Photo Equipment Talk

Posted 18 May 2010 - 10:00 PM

Sunday I had a nightmare come true.

I have a fairly new camera backpack. Like 4 months old. I was trading up to a better carrier for my increased collection of camera gear. But I never really liked this backpack. Too complicated and cumbersome. At least for me. Just too many compartments and zippers. My nightmare was walking off with my backpack on and a zipper unzipped and having a lens or two or three and maybe my camera plop out on the floor. Sure enough, I was taking some pictures of a house on West 5th street in Near West Fort Worth. I had my tripod and I was inside this friend's house switching lenses pretty frequently as necessary. Dangerous practice. I did walk off to go home only to find that one of the zippers was not zipped. Out on the street I had a lens just fall right out and fall like 4 feet to the street. The horror. It was my Canon 50 1.2. I had paid $1,300. for this lens exactly a year ago and had a few hundred pictures with it. Thought I was going to cry, but as my Friend was watching and I did not want him to think I sacrificed a lens to take his house pics, I just put it in my trunk and drove home. (after seeing that it really seemed OK, as far as no broken glass etc... ) After I got home I inspected the lens under bright lights. I saw no evidence of the fall. (maybe a tiny scratch.) I put the lens on the camera and started snapping pictures. It worked. It worked perfect. Auto focus and all. Since then I have taken maybe 50 pictures with the lens and it seems 100%. Really just amazing. Just as the lens fell and I picked it up I was wondering if I paid too much for the lens or the right amount. I looked at it this way. If it broke, I was out $1,300. But I am pretty sure a cheaper lens would not take a fall of 4' to concrete. (I speculate) So at this point I am thinking paying a lot for this lens may have paid off. I was lucky that I had four lenses with me. All new L series. And this was the second cheapest. (Only my 17-40 4.0L is cheaper) It could be my lens will stop working tomorrow and I will have to amend this post, but seems like if it seems to be working it is alright.

This is a picture I took with this lens hours before it fell. My fat darling condo cat. Grace. I may take the same pic in the morning and see if the lens is for sure OK.

• Back to top

Posted 18 May 2010 - 11:43 PM

• Back to top

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:30 AM

• Back to top

Posted 19 May 2010 - 07:30 PM

• Back to top

Posted 19 May 2010 - 08:05 PM

• Back to top

Posted 22 May 2010 - 07:06 PM

• Back to top

Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:28 AM

• Back to top

Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:46 PM

• Back to top

Posted 07 February 2012 - 06:44 AM

Something I have been considering for a while. A very big lens. I decided to do it.

I have ordered a Canon 800mm 5.6L IS with Fort Worth Camera. Canon's current biggest and most expensive lens. (Fort Worth Camera has never seen one in person.) I was lucky that Canon USA has one to ship. I am thinking they are pretty rare. For example, there is not one in the Country for sale, used.

Of course it was tough to not buy one on line as the sales tax on one of these is $1,100. (The cost of a good lens) But Fort Worth Camera made me a great deal and I feel like I just paid about 600 bucks more than getting one on line. Plus, as few people realize, getting something on line does not mean you don't pay tax. You are required to file a use tax return to pay the same as sales tax. People seldom do. But sometimes they get caught. I have been caught before. (Buying expensive equipment at work from an out of state dealer.) You get caught usually because the company you buy from gets audited and then they just follow the trails of sales to their state to see who filed use tax returns. So anyway, I am paying a bit more, but supporting a local dealer rather than some New York dealer. And I am legal. And I have purchased everything I have photographic from Fort Worth Camera and they have been good to me. (Remember me breaking my 5D MkII when it was brand new by stuffing a bad CF chip in its socket?)

This new big lens is made with a magnesium alloy that makes the lens very light. Just less than 10 lbs. Actually lighter than their 600mm. It is this lightness and portability, that necessitates Image Stabilization. If you are pretty strong, you can use this lens "hand held." And I plan to.

This bad boy is supposed to come in on Tuesday (A week from today) I paid for the lens by wire transfer to save the dealer like 400 bucks in credit card fees. (To allow a better price)

There are not many toys that get me terribly excited these days, that I don't already have, but this amazing lens is such a toy. Too expensive to be a smart purchase. But I work hard and am quite thrifty. (Buy clothes and shoes only at Target) This is my biggest extravagance ever, I guess. I don't know why big lenses are so expensive. This lens costs more than my two biggest telescopes combined. (Computer guided monsters.) What's up with that?

