Ever since I moved over to a Leaf Credo 40 and the Mamiya 645 DF+ as my main system, I have been looking at new ways to use it creatively. The 80mm LS lens that comes with it is incredibly sharp and is pretty much unparalleled for portraiture. Over the past few months, I have steadily been adding new lens to my arsenal for use with this set up, namely the amazing and underrated 35mm f/3.5 (My favorite landscape lens now) as well as the 150mm f/3.5 (Not a big fan, except for the perspective it offers) and the 210mm f/4 (Incredibly sharp).

Shot with the Mamiya 645DF+, Leaf Credo 40 and Mamiya 35mm f/3.5 Walk with me

While the 35mm is great for landscaping, I have been feeling this urge to always try some perspective correction shots. One of the main reasons is because I tend to finish most of my landscape work in a wide format (16:9 or wider). Now with medium format, the obvious  way to go about this is to get a technical camera setup from Cambo, Arca Swiss, Alpa etc. along with lenses from Rodenstock or Schneider. Another alternative is to use a hybrid solution like the Hcam B1, which allows one to use the Canon 17 and 24 TS-E lenses with medium format backs. While the image quality these deliver are amazing, this is a very, very expensive proposition (Just one modern tech camera lens will usually cost more than a 1DX/ D4s. Therefore, I started looking around for the cheapest entry ticket to this club.

After some quick research, I realized that Mamiya has one shift lens in their lineup (Keep in mind, no tilt, only shift), which is the 50mm f/4. While this was not as wide as I would have liked, the ability to shift means one is able to produce a final image that offers a much wider perspective than what the focal length suggests.

Why shift? There are a lot of articles on the internet that talk about the advantages of shifting vs nodal panoramas. Here is one.

Anyway, after some more research, I reached out to my ebay lords to help me find a copy. As it happened, a very reputable seller had a mint copy on sale for a rather decent price. Without thinking much further, I ordered it.

The lens arrived this morning. At first, when I held the package, I was a bit concerned. It was a lot lighter than I thought! Fearing a bait and switch, I opened it. Thank heavens, the lens was inside! It was well packaged in the original box, with all literature included.

The lens is all metal and really well built, but as mentioned, a lot lighter than one would think it would be. It has a 77mm filter thread and comes with a measly hood which looks to be useless. But since I work with square filters when I shoot landscapes, this is not a big concern for me.

One point to note is that this lens is very much like the old all manual Nikon shift lenses. They have no electronic contact points. Metering is stop down only and the shift works in only one direction (You have to rotate the lens the other way to shift in the opposite direction).

The test:

After leaving a positive feedback to the ebay seller, I set my gear up for a quick test. While I would have loved to go somewhere scenic for this, I had to settle for my backyard for now (Better images will follow soon). As I wanted to evaluate the FoV and also the overall image quality of the final image, I decided to compare it against the Mamiya 35mm (As mentioned before, my go to landscape lens on the Mamiya) and also the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR on the D800 (My go to lens for ultrawide work ).

Now I am the kind of photographer who likes real images to evaluate my gear, so you wont find any charts and graphs here. There are enough people on the internet who do that kinda stuff. Here is my testing methodology.

I set up my very sturdy Benro tripod and Sunwayfoto ballhead in an optimal spot. First, I mounted the D800, used its built-in matrix meter to get a readout at 100 ISO (its base ISO) and at f/11 (To ensure an optimal DoF-sharpness balance). Then I switched to manual mode and used the same exposure values throughout. Mirror lock up was engaged, focus was made using live view, VR was switched off and exposures were made using a remote release. Exposures were made at 16mm, 24mm and 35mm.

 Next, the Credo was mounted on the same tripod. The same exposure values from the D800 were used. As the live view from the CCD back is not ideal, I used Manual focus to get the focus right. First, I shot with the 35mm. Then, I mounted the 50mm, made the unshifted exposure, then the left and right shifted ones. Special care was made to not disturb the focus ring during shifting.

All images were imported into Capture One Pro 8.2 (My preferred raw developer and miles ahead of Lightroom in terms of image quality, for both my cameras). The Nikon files were developed using the Phase One IQ 250 profile, which in my experience delivers better color fidelity than the Nikon ones. The Credo files were developed using the default Leaf profile, which is excellent.

Daylight white balance was applied to all images. The exposure controls were manipulated to get the histogram as bell shaped as possible. Some pre sharpening was done to taste (Again, I evaluate images based on my real world needs. An unsharpened SOOC image is of no use to me). The files were then exported as 16bit TIFFs in ProfotoRGB color space to Photoshop CC 2014.

In photoshop, all files were given some final sharpening using the best deconvolution sharpening plug in I have ever used, Focus Magic. The shift images were blended into a panorama using Photoshop's "Automate -> Photomerge" feature. A tiny amoutn had to be cropped off the top and bottom, otherwise it was seamless.

Observations:

My first impression was that the image from the 35mm was a lot more contrasty and punchy compared to the 50mm shift. the latter needed some saturation and contrast adjustment and also more presharpening. However, the unshifted image was sharp from edge to edge, while the 35mm had slightly weaker corners.

Here are the images.

Nikon 16-35 at 16mm

Nikon 16-35 at 24mm

Nikon 16-35 at 35mm

Mamiya 35mm

Mamiya 50mm unshifted

Final shifted (3 files) panorama:

Full size image here:

100% crop comparisons:

Mamiya 50mm shift vs Mamiya 35mm vs Nikon 16-35 VR

Full size image here:

Conclusion:

While the image from the 35mm was overall the sharpest and the punchiest, I somehow like the rendering of the 50mm. For the lack of a better word, I would call it "Filmic". Perhaps, because it's a film era lens? The shifted perspective it offers is similar to the 24mm on the Nikon (With cropped out top and bottom, of course) and while the files need some extra work in post, the end result is quite pleasing. It is not the sharpest lens I have, but the creative possibilities it offers sort of offsets that. For single shots, I would still reach out for the 35mm though.

Overall, I am quite pleased with this lens and  look forward to shooting more artistic images with it.

The next few weeks were spent researching on the characters and basically, putting the scene together in my head. Once the basic idea was in place, I contacted an amazing Cosplayer named Kelton to work on the art direction. Kelton is quite accomplished when it comes to make up and props and I knew that he's more than capable of bringing my vision to reality. Next, we engaged an excellent MUA names Hana into the fold. Lastly, the super talented Khym joined the team to play the role of the Succubus.  Srikeerthi was the second photographer on location. Sylvia was in charge of lighting assistance and the behind the scenes shoot.

Once the team was finalized, we spent time shortlisting the props and other items we would need to complete the scene. The items were bought from the local stores or the internet. I also spent time shortlisting a location for the shoot. Based on the idea I had in my head, I wanted a location with a lot of warm tones in it (A "Cozy hell", if you will) as the Devil's lair. Fortunately, we managed to find a hotel room that fit the bill.

On the day of the shoot, we arrived around noon at the location. The artists and the MUA started working on the make up and wardrobe while me and the camera crew engaged in setting up the scene. The location immediately posed some challenges for us in terms of usable space. After some experimentation, we figured out an ideal placement for the 70mm deep octa. I decided to use a golden reflector inside to add some warmth to the light. I also used only the inner baffle in the octa to preserve some bite to the light.

After the first few test shots, it was clear that the basic lighting was OK, but there was a little something that was lacking. I've been looking at a lot of Joe McNally and Frank Doorhof images lately and I decided to have fun with something that they are fond of. Using color to add mood to the scene.

While the warm tones in the light, location and make up worked nicely with the Devil's theme, the Succubus is considered to be a cold and calculating creature. You can see this in her make up, wardrobe as well as the blue chess pieces she is playing with. Hence, I decided to add an SB 900 to the scene to throw some accent light on her. I put a green gel on this and turned the power down quite low to just add a hint of light to the scene without being too overwhelming. When I used a bare flash for this, there was too much spill into the background. Hence, I tamed with with a DIY snoot made of newspaper.

The lighting diagram looked roughly like this:

I shot the scene with my D800 and the 16-35 VR at the wide end (And still had my back against the wall). I dragged the shutter a bit to get the warm ambient light in the shot as well.

