Gear notes for gallery: Champagne

   CAMERAS USED FOR THIS GALLERY   

Canon EOS D60 Digital SLR

Purchasing a digital SLR is not an easy decision. This is mainly because of the price, of course, but a traditional photographer, it also changes a lot of things, especially in post processing. One of the things I like best in digital is the endless experimentation possibilities at no cost. Another is the ability to see and edit pictures on a computer immediately after coming back home without having to wait for the slides to be ready or even to scan them. In this generation of SLRs, digital also means a crop factor. While it is painful with a 20mm, it is really an interesting feature with a tele lens, even at the risk of blurry pictures because of heavy shake. At 480mm EFL (effective focal length), hand holding and getting sharp pictures is not easy. There are two things I do not like about digital in general and in this camera: the ability to burn light areas and the fact that color temperature adjustments never seem to give the proper results. Apart from this, it is really a nice tool.

Canon EOS 10D Digital SLR

The Canon 10D is the successor of the D60. At first look, there are not many differences between them. They share the same sensor and many technical characteristics. But the 10D is in fact quite another camera. It definitely seems to ejoy a better conception and more sturdy construction. The images it produces are rather similar at 100 ISO, but show less noise at 400 ISO and above. Its white balance settings are totally different. It does not underexpose as much as the D60, which makes it a bit trickier to use. The new AF system is on par with the one of the EOS 30 / Elan 7E, except for the eye control. In my opinion, it is perfect, but was adapted to this camera in a hurry and not tested adequately. The result is the series of back or front focus problems some users had. I have to say I was one of these unfortunate users. My camera had to be serviced by Canon twice, for a total of more than 7 weeks. I am still not 100% sure it focuses well at all distances. This purchase and the problems I had afterwards nevertheless learned me something: NEVER buy a digital SLR (or a lens anyway) as soon as it is released! You will pay a lot for it, spend a long time finding it (as resellers will not have enough in stock) and will not be able to read user comments on problems.

   LENSES USED FOR THIS GALLERY   

Sigma 20 f/1.8

I don't remember why I got interested in a 20mm lens. I was probably looking for something significantly wider than 28mm. I then narrowed my choices to a small series of lenses among which the Canon 20mm F/2.8 USM, the Sigma 17-35 F/2.8-4 and this lens. I chose it over both of these lenses because of the price and the closer focusing. I quickly came to love the wide field of view it brings, the clear and sharp images it produces. The close focusing enables striking effects as does the depth of field. What I really do not like on this Sigma is its slow and noisy focusing. I use MF all the time with it. It's a pity Sigma did not make an HSM version, though it is not that important for a wide angle.

Check this lens out on

Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS

I purchased this lens as a replacement for my 28-200 Tamron. I got it secondhand as I felt its "normal" price was a bit exaggerated (I still think it is). This lens is clearly superior to the Tamron, despite having less range. It focusses rather fast and quietly, thanks to USM. The image stabilization is very handy and enabled me to use 100 ISO film, which was sometimes a problem with the Tamron. It is also sharper and less prone to flare. Of course, there are a couple of things I regret. Despite being far cheaper, the Tamron was better built, with metal parts, while the 28-135 is all made of cheap plastic. It also seems to me that it showed less distorsion at 28mm (or I had never noticed it).

Check this lens out on

Canon 70-200 f/4L

This lens is the best of two worlds. It is almost as good as the 70-200 F/2.8L used by pros, but it is half its price and weights 700g instead of 1400. I was greatly pleased by the sharpness of the first photos I made with this lens. It is sharper than my Sigma 4/300 tele, which is surprising as fix-focals are generally better than zooms. The only problem I have with it is its focusing distance. 1.2m is a bit too far for me sometimes. 70cm would have been perfect. The Canon white L lenses are really a different world. If only Canon could make them ALSO in black!

Check this lens on

Sigma 300 f/4 APO Macro

I chose this lens over a Sigma 135-400 and I was glad I made this choice at the time. The 135-400 is said to be very good at 300-400mm, unlike many telezooms, but it is also slower (F/5.6), not HSM and it cannot focus at less than 2 meters. Its characteristics made the Sigma 4/300 APO an obvious choice, but I had trouble finding one as it was already discontinued in Europe. I then found an HSM version for a reduced price. Although Sigma states that HSM lenses have no problem with the EOS 30, I could not use it at any aperture except F/4 at the beginning. I had to have it fixed by Sigma. The other nitpick I would have about this lens is that it loses AF with Sigma's x1.4 TC, which I purchased thinking it would be better and more adapted than the Kenko or Tamron! Anyway, this lens has great optics and its close focusing abilities make it interesting for making close views of small animals (frogs, lizards, grasshoppers)

Canon 17-40 f/4 L

After using my faithful 20mm Sigma lens for some time, I found that it had several little problems that I could not address: - it was not wide enough anymore on a digital SLR - its 82mm filter thread made a polarizer very expensive - it was not a zoom. I love this lens especially because it is quite sharp and has low distorsion, but there are cases where you really cannot "zoom with your feet" and a zoom turns really handy. So when Canon announced the new 17-40 L zoom, I was quite interested. The most difficult step was then to get it. Canon has recurring problems delivering enough lenses of a new model to the market. After a few months of use, I am quite happy of my purchase. This lens is sharp (though less than the fixed 20), USM works like a charm, its construction is great, flare control is excellent. I have finally been able to start using a polarizing filter on an ultra wide and to my suprise it does not vignette with it. I have discovered the joy of having a real all round lens for my digital camera. When I tried it on my film camera, it was a shock. 17mm is really WIDE. The only things I do not like is the curved horizons I get at 17mm (even in digital) and the lack of the nice star effect on lights, probably a side-effect of the speciall glass used by Canon in this lens.

Check this lens out on

Canon 300 f/4 L IS

I purchased this lens to replace my good old Sigma 300mm f/4. My first impressions were good. The Canon L lenses finish is really impressive. It is a tad lighter than the Sigma, but feels a lot lighter as it is better balanced. It handles very well and shooting with it is a real joy. Image quality is good, but I expected the difference with the Sigma to be more visible. The Sigma x1.4 teleconverter works very well with this lens, better than with the Sigma tele itself! IS is both the strength and weakness of this lens. It works very well, enabling me to take photos at 1/125th of a second with my D60. But it is really power hungry and emptied both of my batteries within a few hours! Shooting with the sun in front causes the viewfinder to get very dark and gets you strange highlights in the out of focus areas of a picture. I still have to get used to this!

Check this lens out on

Back to the gallery: Champagne