:

  1. Nat,

    Congrats on reaching your goals, and the new gear. The results should be interesting.

    I'm considering a few little projects for the new year, although none will extend beyond May, because I'll have to get cracking on studying for the bar and whatnot. I know I have some hiking I want to get in in January and February, and I'm going to do some spring wildflowers this year, too. Somehow it didn't occur to me to head up to Sipsey or GSMNP last spring, even though I already had the 100/2.8 USM Macro then. I'll need to pick up a small tripod for macro work for that, but otherwise I'm pretty set. The off-brand off-camera flash seems to work just fine. I may consider a different flash later in the year, but for right now the 380EX should be fine for macro that requires a flash. I'd also like to get in a few sunrises and sunsets this year.

    I'm also going to try and use the pacemaker as much as possible this year. It hasn't gotten nearly as much use as it deserves, especially considering how please I was with my sunny/16 experiments.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really think the 43 will be something of an inspiration by itself; I bet it'll see a lot of time on the body without me needing to think about it.

    That aside, I'm thinking about ... well, 10-17, 16-45, 24, 28, 43, 50/1.7, 50/4, 50-200, and 135... so I guess I could try to use each lens for its unique character at least once a month. That might prove to be interesting enough to finish. I don't know, a lot of work.

    Depending on how much your camera and the 100 macro weigh together and how much you're willing to spend on a "small" tripod, you might consider the modo mini; the legs can go almost all the way flat and the centerpost is both shortenable and invertible, and the overall size is downright tiny; the modo maxi, like what I got, goes to eye level for me, but folded up, it's smaller than my old sunpak tripod. All of the above hold one kilo of mass steady, so it's not for "serious" work. I'd have trouble summoning more than 2.2 pounds, though. It'd take a 300mm lens, I bet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nat,

    Together my XT and 100/2.8 USM Macro weigh around 2.5 pounds. I'm actually considering a tiny tabletop tripod for the combo. My current tripod works fine for anything above knee level. I need something for laying down in dirt, and similar positionings.

    I'm starting to take a look at what locations in Alabama I really want to get to this spring before I leave the state. As I've said, I really want to get in some waterfall and wildflower work in Sipsey. I'd also like to do some birding, even if I can't take fill-the-frame photographs, if I can manage it. There are two clusters of Bald Eagles in Alabama that I still haven't looked for.

    I'm hoping I'll be in the state for one more Cahaba Lily season, as I wasn't satisfied with the results this year.

    I'm also planning to hit GSMNP at least once, maybe for the Dogwoods in late April.

    I think my project for this year is just going to be to get out and shoot more, because this year has been pretty slim, but not as bad as last year.

    Happy New Year!

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nat,

    BTW, I was surprised to discover a 300mm Pentax lens on Keh.com for a fairly reasonable price. Then again, a 300 manual focus lens might be a pita.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  5. You might be a fan, then, of a ball-head version of the slik mini tripod I got. Don't ask ritz about them, they want something like 70 bucks for it, but you should be able to get one for less than 30 dollars online. The main benefit over the stupid compact tripods (aside from the additional weight carrying capacity) is that they have a suction cup on the centerpost; that means you can glue it to the roof of your car if you want to try to do bird shots while on a drive.

    Yeah, not one but two 300s... I think I'm going to wait for the DA 300/4, though. $199 is hard to pass up, and the other bargain lens I have from KEH isn't that bad (save for sand in the focus helicoid), but for the weight and size, I might as well at least give the modern lens a chance before going the MF route.

    You might be surprised, but I try to do most of my bird pictures manual focus anyway. I know we've been over the focus "difficulties" for the *ist DL before, but aside from that, it's easier to get a good frame on a songbird with manual focus than it is to trust autofocus to do it right and then reframe (or, if I had an 11 point sensor, select the right focus point and refocus). It's not like I've done much bird work recently anyway, but the Cooper's hawk in the back yard I shot with my 135, which is manual focus. For a bird that's just sitting there, that's easy enough.

    For shots like at a bird feeder, I'd prefocus and work from there anyway. Actually, it'll be easier to do that sort of thing now that I (theoretically) have a cable release on the way. Just need to get a suet brick for the back porch and then I'll be in junco shooting heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nat,

    I'll say it again, your AF must be awful. I almost never use manual focus for anything other than macro. Then again, my viewfinder is so small that manual focus is basically pointless anyway.

    Btw, I was under the impression that the DA 300/4 was coming out in September 2007. What happened? I'm also confused to read that it won't have USM/HSM/SDM/whatever on bodies other than the K10D. You have any idea what that thing might cost?

