Page last updated 2008-04-05.
My current equipment
On this page:
the bodies: canon 40d & 20d & 300d the lenses: my primary lens set more lenses: the additional and the exceptional other vital and non-vital stuff
© 2004-2008 Heikki Siltala. All Rights Reserved.
This page describes the photography equipment that I currently use. Some deprecated equipment is described on Nytech and Kodak pages. While reading this page please note that I'm 100 percent amateur photographer and work hard every day to pay for my equipment.
I can't resist the urge to give you the first free advice: the equipment you need depends on what you're about to do with them. There is no single piece of an equipment that suits for all needs. If you need something easy to carry around then a DSLR might not be the right choice for you. But if you put more weight on the image quality than to the portability then you'll probably find yourself buying a DSLR. And the same principle is with lenses: there is no single lens that is perfect for all uses. My lens setup is strongly weighted by the fact that they must work well on cat show photography. A bird watcher would choose a whole different lens setup.
The Bodies: Canon 40D & 20D & 300DCanon EOS 40D
is currently my primary camera body. After the purchase at October 2007 I have been using
it actively. To put it short Canon 40D
Changing from 20D to 40D was partially an accident for me. I had a friend who needed a camera body at the same time when I was thinking whether to go with 20D for a year or so or to start looking for an upgrade. When the possiblity opened I decided to sell the 20D to my friend and needed a replacement. The most logical choice was to get the 40D that just hit the market.
The larger LCD and a somewhat quieter operation sound are the first noticable changes to 20D. Some technical features has been added like high ISO noise reduction and Live view. The autofocus seems to get better hits at low light. As far I as know the 40D is a very good camera body for advanced hobbyists. The main point worth mentioning here is the responsiviness: what ever you do the camera is as fast as you are. No need to wait for anything. But if you expect the image quality get radically better when you change your 20D, 30D, 350D or 400D to 40D you may be disappointed. The improvements on the area of image quality are small. It seems that the development of DSLR bodies has slowed down and the image quality improvements are getting smaller. If this goes on the body makers will have focus even more on the marketing hype to get the bodies sold. The rational reasons for a body upgrade are getting marginal.
What are the features I would like to see on future DSLR bodies?
On the other hand the features that I'm not looking for on future DSLR's are
Canon EOS 20D
was my primary camera body. After the purchase at December 2005 I used it
it actively. The body was sold at October 2007 due to the purchase of 40D body. Putting it short Canon 20D
I have found my Canon 20D to be a nice camera for my purposes. I previously used Canon 300D which was fine on most situations but lacked the killer speed I need at the cat shows. 20D is a step more pro than 300D and moving forward from 300D to 20D was a nice upgrade. 20D has even less noise at high ISO than 300D despite of the more-megapixel sensor. Canon 20D continues to serve as my primary body until further notice. Since the 30D is a boosted up version of 20D I can easily recommend both 20D and 30D for advanced hobbyists.
My 20D has been sent to service station once. In extreme conditions (high room temperature and humidity combined with shooting a lot of photos) it has had a habit to get jammed once in a while: all operations suddenly stop and a reboot or battery removal is needed to restore the normal operation. So just before the warranty expired I sent the body to service station and some electronics was replaced.
Canon EOS 300D (aka Digital Rebel, Digital Kiss)
is currently my backup camera body. It was the first SLR and DSLR body I have
ever owned. I have used is since September 2004 and have been satisfied with it. To put it short it
Upgrading to 300D from Nytech ND-4020 was a great leap towards better photos. A big improvemenet was the overall handling. The most significant change was with low light performance: with 300D I was able to take great photos with less light and use long exposure times without ruining the photos with noise. The body has been repaired once. A part called "sub mirror stopper" was replaced after approx 40 000 shots while the body was under warranty. Probably I can't blame the body since this is a beginner-level body and I have stressed it like a semi-pro.