The shot was post processed quite extensively in Capture One Pro (With a few localized edits to accentuate specific areas) and finished in Photoshop CC.

Here is the final result:

The Devil and the Succubus...and so whispered the Succubus to the slithering snake,
If you want to play games with the Devil my friend, you best be a move or two ahead.

I hope you liked this image. If you have any comments or questions, do feel free to drop a comment.

- Sandeep Murali -

Let me just start off by saying that. Recently, I upped my gear arsenal with a couple of very affordably priced, yet impressive items from the Nikon stable, the D7100 (Review and comparison with the D800 coming soon) and the 85 f/1.8G. I quite like the 85mm on a crop body and the duo have delivered some impressive samples in the early days of testing. However, it was when I put the lens on the D800 that it started to sing.

When I shot my usual test scene, i.e. the view of the city from my window, I was astonished at the details I could see on the LCD screen itself. To be double sure, I imported the file into Lightroom and by golly, I was right. The detail it manages to extract out of the scene was superior to every other piece of glass I own. Curious, I decided to shoot the same frame with my 70-200 f/2.8 VR @86mm (The closest I could get. The zoom ring has no marking for 85mm). I used the same settings (f/8, 1/320s, ISO 100). Brought both files into Lightroom, applied the same edits, which are as follows:

- Daylight white balance

- Camera landscape color profile

- Custom color correction settings I have developed using a Spyder Checkr

- Lens corrections

- Some basic presharpening

That's it. You can see both images below:

85 f/1.8:

85prime

70-200 f/2.8 VR:

70-200

Everything looks fine and dandy at this magnification, right? The only observable difference is that both lenses have different color renderings. The prime is a bit cooler and the zoom, warmer. I much prefer the former for this type of scene.

Ok, now let's take a look at some crops.

Prime:

Bldg_85

Zoom:

Bldg_70-200

How does that look to you? Remember, these are shot at settings at which pretty much every lens would be at its best.

Let's look at another set of crops.

Prime:

Bldg_2_85

Zoom:

Bldg_2_70-200

Again, the differences are quite apparent. Both these crops are from the "Meaty center", so now let's take a look at extreme edge crops.

Prime:

Corner_85

Zoom:

Corner_70-200

Wow. This isn't even close. The zoom is completely embarrassed at this point. Funny observation. Both samples have moire in them, but the sample from the prime cleaned up better using Lightroom's adjustment brush. Why? I have no idea.

Here's a crop of fa away detail.

Prime:

Far_85

Zoom:

Far_70-200

Again, the prime is just so much better.

Remember, these images are just presharpened. I applied a proper high pass sharpen to the sample from the prime and it almost bled my eyes with detail. Truly medium format territory there.

Prime, high pass sharpened:

85prime_Highpass

This test has got me seriously thinking of getting rid of the 70-200 and replacing it with the newer version. Nikon is yet to release a modern 135-180mm prime, so I would need a zoom in this range to do portraiture. I guess I will rent the newer zoom to see how it stacks up against the prime as well.

Before anyone says that this is just pixel peeping madness, it isn't. You WILL see a difference in print. As several have said,t he D800 is a camera that demands the very best in terms of glass. Slap on something sub par and the results are truly underwhelming. But put on some quality glass like the 85 f/1.8G and the camera just sings!

All samples can be downloaded at full resolution here:

- Sandeep Murali -

Support this site by buying your camera gear from the below link:

The ultrawide. Known as the most difficult lens to design and manufacture. Even more so the ultrawide zoom. The playing field for full frame ultrawide lenses is unsurprisingly narrow for the same reasons. Both Nikon and Canon users have been spoilt for choice in this segment, thanks to some excellent primes and zooms form the original manufactures. For those on a budget, there are a few third party choices too. All of us have, at one point or the other pondered over the "Which ultrawide to buy" question. As a Nikonian, I naturally ended up asking a variation of that question that tens of thousands have asked before. "The 14-24 or the 16-35"?

You see, when it cones to Nikonland, there are two contenders to the throne. Each has its own pluses and minuses and are in fact, two very different lenses. Yet, there's a certain degree of overlap between them and I don't just mean focal lengths. Like many before me, I spent many hours searching on websites, forums and blogs to get a definitive answer on which one's "The one". Most of them unfortunately, were filled with very subjective opinions from people who may or may not have even seen these lenses in first person. Frustrated with the lack of some definitive information, I decide to do what I should have done in the first place. Review them both myself and reach my own conclusions. I managed to borrow a mint copy of the 14-24 thanks to a generous friend and decided to rent the 16-35.

I mentioned this to my buddy Srikeerthi, who proposed the interesting idea of making this a Nikon vs Canon shootout. He owned the highly regarded Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, which made the task easier. As with most things we do, this too expanded its scope very quickly. We decided to add two more lenses that him and I owned into the mix. The Sigma 12-24 and the Sigma 20mm respectively. Our sentiments towards both lenses were similar. We both bought them at a time when wallets were tighter, knowing fully well that these aren't the best options one could get. We've used them in a variety of situations, yet never really fell in love with them. We threw them into the mix just to see how much the Canon and Nikon lenses were better than them. i.e. to see how much more performance the extra dough buys us.

Just to make things interesting, we decide to rent the Canon 8-15 f/4 Fisheye too. It wasn't a serious inclusion, but more of an "It's available, so why not" thing. That said, there are guys who look into using fisheyes for ultrawide shots and manually undistorting the images in post to recreate the image as if a rectilinear lens shot it. In case you do not know the difference between a rectilinear ultrawide and a fisheye, the former keeps (Or tries to keep) vertical lines straight while the latter bends them like pretzels. For this reason, fisheyes are easier to make and generally cheaper.

Anyway, here's a formal introduction of all the competitors:

Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 ED

When Nikon introduced this lens, it created some major noise in the industry. Here was a lens in a  zoom range that was never attempted before. Reviewers were singing high praises on how little distortion it has and how it is as sharp as primes in this focal range. There was nothing else quite like it. A very distinctive looking lens thanks to the bulbous front element, this lens unfortunately also has a major drawback. No possibility to add front filters (Easily). While companies like Lee and Lucroit have come out with kits to add filters to this lens, it is safe to say that they are nowhere as convenient to use as a normal screw in/ square filter kit on lenses with filter threads. Also, forget using polarizers and multi-stop NDs on this lens (Even if they are available) because of the serious color shifts that may occur. This makes it quite limited for a landscape shooter. But would the superior image quality make up for this? We'll see.

Handling notes:

This lens is built like a tank. No question. It is built to Nikon's highest standards and will probably outlast you. On the camera though, it's a bi awkward. It's VERY front heavy, but not very long, which makes for an odd weight distribution on even a D800. I don't mind walking around with a 70-200 attached to my D800 which in turn is hung around my neck because of the even weight distribution, but this combo here felt odd. Maybe I needed more time to get used to it.

Another point to note, the lens cap comes off rather easily, so pay attention!

Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR

When Nikon announced this lens, a few eyebrows were raised. Many were expecting Nikon to emulate Canon and do an f/2.8 lens. Instead, they made it a stop slower and added VR. Now, a lens like this would mostly reside in the f8-f/11 area, so the loss of one stop isn't as bad as some people make it seem to be. One consequence of this is that the lens is much lighter compared to its Canon counterpart (And certainly its big brother). But the good thing is, it comes with a standard 77mm filter thread, so your existing filters will work perfectly!

Reviewers of this lens had some criticism about its image quality. Namely, significant vignetting (Non-factor), and distortion (Fixable, but you'll lose some image area)at the wide end. Would that be the Achilles' heel of this lens? let's find out?

Handling notes:

The outer barrel of this lens is made from polycarbonate (Much like may of Nikon's newer lenses), but it feels almost as solid as the 14-24. The only giveaway is the slightly hollow noise that arises when you tap the barrel. Although this lens takes up about the same space as the 14-24 in the bag, it feels much more balanced on the camera.

Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II

An update to a well loved original, this lens is highly regarded in the Canon community. I have extensively used its predecessor in the past and found that it was a bit susceptible to flares. Thankfully, this new version controls flares much better. At 82mm, the filter thread on this lens is one size larger than what most of us have bought filters for, but it's still better than having none. Besides, if you're a square filter system user, it's a simple matter of buying another adapter ring (I am and I did. This is the reason why I always recommend square filters to everyone).