    I took a look at Pentax's lens roadmap, and I suppose the thing would bug me the most were I a Pentax shooter is that they don't have anything planned above 300mm. They have the wider to normal lengths covered fairly well, and they have several lenses that reach around 200mm, but nothing really long. I'm also confused by the 30mm/2.8 macro. A wide macro? The bokeh on that, even on a 1.5x crop, isn't going to be that wonderful, with the wide field of view.

    I am really impressed that they decided to release this information. I'd love to know what Canon's plans for the future are with regards to lenses. I have a few that I'd love to see. I wish they make an 18mm prime, a non-L 180 macro, a new 100-300 L lens, a 500/5.6, and update all the current primes above the 50/1.8 to have ring-type USM. I am glad to see they are introducing an 800/5.6, but I'll never see one... By the way, the current full Canon lens chart is almost pointlessly large...
    http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf

    See if you can find the peanut suet brick. Everything loved it.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow, 827 words, eh?

    Quite the rant, I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nat,

    I didn't realize they were making lenses in Vietnam. That makes me glad they are taking their time on releasing the primes. It is one thing to release a zoom with QC problems, but releasing a prime lens with QC problems would be the kiss of death for Pentax. I'm glad to see Pentax is taking photography seriously. With Nikon taking potshots at Canon again, finally, and Pentax supporting years of legacy shooters, Canon might finally start revamping their lens line-up. Some of the lenses in the EOS system (15 fisheye, 24/28/35 non-Ls, 135 softfocus, and the 50 compact macro) are getting to be 15-20 years old, and still on the market. Those primes REALLY need an update. I'd also like to see some movement, mentioned above, on bringing out a cheaper 500-600mm lens. $5000 for a 500/4 IS USM is way more than most can afford. With the 400/5.6 USM at around $1000, I see little reason why Canon couldn't come out with a 500/5.6 USM with or without IS for under $2000. THAT would sell camera bodies. I also don't really see why they have a 400/2.8, and a 400/5.6, but no compromise 400/4. I actually expect to see Canon decide not to refresh the 400/5.6 with IS in lieu of a more expensive 400/4 with IS.

    If I were a Pentax shooter, my biggest concern right now would be the long-term survival of the brand. Pentax seems to have a plan, and seems to be implementing it well, but the dSLR market is much more fickle than the SLR market was, and any serious delays will cost them customers. The good news is that they seem to be updating the bodies fairly quickly, so the obsolecence-trolls won't hurt sales too much. Sheesh, if you read Photo.net or DPReview right now you'd think the 5D was ANCIENT. People annoy me.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nat,

    Talk about stupidity, this has been starting flamewars already today...

    http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811

    I don't see why. Nikon and Canon shooters often have thousands invested in lenses, they don't switch often.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  10. Okay, I made it about halfway through page 2... I can't read the crafted-as-though-he's-8-years-old gloating.

    Does anyone on "the Internet" actually take pictures?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nat,

    Well, I should clarify about the 35/2.8 Macro concerns... It will probably have decent bokeh for normal use. For traditional macro lens uses, like isolating flowers in a field, the short focal length will allow for very little blur in the background. Even on a 1.6 crop, a 100 macro cannot totally blur every background into a pretty color mush. That's not a bokeh issue, but a FOV issue. Besides the working distance, that's why I don't understand a 35 macro.

    As for the P&S being taped up, yup. That's how I see them, and that's how mine is.

    I'm getting tired of the arms race that is starting in the dSLR market. I partially blame Canon, but I also blame the upsurge in competition, and mostly idiot consumers. Canon has decided to fight the battle partially because of increased competition, and partially because they are allowing themselves to get caught up in the coming megapixel war. Personally, I'm happy with 8mp, and I won't buy a camera based solely on a megapixel increase. So far it isn't hurting anything, but they better not let marketing crap all over dSLRs like they did with dP&Ss.

    No, nobody takes pictures anymore. I'm so annoyed that when I get my 100-300 5.6L exchange, I'm going to post a "review" just to see how many people call me an idiot for getting such an outmoded lens.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ooh, I should review my 24 and 135, as well as the 16-45 at 16 (its weakest focal length).

    People like the K and A 24, and for good reason, but the 135 is generally mocked, and the 16-45 gets nothing but complaints about its distortion and chromatic aberration at its wider focal lengths. Funny thing is, I like using all three lenses the way they're made.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nat,

    What could possibly be wrong with a 135mm prime? Normal, Macro, Short Portrait, and Long Portrait prime lenses are typically the best lenses a manufacturer makes.

    The 100-300 5.6L is still respected for image quality, but it takes a lot of flack for the 1987 design. That could partially be because many people bought them new just a few years ago, when USM was getting to be pretty widespread.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, here, I shot a target and merged some stuff.

    In short, nothing is wrong with it. It actually works out to be better than the DA lens, I think.

