Lenses. Here I want to give some samples about what lenses can do and about my personal experience with them. I owned and used a couple of lenses but not all so this list is of course incomplete.

Standard zooms:

Not the sexiest species but one almost everbody uses. My first standard zoom lens was a 35-70 zoom. Not a very impressive range by todays standards but back in 1989 it was the standard zoom you bought as a first lens. I had only this lens for almost one year as I can´t afford to buy a 70-200 zoom when I purchased my first SLR a Nikon F801. The SLRs I used before I borrowed from my father.

Nikon AF-S DX VR 18-200/3.5-5.6 IF-ED

Today it´s different. I good example is the AF-S 18-200 VR from Nikon. On a DX - Camera it´s the equivalent of a 28-300mm lens. This incredible range combined with image stablisation makes it the ultimate travel lens if you want to travel light. No heavy camera bag, no tripod, no need to swap lenses. It´s a special experience - I loved it! I travelled trough Northern Spain with my D200 and only this lens. I used my tripod only once: To get a picture with my wife and me.

Here are some samples:

And here are some more:

And the negative points?

First: It´s not a fast lens and it´s not very sharp wide open at the long end. You have to stop down to f9 or even better f11 to get sharp shots. So it really needs images stabilisation even in good light. For static subjects thats not an issue but the problem is: you can´t separate the subject from the background like you can with a 70-200/2.8. So it´s more like shooting with a bridge camera. With a very good bridge camera though. On the wide side the distortion is very strong. You either like that effect or not. I like it in landscapes ( round world effect ) but I wouldn´t use it for architecture.

Verdict: Is it a good lens. No - it is a phantastic lens it you want to travel without a lot of camera gear. It has a great range, it has very nice colors and contrast and it get´s the shot thanks to VR. So it´s easy to recommend. If you really love wide angle photography you might add a 12-24DX or choose the new 16-85VR. If it would have been available when I bought the 18-200VR I might have bought the 16-85VR.

Canon EF 24-105 / 4.0 L IS USM

If you have a full frame Canon DSLR you most likely own this lens. For me this lens and the 70-200/4 IS was the main reason to buy the Canon 5D after all my Nikon gear was stolen. So if you think now I like this lens you are wrong -I love it! I really think that this is the mother of all standard zooms and as I got it as a kit lens I would say it´s also to mother of all kit lenses. The 18-200VR is a very fine lens but it has a lot of compromises mentioned above. The 24-105L doesn´t have this problems. 24mm is really wide on a full frame camera. If you are not a dedicated wide angle shooter or specialized in coastal scenes you very likely don´t need a wider lens. And it´s relatively fast too. It´s not an f2.8 zoom but f2.8 isn´t fast at all either. If I want a fast lens I take my 1.4/35L.

But f4.0 at 105mm is fast enough to separate the subject from the background ( on a full frame camera ) so you can use it as a portrait lens as well.

Here are some samples:

100% crop of the above shot. 105mm wide open. I can live with that sharpness.

Any negative points: Some say it´s a little soft at 105mm @ f4.0 but I don´t think it´s soft enough to worry about using this aperture. I found that when shooting the 18-200VR I try to stay at f9.0 to f11 for most of my shooting. With the 24-105L I use the aperture that most suits the subject. For example: The sheep, the portrait and the statue are all shot at 105mm wide open.

Verdict: I really love what this lens can do. I think that this is the lens Nikon should make as soon as possible. This lens is truly made and optimized for digital full frame and it shows. There is also no vignetting wide open. It covers everthing from landscape to portraiture. It is the perfect lens for travel photography. It´s built to last and it balances great on a larger camera. A truly great lens on full frame. On a APS-C sensor this lens will be lens impressive. I haven´t tried it on a camera with a smaller sensor but you will loose wide angle completely and this alone would be the ultimate dealbreaker for me. I also think that it might be too heavy on smaller cameras.

Telezooms ( 70 - 200 )

Nikon AF-S 70-200 / 2.8 IF-ED VR and Canon EF 70-200 / 4 L IS USM

Beside the standard zooms I think these lenses offer the most important range for general photography. These lenses can be used for landscapes ( to slightly compress a scene ), for sports, for wildlife ( well in Canada´s NP ) and last but not least for portraiture. You also can use them with converters with very good results.

When I shot Nikon I changed the cameras ( D1, D2H, D200 and D300 ) but the 70-200VR remained the same over the years. It´s a great lens.

100% crop of the image above, 70-200VR + TC-14E on a D1 @ f4.0 ( wide open )

The negative point? Well with the Nikon 70-200VR there are only two real issues. 1. It´s a little soft at 200mm@f2.8 and 2. weight. This lens is a little on the heavy side. Especially when you try to travel light this lens is simply too heavy. It performs great but it is a lens where you always thinking to add a 70-300VR just for travel photography to avoid luging it around. And this would be a shame because part of the sensation comes from the ability to separate your subject from the background and the great Bokeh of this lens.

Well Canon solved both issues for me. It´s sharp wide open and it´s only half the weight of the Nikon. I haven´t tried it with a converter yet but I will get a 1.4TC before my next vacation. This lens was one of the reasons to switch to Canon. It´s not a question if you can afford a 2.8/70-200 it´s a question if you are willing to walk around with it all day. Because even this lens has a negative point: price. It´s cheaper than the 2.8 versions but not as much as you think. It doesn´t come with a tripod collar. If you add this device the price get´s even closer to the f2.8.

Are 2.8 tele zooms obsolote? No because there are some events where they still make sense: indoor sports or weddings. If you are a professional wedding shooter you simply have to choose the f2.8. Portraiture? I don´t think so. f4 is about the same DOF on full frame as is F2.8 on a APS-C sensor. That means: If you are using a full frame camera you don´t need f2.8 to be able to separate the subject from the background. If you have a Canon I recommend that you think twice before buying the f2.8 version. If you are using Nikon you have no choice yet but I wouldn´t be surprised if Nikon would bring out such a lens in the near future.

Super Wide angle zooms:

Nikon AF-S DX 12-24 / 4 G and Canon EF 17-40 / 4.0 L USM

There is a reason why this type of lens comes third in my list. 1. I think they are specialized lenses where standard zooms and telezooms are general purpose lenses. 2. I´m not sure if 24mm isn´t enough wide angle and there is no need for shorter focal lengths ( I´m speaking of full frame cameras ). I always liked telezooms. With the 24-105 I start to like standard zooms but I always had a hard time with super wide angle zoom. On one hand I like the effect that can be achieved with them on the other hand it´s often too much and the image looks unreal. Both lenses are very good performers but both have to be stopped down to create critically sharp images. Both lenses have to be used with great care to avoid "falling buildings" or coneheads if you place people at the edge of the frame. Ideally I think they should be shot from a tripod.

Here are some samples:

The negative points: They are already mentioned above. Don´t use them wide open. Don´t tilt them if you shoot a building unless you want to create a special effect. Distortion is always an issue with such lenses but if you choose such a lens you are very likely aware of this.

Verdict: Both are capable performers. I give the edge to the Canon but only because I have the feeling that full frame is an advantage here. The lens has to be less extreme. 17mm instead of 12mm ( to get a 18mm lens ) is easier to make and it feels different on the camera. Foregrounds seem to be less pronounced with the Canon and I found it to be easier to use than the Nikon.

Telezooms ( 80-400 )

Nikon AF 80-400 / 4.5-5.6D ED VR

to be continued.....