My Journey - Equipment - Part 2

Those first months


So, I had my first DSLR, and it was absolutely fantastic - little did I know just how addicted to this whole game I was going to get!  I got it with the kit 18-55 lens (non IS - this was before the IS version came out), and I got the non-APO Sigma 70-300 lens too so I had something to get some distance with - I was trying to have the same functionality that I would have had with the S7000 I was coming from.


Part one of this piece can be found by clicking here if you want to start from the beginning.

I remember those first few shots.  Unpacking the box, charging the battery, looking at all the bits and pieces, seeing through the viewfinder to a real image rather than something on an EVF.  And the sound of that slapping mirror - it felt like such a step up!  I don't entirely remember it, but it appears this was the first picture I shot with my 400D:

Sophie, in January 2007, first picture with the 400D

I started in a position not knowing much about how to shoot properly.  I generally used the camera in Av (aperture priority) as I'd got into the habit of using the with the S7000, and I loved the shallower depth of field you got from the larger DSLR sensor.  I shot everything in JPEG (despite having played with RAW on the S7000 - that Fuji was a great camera now I come to think of it!), used auto white balance and shot, shot and shot!

These are a couple of images taken in the first month with the 400D.

50 f1.8

I was really enjoying the shallow DoF (depth of field) that you could get with an SLR, but I quickly saw the limitations of the standard 18-55mm kit lens, with a maximum aperture of f3.5.  Along with that, it wasn't the sharpest of lenses, although I don't think my photography skills were really up to noticing that deficiency.

Research had shown that there was a cheap gem to be had - the 50mm f1.8.  Back in 2007, this cost £60, and in February of that year I bought it.

Looking back through my photos, it seems that I fairly quickly realised that this made a great walk around lens - it was small, light, incredibly sharp from about f2.2 upwards and a nice focal length even on a cropped camera (if this lase statement doesn't make sense to you, I'll explain later in another post, otherwise Google focal length multiplier and you'll find out far more than you ever wanted to know about the limitations and benefits of a cropped sensor compared to a full-frame one!).  I also had a few opportunities to use it for nice shallow DoF pictures, for example:

 

You couldn't do that with a kit lens!

I've been through quite a few lenses since 2007, but I still have this 50mm f1.8.  I keep thinking about upgrading (Canon do 2 upgrades - one is the f1.4 at around £300 currently, and the f1.2 is a whopping £1200!), but I haven't yet.  If you have a Canon DSLR, I can highly recommend it, and if you have a different make of DSLR, then you're bound to be able to get a 50mm f1.8 for a good price (Nikon do a decent one, and Sony and Pentax sell this lens, all at less than or around £100).

My first L lens! (70-200 f4L IS)

For those of you who aren't aware, the Canon L series is the "luxury" series of lenses.  They use exotic materials and top-quality designs and components to produce a professional range of lenses.  Most are weather sealed, some are white (which may or may not be a benefit, depending on how much you like to show off!), and all are expensive!  I think currently the cheapest L lens is the 17-40mm f4, which is around £600.

Anyway, out of the blue, I got a cheque from some American's due to some shares that I didn't even know I had in a company I once worked for (this was still 2007 - September now).  By this time, I had been truly sucked into the world of... I was going to say photography, but to be honest, being a technical guy, I think it was an appreciation for better kit!  So, I had a good look around, and got a really decent price on a telephoto lens to replace my Sigma 70-300.  

I ought to mention the Sigma 70-300, as they do it in several mounts, and I used it for a good 8 months.  Sigma do two "varieties" of the 70-300 (or at least they did) - the 70-300 and the 70-300 APO.  The APO variant uses aspherical optics - this uses glass that is a more complex shape to cut, but controls chromatic abberations better (CA's are spreading of different wavelengths of light which result in artefacts on the image - things you don't want).  The price difference is quite small - back in 2007 the 70-300 non-APO (which I got, 'cause I didn't know better) was £99 in Jessops, and the APO variant was less than £150.  The APO version is well worth a try - it's a decent lens for the money, and if you want to play with telephoto then it's a good way to go.  Don't expect brilliantly sharp images at 300mm, but up to at least 200mm is good value for money.


So, back to the story - my 70-200 f4L IS arrives.  A big, white chunk of glass, plastic and metal.  And boy, is it a revelation!  The IS (Image Stablilisation) is the first thing you notice - the image in the viewfinder stabilises when you half press the shutter (and you get a lovely grinding noise to boot).  I've actually designed systems using the components in an IS lens, and I'm really, really impressed with the operation of the IS.  The next thing you notice is the USM (ultrasonic motor) - focussing is silent and almost immediate.  And once you've taken some pictures, you realise that those extra 100mm that you lose swapping from the lower quality 70-300 to this new lens mean nothing!  The sharpness at 200mm means you can scale up to way beyond the soft images that you got at 300mm with the Sigma.

A little image on the web can't do this lens justice, but at f4 it's still super sharp!

I still have this lens, and it's still considered one of the gems in Canon's lineup - fairly fast, not too expensive (the f2.8 variant is coming on for twice the price), but super sharp.  And it's weather sealed too (unlike the 70-200 f4 non IS lens).


I'm going to leave it there and write some more later...


My Journey - Equipment - Part 3