Sunday, April 13, 2008

Sigma 30 mm F1.4 EX DC HSM

If you own a Nikon D4o(x) or D60 there is no other lens like this one. Nikon is being a bit slow catching up with itself and are only very few AF-S prime lenses available at this point. Since the above bodies will not focus with lenses without an internal motor, one gets no choice when choosing a 'normal' lens for a D40.

The lens was launched by sigma in February 2005. A lot has been written on various forums about Sigma's quality control, good samples, bad samples and corner softness of this lens. I don't know much about these things. I picked my lens from Jessops and never bothered photographing a chart or even a brick wall. In real-life use I haven't noticed any problems. At f/1.4 the depth of field is really shallow, to the extent that focusing on the tip of somebody's nose will render their ears/eyes soft, but that's the price that has to be paid for being able to take pictures at reasonable shutter speeds in very dark places.
DSC_3859DSC_3860

Shallow depth of field: shot at 1/40s at f/1.4

Optically speaking it is excellent for my purposes. There is no distortion; there is no CA to speak of (anyway you don't really have to deal with CA in low-light shots). The colours are nice and when you stop the lens down a bit it is sharp and crisp. It has more than enough definition for my camera's chip and the bokeh is very acceptable. I haven't noticed much flare even with light sources in the frame; bright lights get a nice eight-pointed star.

Staircase

CA: 1/250 at f/5.6 - some (out of focus) CA is noticeable in the top part of the picture.

The lens belongs to Sigma's EX range - supposedly that means better quality. Personally, I can't say anything about non-EX Sigma lenses - however compared to the kit lens or to the Nikon 55-200mm VR, this lens is much better built. The barrel and the petal-shaped hood are both finishes in nice satin paint, the lens comes in a very good box-shaped cordura case with a belt loop. Although the lens thread is made of plastic, the bayonet and most of the outer barrel is metal and the lens has a reassuringly solid feel. I have knocked mine around a little bit (dropped it with the camera from about waist high on concrete, shot with it in mild rain) and it seems to be holding up very well, except for a few small places where I actually managed to scratch the paint and realized that the outer barrel is indeed made of metal.

This is the second lens I bought for my Nikon D40. It quickly became my every-day lens and I really love it. I would highly recommend it to anyone with a Nikon D40/x or D60 over the kit lens (which is slow and plastic) or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 which won't auto-focus on those bodies. It is affordable (just about), fast, solidly built and compact. Don't let yourself be put off by a few vocal nit-pickers on certain forums, or look for a different lens if you do take pictures of well lit brick walls. There is no reason you'd want this lens for a Nikon D3 or a Canon 5D (in fact you could not even use it on a full-frame body - because it is a DC lens that does not cover bigger than APS-C size sensors). There is one fewer reason why get this over the cheaper 50mm f/1.8 if your body can auto-focus with non-HSM or non-AF-S lenses (Nikon D80 upwards), except HSM offers reportedly faster focusing. Ken Rockwell says :-) that if you shoot Canon the Canon 28mm f/1.8 EF is a better choice for less money. I don't know about Canon. I know that for entry-level Nikon SLRs it has no competition in its class, but it is very far from a "one-eyed king of the blind"; it is actually a really good lens.

Focal Length: 30 mm
Maximum Aperture: F1.4
Minimum Aperture: F16
Lens Construction: 7 Elements in 7 Groups, 2 ED elements
Angle of View: 45°
Diaphragm: 8 blades
Minimum Focus Distance: 40cm
Maximum Magnification: 1:10.4
Filter Size: 62mm
Dimensions (diameter x length): 76mm x 59mm
Weight: 406.7g

Links to other reviews:


Flickr groups:

Saturday, April 12, 2008

How To Achieve Your Childhood Dreams

This is an AMAZING lecture from an amazing man. It is unbelievable how strong and optimistic Randy Pausch is in this video, this man is dying and yet he is so upbeat and full of positive energy. Next time I think my life is not fair, I am going to re-watch this video.