A nice feature is that by installing "the Russian firmware" it grows up a little and becomes a poor man's Canon 10D. The only things that can't be upgraded with the firmware are the limitations of continuous "servo focusing" mode and the four-photo image buffer. I have been using the Russian firmware without any issues worth to mention here.
Comparison between 300D and 20D is not fair since 300D is older model and was targeted as entry-level DSLR while 20D is of newer design and was aimed for advanced hobbyists. I'll still list some of the points that I have noticed. 20D is faster: faster shutter rate, faster processor, faster CF write time, writes the CF even when the shutter is half pressed etc. 20D has more professional look and feel. It has a larger image buffer and wider range of settings. Both have rather a small LCD screen which is fixed in 30D and 400D. Which body would I choose out of 300D and 20D? Definitely 20D. Which body would I choose out of 300D and 20D if I wanted the most cost-effective DSLR solution? Definitely 300D.
How about a word of the newer Canon models like 350D, 400D, 30D and 5D? Since I haven't used them I have nothing to say about them. Well, maybe one thing: I have got my hands on 350D and the first impression was that it was a way too small for me. Since I can't judge equipment that I haven't used I can't tell you anything about Nikon's bodies. And it goes also with Olympus, Sony Alpha, Sigma, Fuji etc.
The lenses: my primary lens setIt has been said that to improve the quality of photos the first thing to do is to learn how to shoot. The second thing to do is to get better lenses. All the rest like buying a new camera body is insignificant.
Now it is time to take a look at the lenses I use. I found the lenses to be more interesting to discuss about than the bodies. People often ask me what camera do I use. I feel that question should be what lenses do I use. My current primary lens set I use at the cat shows consists of four primes (read: fixed focal length lenses) having a total ERP (estimated retail price) around 1500 euros. Due the fact that I have found the primes to offer better image quality and larger maximum aperture than the zooms I prefer primes over zooms. Feel free to do vice versa. Since I do most of my shooting indoors without a flash I need all the aperture I can get.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (ERP 425 euros)
.JPG)
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a reliable workhorse that hasn't let me down. The photos taken with it have good colors,
high contrast and good sharpness. As I shoot indoors without a flash I often need to run the lens down to f/1.4 and haven't
been disappointed. Of course the lens produces better on-focus sharpness at f/2.8 than at f/1.4 but when there is an urge for
light you just need all the aperture you can get. Probably the only thing to complain is the fact that the lens shows purple chromatic
aberration when there are high contrasts on the photo. Often this is easy to get fixed with photo editor so it is not much an issue.
There are also some other color shifts on high contrast areas out of focus. I have noticed that there is often
a green cast on these areas. The lens has a plastic body which might feel a little bit cheap but it also keeps the weight down.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (ERP 435 euros)
.JPG)
Sometimes my beloved Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is not enough. I just need something longer or want to get the ultimate background
blurring. These are the times when Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM comes handy. I have found that image quality is practically equal to
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM so I can do no other than recommend this 85 mm lens. The thing to complain is the same thing as with
the 50 mm lens: the 85 mm one shows purple chromatic aberration when there is high contrasts on the photo.
Most of the time this is easily fixed with a photo editor.
My copy of the 85 mm also seems to have a ocassional backfocus issue: on certain conditions the lens seems to set the focus behind
the object. When shooting f/1.8 this often comes visible. On smaller apertures the larger depth of field typically hides this behavior.
The lens has a plastic body which keeps the weight down but
might feel a little cheap.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (ERP 400 euros)
.JPG)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM is the only lens that I have nothing to complain about. Well maybe one thing: it won't work well on
a full frame body so if I decide to upgrade to full frame I have no longer use for this piece of a jewellery. Now back to track:
everything else is great. The image quality is superb: the colors are vivid and accurate - even better than the colors with
the 50 mm lens. The images are sharp and the background blur is great. There seems to be virtually
no CA.
The mechanical structure of the lens is solid and gives a feeling of high quality.