Handling notes:

Being an L lens, this is built incredibly well. No surprises there. It's almost all metal although I suspect the filter thread might be plastic. That's not a bad thing as a plastic thread won't expand/ contract when the temperature fluctuates. Much like it's Nikon counterpart, this lens felt quite balanced on a full frame body, even though it's a bit heavier than the former.

Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 (Canon mount)

This is the widest rectilinear lens available for fullframe cameras, bar none. However, it's far from being the best. Furthermore, it doesn't have a filter thread either. That said, it is certainly very wallet friendly and does come in many mount choices.

Handling notes:

Being a mostly plastic affair (With that awful finish that last gen Sigmas were (in)famous for, this lens sits comfortably on a fullframe body. I wouldn't put it through the same tortures as the Canon and Nikon lenses though.

Sigma 20 f/1.8 (Nikon mount)

Another unique lens from Sigma. This is the fastest prime you can buy in this focal range. I've personally used and abused mine for years now, first on DX and now on FX. I've never been truly happy with its corner performance, but the centers have always been pretty sharp. But is it sharper than the Canon and Nikon lenses?

Handling notes:

Again, an all plastic affair with that awful finish. Mine has been peeling in many places. AF is slow on Nikon bodies as it has no built in AF motor and uses the screw drive (Not that it matters much for landscaping). Weighs nothing, feels like nothing on an FX body.

Canon 8-15 f/4 L Fisheye

Although this is technically an EF lens (Which means that it can be used on fullframe cameras), I personally think that this lens is more at home on APS-C cameras. As you can see below, the image circle that this lens produces is smaller than the fullframe sensor until one zooms to 14mm. On an APS-C sensor, 8mm covers all of the imaging area (And give you 12.8mm equivalent FoV, which is wider than the 14mm you get on fullframe). Plus you have the added benefit of additional pixel density.

Handling notes:

This is again, an L lens which means it's built like a tank. It's pretty petite too, which means it's pretty balanced on the camera. Make sure to always keep the hood on though, as the front element protrudes a lot.

Testing methodology:

As mentioned earlier, we wanted this test to be as objective as possible. We also wanted it to be very relevant to real world scenarios. If you had come here expecting shots of brick walls and test charts, I will have to disappoint you. You may look elsewhere for those.

Instead, we chose to shoot a beach scene as our test frame. This is a common location for a lot of landscapers, so hopefully, the test images will resonate well with you folks. We scouted until we found a rather nice frame and set out tripods down. The lenses were tested on a Nikon D800 and a Canon 5D Mark II, as per the mounts they came in.  Why not a 5D Mark III? Or for that matter, why not a Tokina 16-28 or a Carl Zeiss 15 f/2.8 or **Insert your favorite camera/ lens here**? Simply because we didn't have access to them. We are not endorsed by any manufacturer/ dealer and have to buy/ borrow/ rent the gear we review. This was the best we could muster for this round. If you have some equipment that you'd like to see a review of/ compared against something else, do let me know and I'd be glad to do it.

At the location, we set up the frame for the widest rectilinear lens, the Sigma 12-24. Both cameras were set up in manual exposure mode and settings were carried over throughout the test. The D800 was shot at ISO 100 while the 5D Mark II at ISO 160, as these are the native ISOs for both cameras respectively. This means that they would have the lowest noise and most dynamic range at these ISOs. All shots were at f/11. The canon metered at 1/250s and the Nikon at 1/125s. For the lenses with a filter thread, we used a Lee foundation kit with a Hitech 3 stop hard grad. Why? because again, this is a real world test and we wanted to test these lenses the way we'd use them in the field. All images were shot with mirror lockup and timer to minimize shake. All lenses were focused at the middle bunch of rocks, at each focal length they were tested in.

All images were brought into Lightroom for RAW conversion. Lens distortion correction was enabled to remove some variables (Chromatic aberration wasn't corrected as we are not testing that in this test). We applied "Camera neutral" color profile to all files. No attempt was made to color correct the images, therefore they retain their signature looks (Green/yellow for Nikon and Red/magenta for Canon files). No sharpening was applied during editing or exporting. All files were exported at 12 MP resolution as JPEG, 100% quality.

Now let me rant on for a bit. I've seen far too many reviewers take image files from two different cameras with two different resolution and compare them at 100%. This is stupid. You cannot in any way make an objective comparison with this technique. Think of the final output format for your images. It may either be displayed online or printed. No matter what resolution camera it was shot with, you export to certain standard dimensions. And this is how the images should be judged. At a fixed size. If you disagree with this methodology, you're free to do a test of your own with your  own testing methodology. But here's a spoiler: You'd be wrong. Anyway, 12MP gives us a good sized file (It's big enough to be printed at 12"x8" at 300 DPI and still maintains a good amount of detail).

All images were segregated based on focal lengths. Images up to 14mm, images at 16mm, at 20mm, 24mm and 35mm. Each group was overlaid and 700px 700px crops were taken from different areas. Namely, lower left, lower right, center, foliage (To show detail in the leaves) and horizon. The crops were arranged next to each other and will be presented below.

I decided to award points to the lenses based on their performances in each of these categories. Remember, these are points, not rankings, so there might even be some negative numbers! The highest any lens can get in each category is 5 points.

So without further ado...

Up to 14mm:

Canon 8-15 f/4L at 8mm

Canon 8-15 f/4L at 10mm

Canon 8-15 f/4L at 12mm

Canon 8-15 f/4L at 14mm

Sigma 12-24 at 12mm

Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 at 14mm

Right off the bat, we can see some differences. Let's look at the 100% crops (Only looking at 14mm crops for the Canon 8-15 as the wider focal lengths do not cover the full imaging area):

Lower left:

Wow! I had always known that the Sigma had terrible corners, but I didn't expect the results to be this bad. The other two lenses simply trample over it. The Canon, by virtue of being a fisheye is very strong in the corners (And weaker in the center, as we will see later).  The Nikon's corners are exceptionally good for a rectilinear lens at this focal length, but I will give the narrow win to the Canon here.

Canon 8-15: 5 points

Nikon 14-24: 4 points

Sigma 12-24: 1 point

Lower right:

Same story here, although the distance between the Nikon and the Canon is much closer now. I am inclined to give them both top scores. The sigma lags behind again.

Canon 8-15: 5 points

Nikon 14-24: 5 points

Sigma 12-24: 1 point

Center crop:

I looked at this long and hard (Especially difficult as the higher dynamic range of the D800 gives its files lesser apparent contrast compared to the Canon files).Ignoring the faux-detail that the deeper shadows in the Canon files bring, I think that the 14-24 resolves a wee bit more detail, but not by much. The Sigma continues to disappoint, even in the center.

Canon 8-15: 4.5 points

Nikon 14-24: 5 points

Sigma 12-24: 1 point

Foliage crop:

This crop was done to see how much fine detail the lenses can resolve when faced with a non uniform, fine pattern such as foliage. There's no contest here. The Nikon 14-24 is the king of this jungle. The sheer amount of detail it resolves is astounding. The Canon has significantly more color fringing and doesn't quite manage as much detail. The sigma looks as if someone draped muslin over its front element.

Canon 8-15: 3 points

Nikon 14-24: 5 points

Sigma 12-24: 1 point

Horizon crop:

Same story as before with the Nikon emerging the winner with the Canon slightly behind and the Sigma way, way behind.

Canon 8-15: 3 points

Nikon 14-24: 5 points

Sigma 12-24: 1 point

Overall score up to 14mm:

Canon 8-15: 20.5 points

Nikon 14-24: 24 points

Sigma 12-24: 5 points

The winner at this focal range is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. The Canon fisheye put up a surprisingly good fight and if you're willing to do some post production, can replace a rectilinear lens in your bag. But always remember, it is strongest in the corners, most of which you will crop out after correcting distortion.

That said, let's not ignore the elephant in the room. The Nikon 14-24 has a flare problem. You can see it prominently in the above sample. Here's a crop in case you didn't notice it.

Even with a hood and Nano coating, the huge front element of this lens makes it susceptible to flares. Make sure you cup it with a hand while shooting near strong light sources.