How To Achieve Your Childhood Dreams by Randy Pausch of Carnegie Mellon University

EDIT: and this one is great too: Time Management by the same guy.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Sigma: 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 1.4/30mm & 50-150mm f/2.8

I have been thinking about posting my own experience on these three lenses by Sigma for some time:

There are some good reviews out there already, but the rest seems to deal with distortion when photographing graphs, chromatic aberration when shooting trees against bright sky or finding "a good copy" of the lens through shooting a brick wall - retuning the lens to the shop - shooting a brick wall... Not the kind of stuff that I like to do. Other thing that bugs me is that most of these reviews are written by people who only just got the lens, tested it over a weekend and did a write-up. Do their opinions still hold months after using the lens in real life? Who knows? Did they have to please the shop/importer of the gear? Not me - I paid for all my equipment.

Over the next three days I will post some real-life experience with the above three babies. I don't have a lab, charts or methodology. I have months/weeks spent taking pictures with the above three instead.

The Future of Flickr

Let's be honest about it: I am a big fan of Flickr. There are lots of sites like that: Picasa, Photobucket, Kodak Gallery, Photoblog, Zooomr and many others. I have used some of them and Flickr suits me the best.

About a year ago, David Hobby of Strobist published a couple of posts (part 1, part 2) on the future of Flickr. About a year ago, he was predicting some exciting changes and so was Dan Heller and a bunch of other folk. These changes are yet to happen. Right now, there does not seem to be much going on in terms of "monetization" of the Flicker archive, at least on the surface. It seems that Flickr turning into the Internet's biggest photo stock archive is more of a microstock site's worst nightmare rather than Yahoo's concrete plan.

It is interesting what other people from the photography business have to say about Flickr and 'serious photography'. One of my favourite blogs, A Photo Editor, had a post about the Flickr stigma earlier this year. It's saying that using Flickr as a portfolio is cheap and 'unprofessional'. I am in no position to argue about it. Flickr was not designed for that purpose anyway. Flickr was bought by Yahoo in 2005 and replaced Yahoo Images in their stable of web services - it was always meant as a photo-sharing tool, rather than a fancy display case. It has evolved since then and pros have been using Flickr as one of their tools, not their only tool though.

One site that allows its users to sell images online is SmugMug. They are a paid site (well, so is Flickr unless you are willing to put up with an upload limit) with impressive options in terms of page layout and presentation. They even offer to transfer your existing Flickr archive to them under the heading "Fleeing Flickr". Admittedly, it's $149 to be able to set your own prices and sell your stuff through them. Dan Heller has a long post about it here.

Why stay with Flickr:

  • it's cheap
  • it gets a lot of traffic
  • it is here to stay (although it's dubious in what shape and form)
  • its groups are a great platform to meet people and get (mostly positive) feedback
  • it is being trawled by (a certain kind of) picture editors every day
  • there is no limit to upload with the cheap "PRO" account, one can upload all sorts of experiments and failed attempts
  • your profile can promote your real portfolio
Why complement Flickr with a professional-looking portfolio
  • own domain name
  • better control over the presentation layer
  • tighter focus on your best images
  • it shows dedication and attention to detail
  • you may be able to sell images directly (but it will cost you)
How about microstock? Well, read this... Making money from pictures is not my main priority at this point, but I will start looking into solutions on making my portfolio into something more presentable and post my experience here.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Slow Leadership

Success as a path - not a destination. Inspiring read.

It's a shame that some people will never get over the fact that doing anything for success is bullshit - doing something that makes you happy is important; success may be a nice bonus if you get real good at doing whatever you enjoy. Which is not so unlikely, because most people out there don't enjoy what they do for living. It's easy to progress doing something fun. If success does not come in the end, at least you will have spent your life doing things you enjoyed. Work to live - don't live to work!

Become a Sports Illustrated shooter!

This on-line game is great:

http://www.directdaniella.com/

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Krtecek fotografem

This is the stuff I grew up on - Krtecek. I don't remember this episode from back then, but there are over 50 episodes in this series. This one is about photography:



Film-making meets education. Zdenek Miler, successful Czech illustrator - the creator of Krtecek, was asked by the Czechoslovak Ministry of Education in 1950s to make a film explaining how linen was made. He produced How The Mole Got His Trousers (Jak krtek ke kalhotkám přišel) in 1956, which became an instant success internationally. Other episodes followed.

My mom grew up with Krtek, I grew up with Krtek and my kids one day will grow up with krtek. Fantastic.