Canon 70-200mm F4L IS: The original unstablized version of this lens -- which is still available -- is a fine intermediate-range zoom, very sharp at all focal lengths, well-built but moderately light, fairly small, and
easy to handle: great for landscapes, portraits, confiding birds and animals,
and general use. When equipped with a 1.4X Canon teleconverter
and a 25mm extension tube, or the Canon 500D closeup lens, it is a surprisingly good macro lens for flowers, large insects, small mammals, and the like. And it is a bargain at about $560, especially in the rarified world of high-end premium optics.
Aside from the 'bargain' aspect, all of these virtues are still present in the new IS version, but the already excellent optical quality of the original has been improved, weather-sealing has been added, and of course it now has the considerable benefits of stabilization -- at a cost of a modest 50 grams of extra weight but a thoroughly immodest near-doubling of the original price. But I think it's worth it if you want to use the lens without a tripod (initially, I had little interest in updating due to the fine optics in the original version, but some very favorable comments from a couple of friends whose opinions I respect changed my mind).
One minor annoyance is that the filter size is 67 mm, considerably smaller than the 77mm found on many other Canon 'L' zooms. Therefore one needs either an extra set of filters or a step-up ring; I opted for the latter and it works fine. However, it prevents use of the lenshood, which can be a problem when using polarizing filters at their optimal orientation of 90° from the sun (on the other hand, using a polarizer with any deep lenshood is problematic).
To fully realize the potential of either of these 70-200's, get the optional removable tripod mount (the black version used to be cheaper than the white version for some reason, and fits identically) -- but don't forget to turn IS off for really long exposures! I use the 70-200 f4 whenever I don't need the extra reach (or additional weight) of the 100-400. It has rapidly become one of my two favorite landscape lenses, along with the 17-40 zoom.
|
|
Canon 100-400 mm L IS: Optically excellent at the shorter focal lengths (not quite as good as the 70-200), it could be a tad better at 300 - 400 mm when wide open. Stopping down a bit helps, but unsurprisingly it's not as stunningly sharp as the 500/4 IS. In terms of mechanics and handling, it focuses fairly quickly and quietly due to
its internal 'ultrasonic' motor (unlike its 80-400 mm Nikon counterpart, which I owned for a few years) -- good enough to be useful for shots of flying birds or other quick-moving targets. Another plus is that it focuses to under 2 meters. If you want to get closer, you can add the heavy, expensive, but very good 500D close-up lens to get macro shots at magnifications approaching 1:1.
The 100-400 zooms with a push-pull 'slide' action that some find annoying but others (myself included) think is quick and instinctual. When extended to 400 mm, the lens is a little front-heavy but still can be easily hand-held (I occasionally use it for flying birds, and it's very useful for landscapes). I can attest that this lens is very rugged, having dropped mine in a thinly-padded case from my shoulder to the pavement: a heart-stopping moment but the lens survived with nothing more serious than minor cosmetic dings.
|
|
|
Long telephoto
|
Canon 500mm f4 IS: If you can stomach the cost and are willing to deal with the size and weight, this is a fabulous wildlife lens, especially with digital SLRs like the Canon 40D and 1D Mk. II, with their 1.3-1.6X effective focal length multiplier. It's also terrific for lots of other uses (I imagine sports shooters love it), even including landscapes on occasion. I went to Canon's 500 -- and eventually replaced all my Nikon equipment --
because Nikon has been incomprehensibly slow about adding the incredibly useful stabilization technology to
really big lenses (where it counts the most). *Nikon stabilized superteles were announced in late 2007 and should be available in 2008; this is a welcome development for Nikon shooters but long overdue: almost 9 years behind Canon. That delay cost Nikon heavily.
I chose this lens over the Canon 600 f4 IS
for three reasons: about 3 inches shorter, 3 pounds lighter, and a couple of thousand dollars
cheaper. The Canon 500 IS isn't small
(about 4 kg) but it is considerably easier to haul around than a 600/4 or 800/5.6, and focuses fairly close
(to about 4.2 meters -- which could be improved). The autofocus is lightning-quick and nearly silent,
and the IS is a remarkable advance: it allows stable hand-holding (if you're strong) even with a 1.4
X converter, and I've done it in 'emergencies' with a 2X. More routinely, IS helps out with tripods or beanbags.
The Canon 1.4 X and 2X teleconverters work very well with the 500 IS --the 2 X even
supports autofocus with high-end Canon bodies -- and the lens is very solidly
built. The optics are superb in all respects: no distortion, razor-sharp, very little flare, excellent color. With extension tubes and a converter, it even does a credible job as a long-distance semi-macro lens for shy subjects like dragonflies.