16mm:

This is where things start to get interesting. We have more players in this round, with the 16-35s from both manufacturers entering the fray. Let's see how they stack up against the 14-24, which is relishing its victory in the last round:

Canon 8-15 F/4 L (At 15mm)

Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L

Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR

Nikon 14-24 f/2.8

Sigma 12-24

As mentioned earlier, a Grad ND filter was used where possible. Please take note of the flare that occurs in the same exact spot for both 16-35s. This is due to the filter (One can't use the hood while using a square filter. I will be getting a Lee hood in the future to compensate for this).

Lower left:

Competition is much closer this time around. The Nikon 14-24 is shockingly bested by both 16-35 lenses. ignoring the false sharpness created by the deeper shadows in the canon files again, I feel that the Nikon 16-35 has the slightest of edges over its Canon counterpart. The Sigma has improved its performance over the previous round, but is still behind the rest. The Canon fisheye (At 15mm) once again has good detail in the corners, but is considerably less sharp at its longest end compared to the performance in the previous round.

Canon 8-15: 3 points

Nikon 14-24: 4 points

Sigma 12-24: 3.5 points

Canon 16-35: 4.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Lower right:

The Nikon 16-35 is still the best of the lot and the 14-24 has jumped ahead of the Canon 16-35 by a little bit. The rest remain unchanged.

Canon 8-15: 3 points

Nikon 14-24: 4.5 points

Sigma 12-24: 3.5 points

Canon 16-35: 4 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Center crop:

Same results as the left crop. Very close fight between the Nikon and Canon 16-35 lenses with the former slightly inching ahead. The Sigma has that hazy look about it that never seems to go away.

Canon 8-15: 3 points

Nikon 14-24: 4 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 4.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Foliage crop:

Once again, the moment you move away from the corners, the Nikon 14-24 flexes its muscles. The Canon fisheye has delivered a surprisingly great performance and comes in at a very close second. Third is the Nikon 16-35. The Sigma surprisingly, is a tad better than the Canon 16-35 in this test.

Canon 8-15: 4.5 points

Nikon 14-24: 5 points

Sigma 12-24: 3.5 points

Canon 16-35: 3 points

Nikon 16-35: 4 points

Horizon crop:

I will have to give it to the Canon fisheye for this one. It's tack sharp. It's followed by the Nikon 14-24, the Nikon 16-35 and the Sigma 12-24. The Canon 16-35 shockingly comes in last.

Canon 8-15: 5 points

Nikon 14-24: 4.5 points

Sigma 12-24: 3.5 points

Canon 16-35: 3 points

Nikon 16-35: 4 points

Overall score 16mm:

Canon 8-15: 18.5 points

Nikon 14-24: 23 points

Sigma 12-24: 16.5 points

Canon 16-35: 19 points

Nikon 16-35: 23 points

The Nikon 14-24 and the Nikon 16-35 are the joint winners of this round. I was frankly surprised by the performance of the Canon 16-35 in the foliage and horizon tests. The Sigma clearly is in the sweet spot of its zoom range, but doesn't do enough to get out of the last place. The Canon fisheye delivered some great performance in this round and with the considerably less distortion it has at 15mm, could be an alternative to a rectilinear lens in a pinch.

Do note though, after distortion correction, the image area that you get from the Nikon 16-35 is slightly lesser than from the 14-24 or the Canon 16-35.

20mm:

The Canon fisheye bows out in this round and in comes a new challenger, the Sigma 20mm prime. As the only prime in this test, how will it fare against some of its more illustrious competitors?

Sigma 20 f/1.8

Nikon 14-24

Sigma 12-24

Canon 16-35

Nikon 16-35

The two Sigmas couldn't be any more different in this test. The 20 prime flamboyantly shows off what I like about this lens. Superb contrast. Let's look at the crops to see if that translates to a victory.

Lower left:

The Canon 16-35 comes off as the winner here. The Nikon 16-35 inches off the 14-24 by a bit. The Sigma 12-24 has much less contrast than the 20 prime, but its edges hold up better.

Sigma 20: 2 points

Nikon 14-24: 4 points

Sigma 12-24: 3 points

Canon 16-35: 5 points

Nikon 16-35: 4.5 points

Lower right:

The Nikon 16-35 has redeemed itself here and claims top spot, followed by the 14-24. The Canon 16-35 is close behind. The Sigma 12-24 after than at the 20 prime, although showing a better result than on the left, is still last.

Sigma 20: 2 points

Nikon 14-24: 4.5 points

Sigma 12-24: 3 points

Canon 16-35: 4 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Center crop:

Color me astounded, but the Sigma 20 prime takes the top spot here! Having been using this lens for a while, I knew that it has great center sharpness, but I didn't think it would be class leading. The Nikon 16-35 comes in next and the 14-24 and Canon 16-35 are tied behind that. The 12-24 comes in last.

Sigma 20: 5 points

Nikon 14-24: 3.5 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 3.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 4 points

Foliage crop:

I'm having a hard time trying to see any detail differences between the Nikon 16-35 and the Nikon 14-24. I have to name them joint winners here. The Sigma 20 prime is a whisker behind. The Cano 16-35 behind that and the Sigma 12-24 behind that.

Sigma 20: 4.5 points

Nikon 14-24: 5 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 3 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Horizon crop:

Again, I think the Sigma 20 prime might just take the top spot here, closely followed by the Nikon 16-35 and then the Nikon 14-24. The Canon 16-35 is behind that and last is the Sigma 12-24.

Sigma 20: 5 points

Nikon 14-24: 4 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 3 points

Nikon 16-35: 4.5 points

Overall score 20mm:

Sigma 20: 18.5 points

Nikon 14-24: 22 points

Sigma 12-24: 12 points

Canon 16-35: 18.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 23 points

The Nikon 16-35 wins this round, but the real star is the Sigma 20 prime. It put on a surprisingly good performance, only to be let down by the poor corner performance. I honestly feel that if Sigma could re-design this lens with stronger corners (And maybe wider at 18mm), they have a world beater in their hands.

24mm:

The Sigma 20 prime bows out on virtue of being ummm.. a prime, so the remaining 4 duke it out this round. The Nikon 14024 and the Sigma 12-24 are at their longest end, traditionally not a strong point of ultrawide zooms. How will they fare?

Nikon 14-24

Sigma 12-24

Canon 16-35

Nikon 16-35

...and here are the crops:

There one clear winner here and that's the Nikon 16-35. This is followed by the Canon 16-35. The 14-24 and Sigma 12-24 follow in that order. It's quite clear that the two lenses at the long end of their zoom range aren't gonna put their best foot forward in this round.

Nikon 14-24: 3 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 4 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Lower right:

The two 16-35s trade places here with the Canon coming up on top of the Nikon. The remaining two lenses retain their places from the last crop.

Nikon 14-24: 3 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 5 points

Nikon 16-35: 4 points

Center crop:

The two 16-35s look tied here in terms of sharpness with the other two following in that order.

Nikon 14-24: 3 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 5 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Foliage crop:

The Nikon 16-35 wins, followed by the 14-24 and the Canon 16-35. The 12-24 comes in last.

Nikon 14-24: 4 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 3 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Horizon crop:

Once again, the Nikon 16-35 wins, narrowly beating out the Canon 16-35. The 14-24 follows and then the 12-24.

Nikon 14-24: 4 points

Sigma 12-24: 2 points

Canon 16-35: 4.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Overall score 24mm:

Nikon 14-24: 17 points

Sigma 12-24: 10 points

Canon 16-35: 21.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 24 points

Another strong performance by the Nikon 16-35, which takes the win here. The Canon 16-35 really stepped up its performance, but the disadvantages of the lower resolution sensor that it was on shows its effects, even after the downsampling process.

35mm:

Only two remain to fight this final battle. The two 16-35s. It's truly Nikon vs Canon now. Let's see who wins this one!

Canon 16-35

Nikon 16-35

Lower left:

I can hardly tell the difference between the two here.

Canon 16-35: 5 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Lower right:

The Canon is slightly better in the extreme corner.

Canon 16-35: 5 points

Nikon 16-35: 4 points

Center crop:

Neck to neck, but I think the Canon is very slightly better.