    But that doesn't address the rendering or extra speed... or the smaller size.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nat,

    Guess what is in stock at B&H's used department...

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800557508-USE/Canon__Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nat,

    Are those 300/4.5's that Keh.com has for sale Auto-Focus?

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wait, really? $99,000?

    Oh, I see. When the wiki entry talks about Sports Illustrated owning two and a billionaire owning one, then goes on to use the term "as a discussion piece..."

    Both of the 300s on KEH are the old K series lenses, manual focus bricks. The K 300/4 is actually appreciably bulkier than the M 300/4, although the M was the first star quality lens.

    I would never expect to be able to get an AF 300 lens for 200 bucks, bargain condition or not.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nat,

    Nobody is really sure how many 1200/5.6L's were made by Canon, mostly because they were special order lenses, so only Canon and the purchaser knew about the sale. Report suggest there aren't more than a MAXIMUM of a few dozen of them, probably fewer.

    For a 1200/5.6 with USM focusing, it isn't a half-bad deal for a major news or sports outfit for MAJOR events. An individual would probably need to be crazy to buy one, even if they could afford one. It wouldn't be useful for bird photography, due to the szie and weight, and is pretty much a stationary lens.

    Yeah, I wasn't sure what was going on with the Pentax lenses. I can't really decipher Pentax's lens system designations. It is actually more confusing than Sigma's designations... Then again, it isn't as confusing as their lens mount designations.

    I understand your decision to wait if they are not autofocus. I couldn't live with a 300mm manual focus lens.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nat,

    I don't know if you get the Birds as Art e-mails, so I'll make sure you know that the folks behind BAA have started a discussion and critique forum.

    http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/index.php

    Seems even more dominated by professionals and serious amateurs than Photo.net. Also much more image driven.

    - Josh

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was in Green Bay, watching the Packers game, freezing, then driving roughly 900 miles or so to get home.

    as for all this glass discussion, this is kinda funny - I just gave up a Nikon 85/1.4 AIS, the absolute annihilator of DOF and background as we know it, to buy a very manual camera with a 50/2.0

    that said, tho the 85 was wicked, (and a friend now owns it, so I can borrow as needed) the first roll out of the 'new' toy was quite the reality check.... it'll take some getting used to. there were a bunch of crap frames, to be sure, but the 'keepers' are better than I could have hoped for

    camera = Leica IIIf black dial
    lens = Leica Summitar 50mm/f2.0

    basically, I bought it as the cheapest good way to use some really old glass for the look of it, and damn, it's REALLY cool. camera is a bitch with glasses, but such is life. I was the only guy with a film camera for a family wedding and related events, all evening, and the only guy there without a flash. there will be comparisons later, but I'm pretty sure I've got the most frame-on-the-wall worthy shots of the bunch.

    film for the Leica was Kodak C-42 black and white, just to get it done ASAP/locally - I can't wait til I have time later this week to develop the Hexar and f3p shots on cracked-out film to compare

    in the meantime..... it seems my ancient imac mail server finally bit the dust, so time to replace it today/tomorrow. a couple days off the air for the domains will be good for losing some junk mailers even I bet

    oh yeah - happy new year and such!

    -GMT

    ReplyDelete
  21. c-41, not c-42, but you guys knew that, and that my typing generally sucks

    -GMT

    ReplyDelete
  22. Remember, 50/2 is still "less" than a 43/1.9.

    I think it'd be fun to get my hands on an old A* 135/1.8 for a day. Weighed three tons and they were expensive to begin with and only got worse with age, but apparently they rendered beautifully.

    For me, my "grand experiment" will be the pairing of the 43 with my MX. I'd be doing the lens a disservice if I didn't use it on its native format. I'm kind of surprised they haven't bothered to do a 28 limited to match APS-C, but then again, everyone already has a 28mm lens. Anyway, I need to pick up some fresh film. Everything I've got with me now is over a year old, might as well see the results on newer film, too.

    I wonder how long it'll be until the old sawtooth G4 dies... someday.

    ReplyDelete
  23. honestly, it's the glass that matters, as long as the body allows you to focus and compose, and exposes fairly close to set. i'd like something like a new Zeiss Ikon to mount said lens on, but they're real $$. the IIIf and lens cost me less than what a 43/1.9 in L39 mount would, without a camera to use it with! that said, tis nice glass.

    some of the old glass is just... neat in the way it renders. not as true as modern corrected optics, but i already have those - and will probably add some for the old Leica, like the previously mentioned 15/4.5

    but now I'm back to too many cameras, dammit

    as for the G4, yes, it will die, but not as dramatically as an older imac, trust me. i'll be toying with the remains later, as well as building a new mail server - still haven't chosen between centos and openbsd

    -GMT

    ReplyDelete