Archive for January, 2007 bowling party threw a party for it’s 4th anniversary party tonight. We split into 3 teams of five players. A few of us was ofcourse busy taking photos between the rounds (after all it’s a photo site anniversary). I wont bore you with text this time (besides that a bunch of people are waiting for the photos to be posted), let’s get straight to the photos.

The only gal at the party

He really likes me:)

Again the only girl at the party, this time a bit more naughty:P

Doin’ his thang

And another got in front of him

Finally someone took a photo of me:)

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM vs Canon 50 1.8 side to side comparison

As I promised in the previous post, I’m going to post the comparison. As you can see 17-55 is sharper in most cases, especially when you take a look at the second set of comparison samples. There’s a huge difference in the sharpness in the center. In the 1st set of samples 17-55 is a bit sharper in the third, where IS was turned on, 17-55 is sharper at f2.8 (center and border), but 50 1.8 is sharper at f5.6 (again center and border).

17-55 is always on the left side of the comparison photos. IS was turned off unless noticed otherwise.

Taken with 17-55 2.8, vignetting is visible

F2,8, 1/2000, 50 MM, ISO 100

F4, 1/1000, 50 MM, ISO 100

F5,6, 1/500, 50 MM, ISO 100

F8, 1/250, 50 MM, ISO 100

F2,8, 1/125, 50 MM, ISO 100

F4, 1/250, 50 MM, ISO 100

F5,6, 1/500, 50 MM, ISO 100

F8, 1/1000, 50 MM, ISO 100

IS turned on. I didn’t have enough time to do a more detailed test on IS affect on sharpness (I had this lens for a week). But it seems it doesn’t soften the image, if it does, the difference is minimal.

F2,8, 1/3200, 50 MM, ISO 100

F5,6, 1/800, 50 MM, ISO 100

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Canon introduced this lens on PMA 2006 and from then on, Canon APS-C sized camera users con choose one more standard zoom lens. Last year has been full of introductions of standard zoom lenses. Besides this one, Tamron introduced 17-50 2.8, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 Macro (I’ve posted a review of this one in December) and 18-50 2.8 and Tokina 16-50 2.8 which is not on the shelves yet. But Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM has at least two advantages already on paper. Image stabilisation and USM (ultra silent motor), which ensures very fast and near silent focusing and has a manual focus override. I don’t know how it compares regarding image quality, but I seriously doubt any of the 3rd party lenses can really compete with it – but ofcourse I’m not saying this as a fact, because I haven’t compared them side to side, I’ve really only tested Sigma 17-70 which really can’t compare with the Canon’s although it’s a fine lens (but a completely different class anyway). Image quality (of 17-55) not only amazed me, but shocked me! After the first day of testing I got home and started viewing the photos that I took and I couldn’t believe a standard zoom lens could be so sharp. It was damn sharp! Sharp across the aperture range (f2.8-8) I really couldn’t tell the difference between f2.8 and f8 in the center (throughout the zoom range). And that is great, finally a zoom lens that is sharp wide open. On the borders the difference between f2.8 and f8 is visible, but after all it’s a reduced image circle sized lens, made for APS-C only. so border to border sharpness at wide open aperture setting can’t be expected. I think this lens is visibly sharper then its bigger EF WA brothers 16-35 2.8L and 17-40 f4L. Especially wide open, there’s a big difference. I think it’s a bit sharper then 24-70 2.8, but I should really compare them side by side to be sure of that. But I did compare it with 50 1.8 (which is a sharp lens in the f2.8-8 range). You’ll be able to read more about that comparison in one of the next posts – there are just too many photos to post them all at once. One more thing that I noticed: sharpness is not that good at close distances (portraits etc). You’ll be able to check that on your own from the samples I posted below.
Vignetting is visible at f2.8 (photos of the sky etc), otherwise it’s well controlled. Bokeh is also good (for this focal range and aperture size) as well as contrast and colours.
As I mentioned before it has a very fast and almost silent USM drive (ring type), including full-time manual focusing (FTM). Front element does not rotate during focusing (it has internal focusing), so polarising filter can be used easily. Filter size is 77 mm.
By using IS you can gain 3 f stops (at cost of slower shutter speeds) it works for static objects. I managed to gain 4 stops, but this is very relative since it depends on many factors – the way you hold the camera, if you have shaky hands it doesn’t help and at the end the proper breathing technique can help you achieve slower shutter speed (greater f stop gain). It has no 2nd mode for panning. There’s no need for shutting down IS when the camera is on a tripod (it detects the lack of motion).