Canon 16-35: 5 points

Nikon 16-35: 4.5 points

Foliage crop:

Slightly more fine detail from the Nikon. Very slight.

Canon 16-35: 4.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Horizon crop:

Definitely more detail in the Nikon file here.

Canon 16-35: 4 points

Nikon 16-35: 5 points

Overall score 35mm:

Canon 16-35: 23.5 points

Nikon 16-35: 23.5 points

The two behemoths are tied here and that's not surprising. The differences between them at this focal length is microscopic at best.

Conclusion:

So, we come to the end of this highly comprehensive (And exhausting!) test. I've successfully managed to answer my original question (14-24 or the 16-35), but before we get to that, I think I should talk about the test in general and about the other lenses involved.

This test has taught me that there's no replacement to resolution. We tried to equalize the playing field by downsampling the files to 12MP, but it was clear that where there was fine detail involved (Foliage, horizon), the D800 simply "sees" more detail than the 5D Mark II. And this reflects in the final files. Canon's lenses are certainly up to the task, but they need better sensors to compete. Not just for resolution, but also in terms of dynamic range (Look at the clumped up shadows in the Canon samples).  That said, here are some final thoughts on the different lenses:

Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 (Canon mount)

Somebody has to come last in every comparo and that dubious honor falls upon the Sigma 12-24. It consistently came last in almost all tests and was visibly worse than the rest. Face it, there are only two reasons why you'd want this lens:

1) You want to go the absolute widest on a fullframe body or

2) You're broke.

If it's reason 1, I'd say forget it. It's terrible at 12mm. I wouldn't even call its performance at this focal length "Usable". It's decent at 16-20mm, but at that focal range, you have better options.

If you're broke, I'd say save up a bit more and get a used Canon 17-40 or Nikon 17-35. Both lenses are not as good as the Canons and Nikons tested here, but will perform better than the Sigma.

Canon 8-15 f/4 L Fisheye

This lens was included in the test for a novelty factor, but it did surprise us with some strong performances. That said, if I were a Canon user, I wouldn't buy this lens. I'd rent it each time I need it. It's far too limited to be a regular part of your kit. It's like Chachi from Happy Days. Fun in small doses, easily gets on the nerves once made part of the regular cast.

Oh, and definitely use it with a crop sensor camera.

Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II

This lens has some quality optics in it, no doubt. The slightly disappointing performance at the wider end notwithstanding, this lens is a must have for Canon landscapers. As mentioned before, it's let down by inferior sensor technology. Once Canon's next gen, high res cameras are launched, this lens would fulfill its potential (And I suspect might even win such a comparo).

Face to face with the Nikon 16-35, I'd say this lens has less distortion, better consistency from center to corner and slightly better at the long end. The Nikon is overall a bit sharper and better at the wide end.

Sigma 20 f/1.8 (Nikon mount)

Before this test, I was ready to sell this lens off. Now, I am not so sure. As mentioned earlier, if Sigma launches a V2 of this lens with better AF, build and corner performance, I just might get one. I will most definitely get one if they do an 18 f/1.8. Judging by how great their recent lenses are, I am hopeful that this might happen.

Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 ED

This lens, in internet folklore is untouchable. It's part of the famed Holy Trinity, therefore one must not speak ill of it. But the truth is, it IS bested by a couple of others in certain areas. While it's still no slouch (Some of the differences seen earlier are darn near invisible in print), the fact that it has no filter thread breaks the deal for me in the end. However, if you're into architecture/ low light event coverage, this is THE Nikon ultrawide to get. When we applied distortion compensation in LR, I was astonished to see how little compensation was needed for this lens across all focal lengths. Still an incredible lens and I'm sure than whenever its successor is announced, it will push the envelope further.

...It's just not the lens for me.

Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR

And yes, here's the overall winner of this comparison. It's not the widest, not the best built or the fastest. But what it does is deliver consistent performance across its focal range. This is the lens that a Nikon landscaper can proudly own. Paired with a camera such as the D800, it really kicks some butt. And most importantly for me, it takes my filters.

Here are some shots I took with this lens on the D800 that same evening.

Once upon a tide

Once upon a tide

Questions? Feedback? Do let me know in the comments.

P.S. Depending on the resolution of your monitor, you may see a downscaled version of the 100% crops. Click here to view and download all the images seen in this test.

- Sandeep Murali -

Support this site by buying your camera gear from the below link:

Quite a mouthful, innit? That name?

Anyone who is into portraiture knows that a tele-zoom is an important part of their kit. While there sure are purists out there who scoff at the idea of a zoom (Even a constant aperture one), the fact of the matter is, primes are quite inflexible when it comes to strobe-lit portraiture. "Zooming with your feet" isn't an option there because as you move forward or backward, you're also moving in relation to the light source. To maintain consistency in the quality of light between loose and tight shots, one ideally must remain in the same position as they shoot and here is where the tele-zoom comes in handy.

While I do own a tele-zoom, it's one of the worst in Nikon's long storied history. The 70-300 G. I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemies. As I am getting more and more serious about strobe-lit portraiture, I realized that renting/ borrowing a tele isn't always feasible. So, after thinking long and hard, I decided to break the piggybank and get myself one of them pro telezooms.

Why the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ?

Introduced in 2003, this lens was one of the first with Vibration Reduction (VR) in Nikon's lineup. It was a replacement to the long running 80-200 series and had a brand new optical formula. I won't bother you with the stats (Those are easily available on the internet), but this is a very complex lens with a LOT of glass in it. It's worth keeping in mind that even though this is an FX format lens, at its time of introduction, Nikon did not have any FX format DSLRs in its lineup. While it was still possible to use it on their 35mm film cameras such as the F5 and F6, at that point of time, the primary focus (Pun unintended!) of the lens was to deliver class leading performance on the company's DX format pro DSLRs. This led to some criticism for the lens when Nikon launched their FX format DSLRs and subsequently led to the launch of its successor, the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II.

When I decided that I would be getting myself a constant aperture tele zoom, I looked at all the options available to me. The cheapest of course, was the 80-200 f/2.8 D. It is in production even to this day and earlier model, used copies are very affordable. But what let it down for me was the lack of VR. Although I don't shoot much in low light situations anymore, VR is one useful trick that is indispensable these days.

Next up was the just-launched 70-200 f/4 VR III. I rented this lens for my last shoot and was VERY impressed by it. It was sharp all across the frame and VR III was phenomenal, delivering sharp, 1/8 second shots easily at 200mm. I almost went for this, but the fact that I doesn't play nice with teleconverters, nor has the build quality and weather sealing of its bigger brother made me drop it from the list.

Speaking of the bigger brother, the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is the pinnacle of Nikon's optical engineering. If someone asked me, "How good are these Nikon lenses"?, I'd ask them to rent this lens and see for themselves. This lens is virtually flawless, save for the "Focus breathing" (non) issue that some people like to drum up on the forums. I'd have absolutely loved to go for this lens, but the fact remains that it is VERY expensive and I really cannot justify spending that kinda cash on a lens, not until and unless I am earning from this hobby of mine.

Then of course, there's the superb Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. I had a chance to play around with it in Tokyo and felt that it was a superbly built and optically amazing lens. Apart from the slightly slower focus than the Nikkors and slightly plasticky buttons, this lens is phenomenal. Tamron's VS is equally as good as Nikon's VR. However, when I decide to spend this kinda cash on a pro lens, I also wanted it to be an investment. I wanted to make sure that when I finally decide to upgrade, I can sell the lens off for a decent amount. And when it comes to resale value, Tamron is no competition to Nikon.

Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 OS is a terrible lens and I won't waste time talking about it.

So yeah, when the dust settled, the only real option I had was the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Thanks to its superb successor being in the market for a while, its resale price settled down to a very reasonable level and is likely to stay there for a while. I got mine from a  private seller who hardly ever used it. Apart from the slightly scratched lens cover, the lens basically looked untouched by humans. I looked up the serial number and realized that it is from one of the later batches as well. An incredible opportunity that I just had to capitalize on. And I did.