A few small gripes: the off-white
finish scratches easily; I use neoprene covers to provide some
bump and scratch protection. The tripod collar and foot are smaller than that on many big telephotos but still sticks out too much for an easy fit in a backpack; I replaced the 'foot' part with a smaller and lighter 4th Generation Designs foot with integral Arca-Swiss mount. Finally, the placement of the focus lock buttons is awkward: too far forward and hard to find when one's eyes are at the camera viewfinder.
With this lens -- or any supertelephoto -- you need an excellent tripod and head to get the best possible images, especially at times when light is low. Stabilization technology is wonderful and very effective, but it has its limits -- and although it sounds trivial, it's often a great relief to be able to put the rig down on firm support and take a breather from carrying it. For several years I used a Gitzo 1325 carbon-fiber tripod, an Arca or Kirk ball head, and a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal mount for quick, easy pointing and tracking. I recently updated the ball head+Sidekick combination with a Wimberley Head II, which is less versatile but about a pound lighter, with a more solid feel and greater vertical swing range.
In good light, it's possible to hand-hold the 500 IS, especially if you can brace it on a firm support like a car window, rock, tree, fencepost, etc. For images of flying birds, 'pure' hand-holding is possible at high shutter speeds, and is often the best solution -- even a gimbal tripod head has limits in how readily it can be panned or how well it can point upwards, so for targets high in the sky, hand-holding may be the only option.
|
|
|
Macro lenses
|
 Canon 100 mm f2.8 L USM: I use this lens with both film and digital Canon bodies and (occasionally) the 1.4X converter. To mount the Canon 1.4X or 2X you have to insert an extension tube between lens and converter; a 12 mm tube works fine, although effective autofocus is lost. Compared to a regular 90-105 mm lens, it's a little bulky, especially with the optional (but sometimes useful) tripod mount. Nevertheless it is fairly easy to manuver and has a small enough filter size to attach a ring flash for even lighting. If you don't use the (optional) large lenshood, the on-camera flash of many DSLRs (like the 30D) provides good lighting up to 1:1 reproduction. It's
an excellent lens optically,
gets to a 1:1 reproduction ratio without any extra extension, and is beautifully made. It's light for a macro lens, and although many people wonder how useful autofocus is for macro work, at times it's very helpful: just try following a walking beetle or bee and maintaining focus manually and you'll come to appreciate macro AF.
Highly recommended for routine macro work, although it's a little short for flighty subjects like lizards and many insects.
|
|
|
 Tamron 180 mm f3.5 macro lens: Having a fondness for macro images of wary subjects, I've been thinking about a 'long' macro lens for some time and finally decided to get the Tamron 180. It is smaller, lighter, and much less expensive than the Canon 180; a few reviews suggest it is a bit sharper than the Canon 180 at both macro and 'regular' distances.
Two negative aspects of the Tamron are worth noting. First, it's not a USM lens, which means you have to declutch the autofocus motor to manually focus. As such mechanisms go, the Tamron system is simple: you push and pull on the focus ring to click between manual and autofocus positions -- but it's a bit stiff and the operation is a bit frustrating for someone used to the no-fuss full-time manual focus of a Canon USM lens. The second annoying 'feature' is the 'filter effect control' that lets you rotate an attached filter even with the (large) lenshood attached. I've no idea if this works for filters, but it's aggravating to attach a ringflash or other macro flash and have it spin around the lens axis. A lock button or switch would fix this problem neatly (I fixed it rather inelegantly with some electrical tape). A minor glitch: the tripod mount is a bit longer than necessary, adding needless bulk.
Those warts aside, Tamron is
an excellent lens optically,
gets to a 1:1 reproduction ratio without any extra extension, and is quite well made. It's light for a long macro lens, and although the MF/AF transition is clumsy compared to a USM lens, manual focus is smooth and autofocus -- while slow and noisy -- is accurate.
|
|
|
 Canon MP-E 65 (65 mm f2.8 manual focus macro): This is a very specialized and challenging lens. It does not work at all for 'normal' photography -- it's minimum magnification is 1:1 -- but it is by far the best option for photographing small objects out to 5X magnification. With a 30D or 1DII camera, a subject a few mm long will fill the frame. The lens looks fairly compact in the 1:1 setting, but it hugely extends as you go from 1:1 to 5:1. It also shifts from an OK viewfinder image to a very dim one (and remember, it's manual focus...). Depth of field is miniscule and due to diffraction effects at small apertures, you can't do much about it (because of the long extension to reach 5:1, the maximum aperture drops to f16 or so). The working distance between the front of the lens and the subject is roughly an inch (2.5 cm) at high magnifications, making it almost vital to use a dedicated macro-flash unit.
