Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Climbing photography 26-Sep-2007 At 12:48:59 AM Onsight

Message

hi Duncan

I’m shooting with Nikon (F100 – film and hence obviously full-frame) and aren’t as up on Canon’s offerings as some of the others here but I’d definitely second Gonzo’s recommendation of the Canon 10-22mm for your camera, if indeed you do want a zoom. Maybe you can find one cheaply somewhere. Nikon have a somewhat similar lens, the 12-24mm which Josh mentioned earlier, which I used earlier this year on a D200 for some of the cliff photos in the Bluies guidebook – and I thought it was excellent. With the 1.5 crop factor that’s 18-36mm full-fame equivalent.

It’s hard to give much advice (assuming you want it) without really known more about what you ultimately want to get out of - - or be able to do with - - your photography(?). Like if it’s just for pics for emailing and the web then discussions of quality are pretty pointless – anything will do and what we’re talking about really isn’t going to show up at “screen resolution”. But if it’s for high quality publication or large format prints then generally speaking (at the risk of telling you stuff you already know) I'd say…

Image quality is determined by two main things: the recording medium (be that the film or the image sensor) and the glass (well, of course, there’s HOW you use it as well, but that’s a whole other story, I’m just talking about the equipment here). Here’s an article by Ken Rockwell on the “full frame advantage” http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm which kinda explains why the quality of the full frame is better – and why you’ll get more out of your glass on a full-frame. Incidentally, there are a lot more wide angle lenses available for full frame cameras (easier to make them to fit the format).

As for glass, personally I love the quality of fast prime lenses. I shoot film (mostly at 40ASA) so the speed of these lenses is important to me, but I wouldn’t have though this would be such an important factor for shooting digitally (mostly at say 200ASA and with the ability to go a whole lot faster with the flick of a dial). Other advantages with prime lenses is better sharpness (generally speaking), they generally focus better (more positively), and the wider aperture can help reduce the depth of field - - throw the background out of focus (this is important with digital sensors which by their nature seem to increase the depth of field – sometimes great but maybe sometime really annoying). Filters might (possibly) protect a lens but are also likely to reduce image quality, so wouldn’t recommend them unless you want them for a creative effect. If concerned about colour balance (like in the shade) and shooting digitally then instead of using a colour correcting filter why not just shoot in RAW and convert it later?

As you’ve found, photography kit is usually some sort of compromise between quality, performance, price, weight and convenience/versatility. Each to their own but like I mentioned earlier maybe begin with the end in mind.

As for me, years ago I used a 20-35mm but have since gone entirely to primes: 16 mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2, and 180mm f2.8. Actually I usually don’t carry the 180mm and instead just a 1.4 converter for the 135mm. The 20mm is my favourite in the wides; that’d be like a 12-13mm on your camera. You’ll probably want a rectilinear lens, the 16mm isn’t - so you have to watch that horizons etc don’t suffer from unwanted curvature. I’m keen to check out the 14-24mm that Nikon are releasing in a few months...

I’ve got some Q+A’s on my site here:
http://www.onsight.com.au/extras/index.htm