Having been using/testing the lens for the last few days, I thought I'd post a review on it. Do keep in mind that I've only had the lens for a few days, so this review is far from being in-depth. Besides, I doubt if anyone wants to read an in-depth review of a 5 year old lens. These are mostly my observations about the lens and if I come across something significant in the future, I will update this post with that information.

Boy, is this thing a brick or what!

When I saw the previous owner bring the lens down in its golden box, that's what went through my mind. The packaging really is substantial. The previous owner was a casual shooter who mistakenly bought a lens that was too bulky and heavy for his kind of use. Now this is a caveat to anyone who is thinking about this lens (Or any of the f/2.8 telezooms). Buy this ONLY if you NEED the pro build and performance. If you're looking for a lens you can take to your holiday trips, you're better off with something much cheaper.

If you are willing to put up with the bulk though, this lens won't disappoint you with its build. It is the proverbial tank, built to the highest standards, not just for Nikon, but for any manufacturer. At its time of release, this was one of the longest in its class and it still is. Long and slender, the lens is almost entirely made of metal. It is weather sealed and comes with a ginormous hood. When you walk down the streets with this lens attached to your camera, people take notice (I know, I did just that today). Personally, I find this lens to be more handsome than its successor. I remember this lens catching my eye years ago when it was released. The VR II didn't quite have the same effect on me.

Another caveat about using big, heavy pro lenses. If it is connected to the camera body, NEVER lift the setup up by the camera. Lift it up by the lens. You seriously risk damaging the camera mount if you do the former. Especially if you do not have a pro body, as in the lower end models, the lens mount is actually fixed to a plastic frame, not a metal one (This goes for the D600 too). If you're mounting the setup to a tripod, use the metal foot that came with the lens. Do not mount it by the camera body.

Initial setup:

The first thing one has to do after getting a pro lens is to do the focus fine tune test. High end camera bodies have a feature by which one can fine tune the focus of the lenses you own to correct any front/ back focus issues that your particular camera/ lens combo may have. This occurs because even though cameras and lenses are made using machinery with tight tolerances, they still have slight variations from sample to sample. The copy is certified as "QC OK" if the variation is within the benchmark tolerances. To reduce these variations down further would mean spacecraft levels of engineering involved and your lens would now cost 10 times as much. AF fine tune is just a more cost effective way of handling this.

So to summarize, the same lens would have slightly different results in two bodies of the same model camera. It is very essential that one does the AF fine tune test and save a profile for each lens that they own, for each of their camera bodies. If your lens has -1 tolerance and your body has +1, you're in luck coz no correction is needed. However, if your lens has -2 and your body -5, you'll have to dial in +7 compensation. And so on.

The right way to do this can be found at this link. Yes, it is time consuming, but is well worth the effort if you're after the ultimate image quality.

Much to my surprise, when I did the test, I realized that my copy needed no correction at all! See image sample below. I re-did the tests a few times just to be sure and got consistent results.

So with that settled, I moved on to testing the image quality.

Image quality:

A few things of note before we get into this.

1) One does not buy a 70-200 f/2.8 lens to shoot wide open all the time.

Yes, there are guys who do this. I know. "Bokehlicious" is the in-thing. Especially if you're upgrading from a point and shoot or even a kit lens. But at these focal lengths, shallow apertures just become, "Silly". In fact, I'd even argue that f/1.8 on even a 50mm is too shallow for most purposes. Does your model really want to have only one eye in focus? Look at the noteworthy images shot by your favorite pros. I guarantee that only a fraction of them are done with a wide open lens. meaningful shots need a decent amount of DoF.

No, one buys an f/2.8 lens because lenses tend to get much sharper when stopped down one or 2 stops. This means that an f/2.8 lens at f/4 would perform better than an f/4 lens wide open. Also, the faster your max aperture is, the better your chances are with teleconverters.

2) Do not expect boring shots of test charts or straight out of camera images in my reviews.

My reviews are real-world reviews. They have real world samples in them. If you want to see test charts, MTF graphs etc. there are many sites out there that do it really well. I am not paid to do that and I'd rather spend my time shooting real world subjects.

Also, the samples in my reviews would be processed as per my usual workflow. I buy my gear based on how they fit into my workflow. What comes out of the camera is irrelevant to me as long as it's malleable enough to go through my post-production pipeline. If you're ethically against this, please stop reading now and head over to Ken Rockwell's site. I hear he loves them JPEGs. My images are color corrected, exposure and tone curve adjusted and high-pass sharpened. I like my meals cooked, not half-cooked. How about you?

That off my chest, let's move on:

Criticisms about the lens:

Before I bought the lens, I did some extensive research on the internet about its performance on FX cameras. As a lend designed primarily for DX, it did have its fair share of criticisms. They are as follows:

1) Vignetting:

Irrelevant. Anyone who uses Lightroom in their workflow can fix this with one click. In fact, I ADD slight vignettes to a lot of my images for artistic effect. Vignettes and barrel/ pincushion distortions are the easiest to correct in post and no one should worry about them in the year 2013.

2) Corner sharpness:

This one's for real. The lens does have a falloff in the corners when it comes to sharpness when on full frame bodies. A high resolution sensor like the D800 does extract the best out of it, but it is still a real issue. But is it relevant? Let's see.

This is one of the many samples I shot to demonstrate this issue and was the worst case of the lot. This is NOT the typical scenario, but the worst case one.

This is a corner crop at f/8

Hold the presses, that's TERRIBLE!!!! Or is it? Look at the entire image now:

Does it bother you now? Not really at normal viewing distances and normal reproduction sizes. In fact, if you're not a pixel peeper, the only way this will bother you is if you stand inches away from a giant print and look at the corners. Which would be a silly thing to do.

Another reason why this is not a big deal for me is because of the way I usually frame. For landscapes such as this, I usually shoot in 5:4 format in camera, which means that the edges are cropped off anyway. If you look at my portfolio, you'll see that very few images are in 3:2 format. I personally despise this format and usually try to frame in 5:4 or 4:3.

Lastly, let's not forget that this lens is primarily used by most people for portraiture and when doing portraits, one does not really put anything in the corners.

So yes, not perfect, but livable with and likeable.

Performance across focal lengths: Sharpness

At its widest, the lens is pretty good, with very little barrel distortion (Corrected in the sample) and great sharpness, even at f/4 (As mentioned before, I didn't do too many tests at f/2.8).

The fine textures on the buildings were reproduced incredibly well. No complaints here.

Around 85mm, the lens becomes scary sharp and in my opinion, is its "Sweet spot" in the zoom range. Images just look 3 dimensional!

At 160mm, it's still crazy sharp. The focal point in the below sample was the building with the multicolored windows. Check out the detailing on it!

And finally, here's a shot at 200mm. Plenty of detail here too and the only thing of note is the pincushion distortion and vignetting (Both fixed in post). Focal point is the building in the foreground.

So yeah, no complaints about sharpness or detail resolved. So, how about Bokeh?

Bokeh:

 Contrary to what some people might think, Bokeh isn't the amount blur in your image, it's the QUALITY of the blur. A lens with good bokeh would have the out of focus elements melt into nothingness with no harsh circles around  (Or worse, inside) them.  I can easily show you what a cream machine this lens is wide open with samples like this:

Yes, that can certainly be done. But it's representative of nothing in real life and an absolute waste of the lens. In the real world, it would be something like as below. Stopped down to f/4, the lens does this:

Notice how the leaves I the background turn into creamy blobs with no harsh outlines. This thing is a beauty.

Do remember though, Depth of Field is related to the focal length of the lens and also to the distance of the subject and background from the lens and from each other. If your subject is close to the camera ad the background further away, you will get some serious blurring. At a focal length like 200mm, this can be seen even at f/8. See sample below (I might have missed critical focus on this one. I was walking and so were the subjects and I used Single AF, not continuous. Oh well).

Ok, so Bokeh's great. What about focusing?

Focusing speed and accuracy:

As mentioned before, it's important that you do the AF fine tune test before you attempt anything. That said, this here is a lens designed not just for portraiture, but for sports shooters and photojournos, both of whom who value AF speed very much. It's no surprise then that this lens has one of the fastest AF systems in the entire Nikon lineup, bested perhaps, only by its successor. Everything is lightning fast, especially if you enable the focus limiter.