Built quality is good, but for the price you pay it could be better. Since it’s not an L class lens it doesn’t have magnesium alloy body and it’s not protected against dust and humidity. It doesn’t even come with a hood lens. I really think Canon do better for the price you pay.

Here are the samples, all the images are taken with Canon 350D, except for the last one, which is taken with 400D. The next post that is going to be posted by the end of this week (17-55 vs 50 1.8) all the images were captured with Canon 400D. IS was turned off, unless written otherwise.

Please view LARGER, otherwise images look a bit soft.

17 mm, f2.8-8, center and border crops

f2.8, 1/1000, 17 mm, ISO 100

f4, 1/500, 17 mm, ISO 100

f5.6, 1/250, 17 mm, ISO 100

f8, 1/125, 17 mm, ISO 100

28 mm, f2.8-8, center and border crops

f2.8, 1/100, 28 mm, ISO 100

f4, 1/500, 28 mm, ISO 100

f5.6, 1/320, 28 mm, ISO 100

f8, 1/160, 28 mm, ISO 100

55 mm, f2.8-8, center and border crops

f2.8, 1/1000, 55 mm, ISO 100

f4, 1/640, 55 mm, ISO 100

f5.6, 1/320, 55 mm, ISO 100

f8, 1/125, 55 mm, ISO 100

IS test: f11, 1/8, 55 mm, ISO 100

Bokeh: f2.8, 1/800, 55 mm,ISO 100

Below are a few portraits, you can check the shaprness on the crops. It’s not as good as on longer distances, but still adequate. You can check bokeh on this shots as well.

f2.8, 1/200, 52 mm,ISO 100, IS on

f2.8, 1/200, 52 mm,ISO 100, IS on

f2.8, 1/60, 51 mm, ISO 200, IS on, flash bounced of the ceiling

f3.5, 1/200, 53 mm, ISO 200, IS on

f2.8, 1/60, 55 mm, ISO 800, IS on, postprocessed

-sharpness throughout the focal and aperture range
-very fast and almost silent AF
-IS performance

-built quality could be better regarding the high price tag
-vignetting at f2.8

Pentax 70 2.4 DA – a few samples

I’ve had this lens for a few days, mounted on Pentax k10d. The first impression was great, a very small and light, but very well built lens (metal). Filter size is just 49 mm, its size is 26×63 mm and it weights only 130 g (even lighter than Canon EF 50 1.8 which weighs 5 g more and is completely made out of plastic). It has also an integrated lens hood (or it it a screw on design, I’m not sure but it was already on a brand new lens). A joy to have for a walkaround lens, I personally don’t like big, bulky, heavy equipment.

But when it comes to the image quality, all I can say is, that it’s substandard for a fixed focal lenght. It’s soft up to f3.5, so I’ve shot with it mostly on f4 (I usually never go above that, I mostly shoot in the f1.8-f2.8 with fast lenses). So I don’t really see the point in buying a fast lens, which is not only soft wide open, but all the way up to (including) f3.5. Besides that it has the noisiest AF motor I’ve ever hear, pretty annoying. I didn’t test it thoroughly, so I can’t say much about colours, contrast and bokeh, although my first impression was that they were good.

And at the end we come to the price. It costs over 500 euros in Slovenia, what is in my opinion way too much for the image quality and AF it offers.

Lets get to the photos. All of the colour photos are unprocessed, I just added a bit of USM after resizing. The second and third photo also show low dynamic range of the Pentax k10d. All of the shots were taken in cloudy weather, so there were no harsh shadows/contrast transitions, so therefore blown out parts of the photo shouldn’t occur. I never had such experiences with any of Canon (tested the whole lineup) or Nikon (I’ve mostly shot with D70) Cameras. It’s a shame, because k10d is otherwise a nice camera, with a very competitive price (good value). Unfortunately I haven’t had luck with the weather, so I had to use ISO 250-800 and AS too (but from what I’ve seen AS doesn’t affect sharpness (much)).

f4, 1/60, ISO 400, AS on

f4, 1/60, ISO 250, AS on

f2.4, 1/100, ISO 800, AS on

Boring days

What to do on those boring, cloudy, cold days…You can always go in a bar with your friends for a cup of coffee or a beer. And take your camera with you so you can amuse yourself and annoy your friends:D. Here are a couple of pics of my dawg S3to, still a part of my Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS test. It was mounted on a 400D – a funny combination, the lens is much bigger and a bit heavier then the camera (without battery grip).