I don't own the MP-E 65 but I regularly borrow one from a colleague and have made some pleasing images of jumping spiders, flowers, and other tiny targets. A great lens for its intended purpose, but it's defnitely not for everyone.
 |
|
|
Wideangle zooms, a 'standard' zoom, and a 'normal lens'
|
 Canon 17-40 mm f4L: A smooth-handling and well-balanced lens that accepts front filters like polarizers, graduated neutral density filters, etc. -- which are crucial for many landscape images. It's very sharp, particularly at the short end of its zoom range, and gives photos with excellent, rich color and surprisingly little flare (the huge, petal-shaped hood should be used routinely). Like many wide-angle
zooms, the 17-40 has some barrel distortion at the wide end and a reputation for slight softness in the extreme corners when used on full-frame digital cameras (I've never seen any evidence of this on a 1.3X DSLR or on film).
Nevertheless, my copy is a superb optic, fairly compact and
beautifully built, and with quiet, fast USM focus. Like many 'L' lenses, it is quite water- and dust-resistant as long as it has a filter mounted, with a rubber gasket sealing the junction with the camera body.
Overall, it's a gem, but I wish it went to 15 mm or less, especially
on digital bodies with substantial crop factors like the 30D (it's much better on the 1D Mk. II, equivalent to about 22 mm on 35mm film). The lens described below addresses that issue.
 |
|
|
 Sigma 12-24 EX HSM: This unique lens satisfies my desire for a wider view than afforded by the Canon 17-40 on sub-frame digital SLRs. On a 1.3X DSLR like the 1D Mk II, it provides the field of view of a 15.5 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera -- quite impressive. Even with a 1.5X or 1.6X camera (like most Canon and all Nikon DSLRs), the FOV is that of a 18-19 mm wideangle on a film camera. What's more, you can use it on a full-frame DSLR or film camera (but optical quality in the extreme corners might be a bit 'iffy'). It's a remarkable example of the state-of-the-art in lens design.
Optically, it is quite sharp across most of the zoom range, with a bit of corner softness sometimes detectable at 24 mm (note that this is on a 1.3X 'crop factor' DSLR). There's very little light fall-off in the corners in most situations, although as expected, both sharpness and evenness of illumination are improved by stopping down to f8 or f11.
Rectilinear coverage at 12 mm is unprecedented for a 35mm SLR lens and the sweeping view is astounding when mounted on a full-frame camera. Even more remarkably, it has very little barrel/pincushion distortion -- considerably less than the 17-40 despite much wider coverage (and slightly lower price). I'm a little dubious of how well it will work on a full-frame DSLR: I briefly tried mine on a Canon 5D and wasn't impressed with the corner results -- others have reported similar issues.
The penalties for such wide coverage are two: first, front-filters are essentially impossible, due to a fixed lenshood, a bulging front element, and the exceedingly wide view angle. This can be a problem for landscapes, where graduated neutral-density filters are often employed. Second, it's by no means a fast lens, with maximum aperture varying from f4.5 to f5.6 (and as mentioned above, it's best to stop down to f8 or f11 for best results).
Construction quality, while not up to top-of-the-line Canon 'L' or Nikon AF-S standards, is quite good and reassuringly solid. Handling is also good: the 12-24 focuses smoothly and silently with its HSM motor, and manual focus is always available, with no fiddling with mechanical switches. One caveat for potential users: there is apparently quite a bit of sample variation in this lens, so if you buy one, test it immediately to make sure your copy is a good one.
| |
|
Canon 24-105 mm f4L IS: After many years of using the Sigma 28-70/2.8, I recently upgraded to this lens. It's clearly sharper than the Sigma and has a more pleasing color rendition (to me, at least). Although slower optically than the Sigma, it focuses much faster and more quietly and has the benefit of stabilization -- not to mention a wider zoom range at both end. After using it for a year, I'm quite happy with the optical quality -- it's a very sharp lens with little flare and excellent color. Some barrel distortion is apparent at the short end of the zoom range, and there is a little light falloff at the widest apertures (again mainly at short focal lengths). Both are rarely problems for nature photography, and both can be handled easily in Photoshop. Other nitpicks: I wish the lens did not extend quite so much when zoomed to 105 mm, and it seems a bit bulky and heavy for what it does. The weight probably reflects the construction quality, which is superb (far better than the lens it replaced). Happily, the 24-105 has the same filter size (77mm) as two of my other well-used landscape lenses, the 17-40 and 100-400 Canon zooms.
|
|
|
Canon 50 mm f1.8 II: Although I don't often use a ~ 50 mm focal length, I bought this lens because it is tiny, very inexpensive but has a strong reputation nonetheless, and is more than twice as fast as any other lens I've got. One reason for low cost is low build quality: the entire lens barrel -- including the bayonet mount-- is plastic, and the autofocus motor is noisy and slow. One would not want to give this thing any rough treatment, but an advantage of plastic construction is very light weight: it seems lighter than one of my 25mm extension tubes, which have no glass! Optically, my copy has lived up to its reputation as a bargain-priced sharp, high-contrast performer.
|
|
|
|
Western screech owl 