Now I might not shoot a lot of action, but I am familiar with the capabilities of the Nikon AF system and decide to test the lens' AF abilities out on a fast moving and erratic target, AKA pigeons. Here's one shot from the lot:

That is as sharp as it they come! Check out the detailing in its feathers! On a sidenote, the 3D tracking in modern Nikon DSLRs is nothing short of phenomenal. I doubt it was designed with pigeons in mind though. As the system works based on subject shape and color, it did tend to get fooled by the hundreds of pigeons around, all of whom are of the same size, shape and color. Phenomenal, but not infallible. But I digress.

Ok, that's all good, how about portraits?

Strobe-lit portraiture:

Yes, the main reason why I bought this darn thing in the first place. I really did want to do some portrait samples for this review, but my human models deserted me at the last moment. No matter, I turned to two of my ever dependable friends for help and they obliged. So without further ado, here are Tigger and Teddy posing for the camera, lit by a single SB900 in TTL and a gold reflector for fill. Shot at f/10 and 190mm.

I really couldn't ask for more from a portrait lens. Wow! Look at that detail and all those textures! This is the reason why I got this lens and boy, did I get my money's worth or what!

BTW, Teddy's standing up thanks to the magic of a Joby Gorillapod. He doesn't like to stand up, usually.

Here's a behind-the-scenes shot of the lighting setup:

Shushhh... I know it's a crappy cellphone image. Just be glad that I didn't Instagram it and tag it #InstaTeddy and #InstaTigger.

Conclusion:

So there you go, those are my thoughts on this lens. For my kind of usage, I couldn't be happier. Should YOU get it? That's a question worth pondering about.

Do you like to travel light and are primarily into stopped down landscaping and also, does not plan to do much rough weather shooting?  If so, look at the 70-200 f/4 VR or the 70-300 VR. Both are lighter, costs the same (Former) or cheaper (Latter) and  are better suited for your needs.

Do you have a big fat wallet and want the best? Don't think twice, get yourself the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. There is none better.

Do you have the same budget as me, but are not really concerned about resale value? i.e. You intend to use the lens for at least 6 years or so? If so, do consider the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. It's VC is better than mine and is optically at least as good or better than mine as well.  That goes for Canon shooters too.

However, if you're the same sort of shooter as me, i.e. Heavily into strobe-lit shooting, involved in pro-usage scenarios, not afraid to shoot in a bit of rain, etc. and are budget conscious, this is absolutely the best choice you could make for your money. Go ahead and give this gem of a lens a try. You won't be disappointed.

All image samples can be viewed/ downloaded at full res at this link:

- Sandeep Murali -

Support this site by buying your camera gear from the below link:

I usually tend to ignore these experts and leave them to their own devices, but with the advent of Instagram et. al, the signal to noise ratio has taken a turn for the worse. It has become almost impossible to have a sane conversation about equipment without a reverse snob butting in to share his profound thoughts. This post is a summary of all that I want to say to these gentlemen. I am writing this so that the next time I encounter this topic, I can just link this post as a response and save some time and effort.

Here's the short version: No silly, equipment matters.

Equipment matters, PROVIDED you know what to do with it.

Let that hang in the air for a second. Why did Saint Ansel pack giant 8x10s and wooden tripods up mountains if a tiny little Kodak Brownie would have sufficed? Why are fashion photographers using 40MP digital backs when the final print is only A4 sized? If you listen to some "Experts" such as the infamous Mr. Rockwell, 6MP is all that you ever need. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. While a cardboard box with a pinhole in it and a PhaseOne back can both technically record an image, the smart photographer uses the right tools for the right job. There is no such thing as a universally usable camera or lens. Sometimes, high end equipment is the difference between shot and no shot.

Still with me?

One of the first fallacies that's being propagated is that low end equipment somehow magically makes you more creative. Not so. Creativity is a singularity that's inherent in you. You have the same level of creativity bubbling within, whether you're shooting with an iPhone or a D800. The difference is, the iPhone presents so many limitations in front of you that you're constantly looking for ways to mask them (Cue Filters, hipster angles etc.). THIS is what's constantly mistaken as creativity. Doing a fake tilt-shift of crashing waves at a beach and adding some fake Velvia processing doesn't make you more creative. You're just being resourceful in covering up the deficiencies of that peanut sized sensor. At that exact same location, you could shoot with a 36 megapixel full frame DSLR with a sharp, fast wide angle prime and some ND and grad ND filters and come up with a different image. If using all that gear somehow makes me "Less creative", so be it. Out of the two images, I know which one I would want to show in my portfolio.

Sea of sorrow

By the way, using 36MP for that image wasn't so that I can print it building size, but to have much more microcontrast and much less noise while downsampling. If you haven't realized it yet, a 36MP image downsampled to 3MP would have a lot more detail and a lot less noise than a native 3MP image. It also gives you a lot of headroom for retouching. THIS is why some of us shoot with high megapixels, Mr. Rockwell. Not so that we can print them a 100 feet tall and 75 feet wide.

This is also about the time when the reverse snob links one to some news article about an iPhone picture being picked by Time magazine or whoever to be on their cover. Let's think about that one for a second. More often than not, these shots are picked for their documentation value and because they are available before any images taken with more traditional cameras are ready. The technical quality or artistic merit of the image is irrelevant and what matters is that it is AVAILABLE. But that DOES NOT mean that other disciplines of photography such as landscaping, studio portraiture, stock photography etc. would and should make the same concessions.  Most of the images taken in these disciplines are only possible because of the specific equipment used.

Now let's look at specific usage scenarios. Imagine there's a football game in your city and you get press clearance to cover it. Pretty much every other guy around you would be shooting with two bodies, one with a 70-200 and the other with a longer prime. If equipment didn't matter, you should be able to match their output with a cameraphone and some "Cool" filters. But the fact is, you just can't. Professionals spend tens of thousands of dollars on their gear for the autofocus performance, the optical sharpness, the high ISO performance, the reach, the subject isolation etc. that they offer. Without that gear, those shots simply won't happen. You can't argue against science, folks.

Or how about something that's a bit slower? Imagine that you were commissioned by a real estate agent to take pictures of a brand new apartment that needs to go up on his website. Professionals use wide angle Tilt/Shift lenses and fill flashes for these jobs. They are essential in ensuring that there's no keystoning in the shots and that the rooms are adequately lit. You often work in tight constraints when it comes to space, so nearly all pros prefer full frame cameras for this. Think you can match their output with your phone? Does equipment not matter?

Let me put it in even simpler terms. A guitar is but a tool, much like a camera. It takes someone with skill to get art out of it; again much like a camera. That said, have you ever seen Eric Clapton do a concert with a Squier starter pack?

The fact is, sweeping statements such as "Equipment does not matter" are stupid. If you're even remotely passionate about photography, you shouldn't be making such statements as you're putting yourselves on a tight leash  by doing so. Yes, there are specific scenarios where a low end tool might work. But that in no way means that this is the universal truth for all scenarios involving photography. The smart photographer chooses the right tools for the right job. For instance, the image on top of this post was taken with a Nikon V1 (Review coming soon). It's got a sensor that's a fraction of the size of my D800. But I chose that camera for my trip because I had to travel light and it was the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM I needed to capture the images I had in mind for the trip. A D800 would have given me more detail and dynamic range in that shot, but the V1's output was "Good enough". That does not mean that equipment doesn't matter. Attempt the same with a phone and you'll end up with an image with a lot less dynamic range and a lot more noise. Unacceptable for this image, but perfectly OK for a picture of your dessert that evening.
 

Good morning, Tokyo!
 

"The best camera is the one you have with you".

One of the most mis-used statements in the history of photography and the mantra of every reverse-snob ever. Yet Chase Jarvis, the man who coined that statement always shows up for a job with his D4 and his D800, not his iPhone.

Co-incidence? I think not.

Gustavo Vazquez is from Mexico. He's Aztec by blood and is a talented artist. He draws, paints, sculpts and yes, occasionally plays the guitar. He has a phenomenally charming smile and is quite the ladies' man. Despite all this though, he has never been properly photographed. I wanted to do a shoot for him that would make him look larger than life and also highlights the artistic side of him. Through my conversations with him, I understood that he's a fan of Latin rock and especially, Carlos Santana. We decided on doing a shoot that's a loose tribute to Santana. By loose tribute, I meant that I didn't want Gustavo to dress up as a Carlos Santana impersonator. I wanted him to be his own man, but with the influences being quite evident.