One thing I did not really consider when I ordered this lens was my new commitment to the Canon brand. (Like as opposed to Nikon) But getting this lens means there is no changing later. It is quite the brand commitment on my part. I am OK with that. I like Canon. Not that Nikon is not as good. Nikon does not have any lenses as big as this one, by the way.

Stand by for some unique photos. (I am guessing many in the PHOTOS OF THE DISTANCE thread.) Don't bother looking in the "Here is my new dishwasher" thread.

Oh ya, one more thing. If you see my wife with me out taking photos, remember this lens cost me 500 bucks...

• Back to top

Posted 07 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

• Back to top

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:54 PM

• Back to top

Posted 07 February 2012 - 08:22 PM

• Back to top

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:59 PM

My big lens came in today. Canon sent it to the store priority FedEx. They usually do not. I was not expecting the lens until next week. Yippee.

I am totally happy with it. But I was too busy at work to go get it so my wife had to get it. It came in a very big box and she had to get a cart at the tower to bring it in. I told her by text, "Don't hurt your back. Or worse, drop my lens."

I was disappointed that I could not go get it. My wife said it really drew a crow in the store. Nobody had seen one. They opened it to look at it. (Remember it comes in a $950. case that is very impressive. (I think you could successfully throw the lens off of a roof in its case. Lens is bigger than I thought by the photos. I think I need another new tripod and head. (Number 4 I think in 4 years.) This time I don't think I can get by with a 300 buck setup. I am going to have to bite the bullet and get a very big one. With a Gimbel head is what the pros say.

It drove me crazy that it was dark before I could get home. But in my cold stocking feet I pulled the beast out on my balcony for a half dozen shots. (Dark and foggy, so nothing too far away.) But here is a shot of the Montgomery Plaza Target that I walk to all the time. A bit more than a mile away. I am VERY happy by what I see so far.

Picture number one. (I could cry)

• Back to top

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:39 AM

One word - WOW!! Kind of creepy though if I imagine it pointed at our windows!

• Back to top

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:18 PM

From my i-phone cam this morning

See. I told you this lens was portable...

• Back to top

Posted 09 February 2012 - 03:32 PM

• Back to top

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:09 PM

• Back to top

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:50 PM

Still horsing around with my new lens. (Too cloudy and foggy for meaningful shots...)




Crop of just Haltom Jewelers Windows on Main Street.


Barnes and Noble

• Back to top

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:02 PM

With that thing, I can see you becoming of interest to Homeland Security. Kidding of course. As always, love your pics. There is no suitable adjective to describe that lens...

• Back to top

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:09 PM

• Back to top

Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:14 AM

Nice clear morning. Day off work. New lens. Life is sweet. (But about froze on my balcony with that 25mph North wind.) I had to bump up my ISO to like 640 just to get me speed fast enough. The building was swaying, my tripod was moving and my big lens was like a sale in the wind. (I have have a mind to weld a mount to my balcony and just forget trying to find a tripod sturdy enough.

This is a Elder Middle School. Used to be North side High School. A historic structure. A total jewel.


First Sun hitting the old Stockyards building.


Looking over Montgomery Plaza to Museum Place Building.

• Back to top

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:39 PM

• Back to top

Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:32 PM

• Back to top

Posted 11 February 2012 - 08:35 PM

• Back to top

Posted 11 February 2012 - 09:52 PM

• Back to top

Posted 11 February 2012 - 10:21 PM

• Back to top

Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:15 AM

• Back to top

Posted 12 February 2012 - 07:57 AM

• Back to top

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:22 PM

My new tripod and head came in today.(To safely use my new 800mm lens.) I am very happy with both. It is Gitzo's best tripod, a carbon fiber 5531s. And of course, the Whimberly II head. An American made beast. The Cadillac of tripod heads. It keeps the whole camera lens combo balanced. And ROCK STEADY. This is my first Carbon Fiber anything. I did not want to trust it. Sounds too much like plastic. But was assured it will last longer and be steadier than aluminum. About $1,600. worth of tripod and head. The cheapest I could really get by with with this new lens. Not only does it need to be very steady for pictures, it needs to securely hold this most expensive lens. (It is like I am holding up a new Ford Fiesta, value wise) But without any insurance. It falls, I cry.
Note there is no center column for the tripod. The best don't have one as it introduces wobble. Everything you see is head.