The autofocus is fast and reliable which is uncommon to lenses of this focal length. If you don't like third party lenses it is now your
final opportunity to reconsider! Actually I was considering to purchase the
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM but decided to go with the Sigma
due to larger maximum aperture, better sharpness at large apertures and due to a smaller price. This seems to have been
the right choice. This lens rises the bar of what can be done without a tripod or a monopod. Setting the body to ISO 3200,
the shutter speed to 1/60 s and the aperture to f/1.4 you can go hand held where no-one can expect it.
Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X Pro (ERP 270 euros)
.JPG)
Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X is my current wide angle lens. It is a great lens for
example for landscape shooting. It was my first lens that was built like a real pro
lens but was far from the pro price. It was also my first and currently the only
lens that I have ordered from Germany. The price tag in Finland was so much higher than
ordering from Germany was justified. How about the image quality? Sharpness and colors are fine.
What bothers me a little is a significant tendency to show chromatic
aberration of various colors but this is very common with wide angle lenses. It could also be faster but
it seems impossible to find a 17 mm lens with maximum aperture of f/2.0 or faster with a decent price tag
(or to be precise with any price tag).
I'll give you a free advice: before you rush to buy pro level equipment you might like to reconsider. This small Tokina prime is a nice lens and is build like a tank. But it adds weight to my camera bag. And it is still light years away from the weight and size of some Canon L-class lenses which could just break you back! Or could be left home because nobody wants to carry them around...
More lenses: the additional and the exceptionalThe previous chapter described my primary lens set which consisted of four primes (read: fixed focal length lenses) having focal lengths of 17 mm, 30 mm, 50 mm and 85 mm. But this is not all: I also have other lenses for various uses. Now it is time for yet another free advice: contact the large consulting institute called the Internet before considering any lens purchase. A couple of minutes with Google will save you a lot of euros or bucks.
Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM diagonal fisheye (ERP 535 euros)
.JPG)
I was looking for more fun for cat show action and atmosphere shots. I read that Sigma had just launched
a new diagonal fisheye lens giving full angle of view on APS-C size sensor DSLR. I couldn't
resist the tempation to get one. It works fine and the best part of it is the autofocus:
despite of the very wide focal length (10 mm) the autofocus seems to work fast and it gets
the focus everytime even at indoors.
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 fisheye
.jpg)
I consider the wide end to be more exciting than the tele end.
I wanted to get even wider than with my 17 mm Tokina.
I did some research and ended up ordering this Peleng fisheye lens from Russia.
It is a manual-focus manual-aperture
manual-everything M42 screw mount lens and can be attached to EOS body only with an adapter
(a simple metal ring with no optics involved).
Don't get fooled about the manual focusing: the depth of field with a 8 mm lens is so enormous that you'll end up
focusing with the focusing scale, not with the viewfinder. Just set the lens to
the hyperfocal state and go.
The lens is made in Belarus and has in a positive sense a full metal soviet-like construction. It seems to perform quite well. CA is present. Don't expect the image quality to be superb. At wide open the images seems to be soft but at f/8 and f/11 the things get better. The lens cap is made of metal and can easily come off and scratch the front element. I have put a microfiber lens cleaning cloth between the lens and the lens cap and it tightens the cap up and protects the front element from the lens cap.
I have found the Peleng lens to be 100 percent great fun. You can take photos not possible to take with any other lens you have. You have to rethink your shooting: with fisheye you can stretch the lines and the geometry and try to make something completely new out of same old dull subjects. Using a fisheye is a separate form of art compared to using regular lenses. You might also like to try to defish the photos with a suitable software and turn the Peleng into a super wide angle regular lens.
MC Jupiter-9 85mm f/2
.JPG)
Jupiter 9 is a lens with a very interesting background. It is based on an Carl Zeiss' optical formula
created in 1930's and used on pre-war Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f/2.0. The factories of Carl Zeiss where
located in Germany and after the second world war they were left on the east side. The factories then
got transferred to the Soviet Union and where rebuilt there. The production started again and continues
even today at Russia! The optical formula of the lens remains the same although the lens has undergone some
design changes.