This are the first two photos of him that I’ve taken. It’s funny that they are the best (out of cca 10 shots). On sessions with models it’s always the other way around. Yeah, this are candids and some friends get annoyed after a few shots, girls just warm up after a few (20-30) shots.

I got stood up

Yeah, it had to happen to me too some day. Today was the day. And ofcourse it had to happen on a day that everything was planned, weather was nice and the model gorgeous. Murphy. And I’m an understandable person, if she’d at least call or send a sms, that she couldn’t make it. It wouldn’t be a problem. Ok it would be since the weather is going to be bad for quite some time now. But I would understand. However I can’t understand one could be so hypocritical and without any guilt to turn off the phone. And she wanted to be a model (didn’t make it although she looks really good), now I don’t wonder why she didn’t succeed (or at least get a few commercial to shoot etc) anymore.
I’m sorry to bother you with this shit, I promise my next posts will be better, more positive. And I’ll be careful in the future (a good thing was we were supposed to shoot in Ljubljana, so at least I didn’t drove on the other part of the country for nothing). But I also learned something from that bad experience, every experience (bad or good) is beneficial in some way.

Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS teaser

I got my hands on it today. My first impression is that it’s by far the sharpest zoom lens in this range. I know it has the reputation for being ultra sharp, that’s why I brought the Canon EF 50 1.8 with me to the city centre (mostly architectural photos), but didn’t compare it – I plan to in the next few days. I think they are comparable at 50 mm, we’ll see if my assumption is correct by the end of next week when I’ll post a complete review, with 100% crops across the focal and aperture (f2.8-f8) range as well as IS tests.

center 100% crop: 17 mm, IS off, shutter speed: short enough;), ISO 100

100% crop: 55mm, IS on (I forgot to turn it off), f2.8, 1/200, ISO 100

Million dollar baby

This is the last session that I had with Tisa. We shot that in Sepetember in (and near) an abandoned slaughterhouse. Unfortunately we couldn’t do everything we planned, because Tisa was late and she didn’t have her makeup done, so we had to do it on the location. We also skipped the second makeup (which I really needed for some photos, which we didn’t take or we did, but they didn’t come out as well) and shoot all the photos with only minimal make up (and some water sprinkled on her every few minutes). We rushed a bit, since we had only an hour left to shoot (I planned a two hour session), but in the end I think it came out good. Tisa showed all her talent and beauty, so we were pleased with the results and the feedback from my friends and in on-line galleries was very good. On the other hand it was a good experience too, because we were time-pressed – I’m sure the experience will be useful someday, when something will go wrong, something maybe even more important, something that will have to be done on that day (commercial shooting). I just think my job won’t be as easy as with Tisa, because she knows what I want from her (we had many sessions), on a few occasions it seemed like she read my mind:).

Fločo the frog

Yes, the best hairdresser in town again. While I was testing Pentax k10d and a couple of Pentax lenses we went for a cup of coffee in a local bar. He was in the mood for some stupid funny faces (come to think about it, he’s always:). I took this shot with the Pentax 70 2.4 DA lens. I know the photo isn’t good regarding lighting, although it was shot wide open at ISO 640 I had to use onboard flash. But the point of this photo is to bring a smile on your face not to show a technically perfect portrait. I hope I succeeded.

Another disappointment from Sigma

I tested antoher Sigma lens yesterday in the ZOO, the 70-200 2.8 Macro. And it was just one more Sigma lens with frontfocus issues. I tested 9 Sigma lenses in the last few months and only 5 were without AF issues. Here’s a short summary:
-18-200 for Canon: ok
-17-70 for Canon: ok
-50-150 for Canon: minimal frontfocus (but unusable at f2.8 in the 100-150 range on close focusing distance (headshots etc) – because of the shallow DOF, where frontfocus is more visible, image is unusable)
-10-20 for Canon: ok
-70 2.8 macro for Nikon: ok
-300 2.8 for Canon: frontfocus
-8 mm f3.5 circular fisheye for Canon: ok
-30 1.4 for Canon: weird AF issues (read the complete review for details, posted a week ago)
-70-200 2.8 Macro for Canon: frontfocus

It’s really a shame that 70-200 2.8 Macro has frontfocus issues, because it’s tack sharp at f3.2 (very few Sigma’s are). Here are a couple of samples which came out ok (tested on Canon 350D):

f3.5. 1/500, ISO 200

100% crop from the photo above


And this is the focus test. I focused on the line below number 50. Frontfocus is quite pronounced (f2.8, 200 mm):