From my i-phone of course.

• Back to top

Posted 21 February 2012 - 08:25 AM

I assume this rig is registered with NASA?

• Back to top

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:10 PM

When I went out at 4:30AM for my Saturn shot, I took this shot of the tip top of the Fair Building. (My first building shot with this lens. Mostly the lens is too big for shots of buildings in this City. Maybe pointing toward Denton.)

This is a 4 second exposure in a breeze. My new tripod live up to its hype. This is the Terra Cotta top floor.

Not bad from the ground a few blocks away.



And a crop of that. Not bad for total darkness. (City lights only. But not even much of that up 20 floors.)

• Back to top

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:15 PM

• Back to top

Posted 25 February 2012 - 04:19 PM

• Back to top

Posted 26 February 2012 - 03:11 PM

• Back to top

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:07 PM

A shot of University and Jacksborro Hwy. during the Marathon.


And a crop of that intersection. Pretty long way away. Am really happy with my lens.

• Back to top

Posted 04 March 2012 - 05:08 PM

OK, here it is. My 2012 WORLD FAMOUS HILLBILLY Lens test. My wife asked me why I call it a hillbilly test. Here's why. So many variables that the test is not perfect by any means. Example, I was going to do this lens test yesterday afternoon. But I couldn't. Why? It was partly cloudy. I can't test one lens while the sun is hitting my target and then it be in the shade by the time I mount my next lens. So that is one variable. (Lighting and cloud conditions.) Another is wind. As I am on the 28th floor, if the wind is over 5 knots or so, this building sways. Not much, but if you are using an 800mm lens with a long exposure (Say 1/250) an image of the distance, later magnified is going to be blurry. I have learned these lessons the hard way. Many a night, I will get home from work in the dark, pick up my big binoculars and see that Dallas looks crystal clear and take some photos with my biggest lens... only later to see they are just a mess. They look out of focus for example. Problem was that maybe it was a very long exposure, like a second. In a second, if it is windy, my location is varying like a half inch in a second. (Completely guessing at the amount.) So I am asking too much of my gear to take a long exposure from a tripod on the balcony of a skyscraper. I have learned, that I am better to push the shot to 4000 ISO they accept the blur. (But except the graininess of high ISO in the dark, where it is most evident.)

So all that being said, there are many variables. Some I cannot control. So the test is not perfect by any means. But is it useful and telling? You betcha...

Let me start by showing you all my original photos in their native size. It will give you an opportunity to see the difference different focal length lens make. These photos are 100% un-molested. Did not crop, adjust contrast, sharpen or anything else. They were only dumped out of my camera and uploaded to my host server. Most of you know this, but for those that don't, I have a Canon 5D MKII camera. I am testing all my current lenses. I will label the lenses.
My target is the top of the Purina Mills plant on I-35, just East of Downtown. I am thinking about a mile from me.

Canon 17-40mm 4.0L This shot at 17mm.



Canon 17-40mm 4.0L at 40mm



Canon 50mm 1.2L



Canon 70-200mm Zoom 2.8L IS (at 70mm)



Canon 70-200mm Zoom 2.8L IS (at 200mm



Canon 400mm 5.6L



Canon 800mm 5.6L IS



Canon 800mm 5.6L IS With Canon 2X adapter on. (1,600MM)


And here is a crop from each image. (All a different lens) This magnification will really point out the difference in quality
of the long range capture.

The 17-40 at 17


The 17-40 at 40


The 50mm


The 70-200 at 70


The 70-200 at 200


The 400


The 800


The 800 double to 1600


The lenses in the test. I laugh, that I have to use my i-phone to take a shot of gillion dollars worth of photo gear.


Conclusion? Well, it is pretty obvious that bigger lenses capture images far away better than smaller lenses. But I can take away these things. My new 800mm was $15,000.. Though an amazing piece of glass, and worth 15 grand to me, it is definitely not 8 times better than my 400mm even though it cost 8 times more. So unless you are rich, or take long distance shots for a living, Canon's biggest lens is not worth it. But I am thrilled with it and have no regrets. The fun is just beginning for me...
One other little takeaway. Still not sure the 2X doubler is worth 500 bucks. The reason is primarliy that you have to focus manually when it is on. A VERY critical procedure to high quality images. In fact, I am going to start having to hook my camera up to a laptop to focus good enough. I think you can see in my test that the 800 by itself produced a sharper image than the 800 doubled with the 2x. Had I had a better focus, I think it would win.