I purchased this lens mainly out of curiosity and partially because I was looking for a fast lens (f/2.0 or faster) with longer focal length than my beloved 50 mm before I went to the Canon's 85 mm. The lens has a M42 screw mount and fits to EOS mount using an adapter. Of course the lens is fully manual but I have bought a special EOS mount adapter that will light the focus confirmation light when a proper focus is achieved. I have also managed to attach a no-brand lens hood to my Jupiter using the filter thread. The build quality of the lens seems to be fine and it weights about a ton.
I have run a series of tests with my copy of Jupiter 9. The tests indicate that it is true what has been written: at wide open (f/2) it is a soft lens and so should suit perfectly to portrait work if you like the softness. Somewhere around f/4 and f/5.6 it turns to sharp and at f/8 it is sharp as a razor (or at least close to that). The out-of-focus experience is very pleasing. Objects a little bit out of focus have a mist or soft cast around them like it was a painting. Objects more out of the focus range become nicely blurred. This is probably due to the optical formula and due the fact that the lens has an iris of 15 blades. So much blades is totally unheard of at these days of mass production and cost-effectiviness when 7 blades is a lot.
Jupiter-37AM 135mm f/3.5
Jupiter-37AM 135mm is my latest manual M42 lens. I have bought a special EOS
mount adapter that will light the focus confirmation light when a proper
focus is achieved. I haven't taken lots of photos with it yet
but the first attempts look nice: the photos look sharp and the colors look
nice'n'natural. Hopefully more photos will be taken in the near future and
example shots can be added to this page.
The fundamental difference to Jupiter-9 85mm is the aperture behavior. At wide open the 85 mm lens gives blurred photos that suit fine for portrait photography. When the aperture closes the blur goes away and the photos turn to sharp. The 135 mm lens doens't operate like this. It seems to be rather sharp even wide open.
Actually I'm not 100% sure that if I have the multicoated MC version of the lens or a classical version without multicoating. I'm assuming that mine ain't multicoated. I'll have to search for the original Russian user's manual and check it from there.
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (aka "the kit lens")
.JPG)
Canon EF-S 18-55 mm zoom was my first lens and was purchased
with 300D body. I purchased it because it was widely recommended as a first lens
for 300D due to a very low price and a decent image quality.
The lens is very light and has a full plastic construction. Don't get fooled: it still provides
nice image quality. As with other cheap zooms the image
quality gets better when stopped down.
Many sources and my findings suggest that the lens is at its best between f/8 and f/11.
If you are short of money or don't know what lens to choose or
don't care what lens to use then "the kit lens" is the lens targeted to you. Today my kit lens
serves me only as a backup lens.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (ERP 105 euros)
.JPG)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II was my second lens right after the kit lens and rapidly became THE LENS in my
setup due to its good image quality and large aperture (f/1.8). If you want something cheap and good, go and
buy this lens! Due to this lens I was able to develop my own shooting style at the cat shows.
The cat shows are typically held indoors at
dim-lit halls. Most photographers were forced to use the flash but I just boosted up the ISO and gave my
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II a go. I would have never believed that it is actually possible
to go on shooting without a flash and still get well-exposed results in those dim halls.
And outside cat shows this lens continued to offer great results as well.
The image quality is good - far better than with the kit lens - and the lens is a delight to be carried around. The cons are the cheap plastic design and the manual focusing capabilities: this lens is really designed for autofocus only. It has a very short focus ring movement and no focusing scale. But it doesn't matter if you don't need MF. Today my Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II serves me only as a backup lens since it has been replaced by Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.
Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super II (ERP 250 euros)
.JPG)
The Sigma is a low cost telezoom lens but it
still provides tolerable image quality - far better than many other telezooms in this
price class. This lens was ranked "average" in many reviews.