Shooting with me was my buddy Srikeerthi K.S. who is a phenomenally talented photographer himself. Besides, he's a Canonian, which brings all sorts of interesting dynamics to the shoot as yours truly is partial to the gold ring brand. Helping out with the lighting was Sylvia Seow and Sushma Sridhar.

We did a reccee for possible locations and zeroed in on four. After doing some quick planning, we decided to use a 5 foot octa as our key light (Which it was, for all but one location,as you will see later), lit with a very reliable and affordable pack 'n head, the Jinbei Discovery 600. The reason for this was that the octa is an immensely flexible light shaping tool. With both baffles installed and up close to the subject, it delivers beautiful, soft light that wraps around them. With the outer baffle removed and/ or an eggcrate installed and backed away a bit, the light instantly gains some direction and hardness, but still softer than a bare bulb. Great for our purpose, then!

Gustavo has a strong face with strong character lines, so we didn't want the light to be too soft. Also, we were working in some very tight spaces. For this reason, we decided to keep the eggcrate on as much as possible.

Location 1:

I found an old, worn down painter's stool in the apartment that I wanted to use as a prop. When we saw some red grilles that protected the power switches and a fire extinguisher, we immediately knew where that stool belonged. We decided to use the octa with the egg crate here, backed away a bit as explained before to deliver a hard-ish light and also prevent spill to the background. We did a classic placement, high and pointing down 45 degrees. I quite like working with one light at a time and getting it right before we add another light to the scene. That said, we are actually adding two light sources to the scene with this. See the giant white wall to Gustavo's right? That would be our fill light. Be careful with this technique though, if your wall is anythig but white, the light would take on that color as well. Sometimes, this delivers interesting results. Other times, not so much.

Next step of course, was to get the lightmeter out and take a reading. Dear readers, if you're interested in studio-style photography, do yourselves a favor and get a lightmeter ASAP. The lower end Sekonics start at a couple of hundred bucks or so. Lightmeters are brilliant and take all the guesswork out of your shoot. Your eyes may deceive you, but a lightmeter never lies. We settled on an exposure of 1/200s @f/8 because the Canon doesn't sync above that (lolol).

 Now, it's time to fine tune the light a bit.

After the first few shots, we realized that the background, only lit with ambient now was a tad flat. Also, there wasn't too much of a separation between the subject and the background. Obviously, we need to introduce another light to the scene. This is what many photographers call a "Kicker" or a hair light". Typically, this is placed behind the subject, high and pointing down. It's usually hard light, sometimes snooted so that the separation isn't diffused.

As you can see, we didn't have a lot of space to play with, so we decided to use a speedlight here. I brought out my trusty SB-900, which I set in SU-4 mode. This means that it will fire automatically as soon as it "Sees" another flash. And I do mean ANY flash. Even the one from the tiny Sony RX-100 that was being used to shoot the behind the scenes images! Here's a nice capture by Sushma showing how the SB-900 blinded me while she was taking a BTS shot!

Apart from acting as the kicker, the SB-900 also fulfilled another important role. Subtly lighting up the background and creating some interesting shadows on it from the grille. We will see this later.

We fixed a gorillapod beneath the SB so that we could mount it to the grille. This is again another useful accessory whose value in the field, I can't stress enough.

Once that was done, it was time to shoot.

Here's Gustavo posing initially:

As you can see, he's not a very happy camper. It's the first time he's been in front of big lights and two huge cameras and gigantic lenses and understandably, he's quite nervous. It's quite important that you take the time to talk to the subject and make them feel at ease. A professional model would pose just fine with the basic instructions (Turn to left, tilt your face down a bit... etc.) but most people are not professional models. Us photographers have to talk to them, make them feel like they are a star. We did exactly that and that eased him up immediately. Soon enough, he started giving us that very photogenic smile of his.

A quite straightforward setup and here's the final result:

Location 2:

After the first shoot, everyone, including the talent were in high spirits. It is important to start off with a simple setup as a complicated light set up right at the start would put everyone off.

We moved to a second location. The backdrop was a set of aluminium shutters. While we wanted to light the background with a separate light, we barely had 10 feet of working distance to play with. This meant that we had to use a single light to light the subject and background. Hence, the egg crate came off the octa. As it was before, a white wall on the other side would act as a giant reflector for fill.

Unlike the last time, the octa was positioned perpendicular to the ground for even lighting of upper and lower body. Here's a BTS shot from the octa's PoV.

Again, working at  f/8 @ 1/200s, we took a few shots. Here are a couple.

Location 3:

This was going to be a challenging one. We shortlisted a very small pltform that overlooked the cityscape. The working space was extremely limited, but the backdrop was just too gorgeous to ignore. we decided to get a bit creative with the lights. We decided to place out main light a floor above. Thank god for radio triggers as there was absolutely no line of sight to be had here!

Within a couple of test shots, it was clear that the octa was too big a light source for the look we were aiming for. We could have taken the baffles off and used it as a sor of beauty dish, but instead, we decided to go hard with the standard reflector.

Once this light was set up, we started to think of separation. The background was very dim, which meant that we had to drag the shutter. This means that we shoot at a very low shutterspeed, which will create two exposures for each shot. The first one of the subject, lit by the flash and the second one fof the background from the ambient light. We also pushed the ISOs up a bit to not let the shutterspeed drop too low. This meant a working shutterspeed of 1/4, which in turn, meant that this was a job for the excellet 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens from Tamron.

Even with the dragged shutter, we didn't get enough separation from the background, mainly because the subject was wearing a black shirt. we introduced a second light, a "Kicker" in the scene. This was again, the SB-900 fitted with a grid. This threw a defined beam of light at the subject's back and created the outline.

Now, since the subject is wearing a hat and since the key light was from up above, his face was rather dark. To brighten it up, we placed a gold reflector on the gournd and bounced a Yongnuo YN-560 on to it. This threw some warm light on to his hands and face. The setup can be seen below:

These took quite a bit of tweaking, but we were finally happy with the setup and it was time to shoot!

...and here's the final image:

Location 4:

With our "Larger than life" shot done, it was time to experiment a bit. This was going to be a "Different" shot, more environmental in nature and I decided that I wanted to use a wide angle lens for it. Out came my trusty Sigma 20 f/1.8 from the bag.

We had shortlisted a spiral staircase for this shot. The staircase was rather unique in the sense that there were some stucco-surfaced pillars behind it with some air gap between them. We wanted to bring these pillars out a bit, so we went down the flight of stairs and placed a second Jinbei Discovery 600 with a wide angle reflector with a CTO gel on it there, with the beam aimed square at the pilalrs. Here are some shots demonstrating the setup:

Our key light was again going to be the octa with the egg crate again, but this time, it was feathered (Aimed slightly away from the subject instead of straight at him to create some interesting shadows) and we also bounced another flash off a refletor to throw some light at the subject's face.

A second reflector was placed below the camera to bounce a bit of light under the chin to lighten the shadows there up a bit. The below image shows this setup:

Once the lights were tweaked a bit, we were happy with the set up and started shooting. I wanted to create the ambinece, much like a music video where a rockstar plays his guitar as he comes down the stairs. Because of all the strong textures around, I decided to process the shot in black and white. The result is as below:

So there you go, that's a wrap! Here's the tired crew and talent, forcing themselves to smile at 2AM!

If you have any questions, comments or critique about the shoot, feel free to drop a comment below and I'll respond at the soonest. Remember, photography is not a destination; it's a journey. And with each step, I am learning something new. There may have been mistakes made in the shoot and certain things could defintiely be done differently in retrospect, but Gustavo Vazquez, my frind who has never been photographed professionally, is over the moon looking at his pictures and couldn't be happier. He truly feels like he was a rockstar for a day.

I guess that counts for a lot.

- Sandeep Murali

Your support is greatly appreciated.

 - Sandeep Murali

It's still early days and I'll be tweaking things here and there, but feel free to look/ shop around and leave comments about your thoughts.

Thanks!

- Sandeep Murali -