• Back to top

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:38 PM

• Back to top

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:36 PM

• Back to top

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:56 PM

• Back to top

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:13 PM

• Back to top

Posted 05 March 2012 - 05:45 PM

• Back to top

Posted 05 March 2012 - 05:59 PM

• Back to top

Posted 06 March 2012 - 06:26 AM

Very useful info. Thanks for the work. I agree with you on the cost of the 2X compared to the results. I rented one for a few days and found the same as you, so I bought a non-Canon for about $120 that I thought worked as well. I find I use it so rarely, glad I did that. My absolute favorite go-to lens for vacations is the 28-105L IS. Anytime you want to borrow to give it a try, let me know. My office is near you in the Mallick Tower, 7th floor. In fact, I keep expecting to see a photo of me sleeping at my desk posted here using your new 800mm since my office faces east!!!!!

Thanks Phil. Not sure I knew anybody but Canon made 2X adapters for Canon lenses. I think I will extend my test with more use of the 2X, include mounting it on the 70-200 and the 400. The 70-200 2.8L IS is a pretty good candidate a it would keep its auto focus. No doubt your 28-105 L series lens is a jewel. If I had my lens selections to do over again I sure might have bought it rather than a few of my other lenses. (Like my 17-40 and 50. And even my 70-200 as a 2x on your 28-105 surely eliminates the need for the 70-200.) After reading my photo books early on I was pretty well under the belief that only prime lenses were really great. Wasn't until I got my 70-200 did I realize that a really good zoom (Like a Canon L series lens) could pretty well match a prime.

I did not know you worked in the Mallick Tower. An interesting building. Must have a great view of downtown from there. I bet ya a crisp 5 dollar bill you could not get us on the roof some time... BTW, I sure like the new blue lighting on the crown. Now don't be surprised when I get a shot of you snoozing at your desk there

• Back to top

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:36 PM

• Back to top

Posted 26 May 2012 - 06:59 PM

I bought a Canon Rebel T3 yesterday. For a special idea in my head. (Stand by. Act surprised)

3 Years ago my first digital SLR was a Rebel XSi. This T3 is a bit newer, has a newer processor and video. (Pretty sure my Rebel XSi was the last SLR Canon sold without video capability.) I think my T3 video is limited to 720 lines. That's OK for the most part. In fact, I have started shooting video on my 5D Mark II on a medium setting, like 720. I feel like it loads faster on YOUTUBE and more importantly downloads faster. A 1080P at 30fps takes so long to load up on YOUTUBE that nobody does it. In fact, I don't think most people these days even watch private videos. I have posted some what I thought was great video to see that a month later it has 6 views. (Thanks Dad) Unless of course it is on every major TV station in the World like my Fort Worth Explosions video. BTW I just sold another piece of that video to a major TV network (I think my contract forbids me discussing details at all). Not tons of money. But not pocket change. (Another 1099 for my 1040) BTW, have never deducted any photo expenses or equipment. (Stealing really if I did not really buy them for any kind of business, in my opinion) And not worth increasing my audit chances. I have nothing to hide but surely do not want to have to dig up years of contracts, receipts etc... I could only have a loss for a photo business as I have 30k in cameras and lenses in the last 3 years. (A thousand bucks if my wife is around)

This new T3. Looks and feels like a toy to me after my full frame big camera. It has my very first kit lens. (When I bought my XSi I just got the body) the lens is the 18-55mm with image stabilization. Wow, if that doesn't seem like a carnival trinket. Seems to take good shots, at least from the 10 shots I have taken. I just may line up a Hillbilly Camera comparison. (The 18-55 is an EF-S so will not go on my big camera, but I can use any of my L series big boy lenses on the T3 for a test.) I have thought about how funny my 800mm would look attached to my T3. It would work. Pretty sure the T3 is lighter than the leather lens cap on the lens.

I always kind of laugh when I take pictures of a camera with another camera. meaningful somehow. Like a snake eating a snake or something.

Shot of my new camera on my floor. BTW, is seems really strange having a built in flash again. (Not on my big camera)

• Back to top

Posted 27 May 2012 - 07:57 AM

• Back to top