It seems that any telezoom lens ranked "good"
or better seem to have a price tag set at least 2 or 3 times higher than this one.
I like the contrast and colors when shooting at the wide end (70-140 mm). The sharpness
is decent and it gets even better at smaller apertures (f/8, f/11).
The contrast seem to become weak and the colors turn to blue and gray at the wide end (200-300 mm) and the
sharpness starts to suffer. The lens has a special macro mode having a macro reproduction ratio of 1:2 so it can be used to
some macro shooting. Of course it is not a "real" 1:1 reproduction ratio macro lens but offers a cheap alternative to try
what macro is all about. Today the Sigma continues to serve me at the tele end whenever I need longer focal lengths than
85 mm.
Rubinar 500mm f/8
.jpg)
Mirror lenses have some special characteristics compared
to regular "lens lenses". They tend to be much smaller and lighter than the equivalent "lens lenses".
The contrast is weaker and they have a fixed aperture - so with this Rubinar I will be shooting at f/8 all
the time. What others love and others hate is the fact that mirror lenses
produce a ring-shaped background blur which can look artistic or terrible depending
on the situation. The Rubinar needs lots of light if used without a tripod and if you like to get in-focus
photos so what you need is a bright sunny day. BTW - there is also 500 mm f/5.6 Rubinar and 1000 mm
f/10 Rubinar available but 500 mm f/8 seemed to fit me best due to its very compact size and light weight.
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical Macro (ERP 385 euros)
.JPG)
The Tamron zoom was originally the lens of my dreams at the time I bought by 300D body.
But then I decided to go on to prime lenses direction. After doing
some excessive shooting at Seinäjoki cat shows at
4th March 2006 and
5th March 2006 I noticed
that almost all the photos were shot using 28 mm prime, 50 mm prime
and 70-300 mm zoom at the
wide end (70 mm). I found myself changing the lenses all the time. After these shows I started to think
that it would be nice to have a quality zoom that covers my primary cat show focal
length range from 28 mm to 70 mm. Then I remembered that Tamron had a nice zoom with
good sharpness and good overall image quality. The maximum aperture is fixed
over the whole focal range which is a must for me. I shoot mostly with manual exposure and
I'm not looking forward to change the exposure settings every time I change the focal length.
The Tamron zoom has met my expectations: sharpness is good and it handles nicely and also looks cool. It is made of plastic but the structure and build quality seems to be decent compared to it price. The bad news is not the lens but me: although the Tamron is a good lens I still prefer primes. The image quality of the primes I use still beat the Tamron and the maximum aperture f/2.8 that the Tamron offers is not enough for me. I often need apertures like f/2.0 or even faster. So today I have not much use for this lens but it is not the lens to blame.
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 (ERP 240 euros)
.JPG)
To be honest I was not going to buy this lens. What I wanted was a faster than a f/2.8 lens but due to price
I decided that f/2.8 must do fine. The lens seems to be sharp and reliable when shooting objects not very
close to camera. I have noticed that for some reason the results are not razor sharp all the time
when shooting at close range at the cat shows. I assume this is due the fact that in the terms of camera shake
I've been able to use rather long exposure times with 28 mm lens but the subject movement then becomes visible.
The lens has a micro motor AF which gives the lens an easy recognizable autofocus sound - something like a bee in a matchbox. Today I have not much use for this lens due the fact that have collected some money and purchased a faster Sigma. Still, this is a good lens.
Tamron 2X MC7 C-AF1 BBAR teleconverter (ERP 170 euros) has been my secret weapon when shooting the moon. I love to shoot the moon and to get even closer to the moon with my Sigma 70-300 mm I decided to purchase Tamron 2X MC7 C-AF1 BBAR 7-element teleconverter that converts my Sigma to slow 140-600 mm lens. A cheap telezoom and 2x teleconverter is often considered a bad combination and yes, it is true! The contrast becomes rather weak and the sharpness is mostly gone. But it suits just well on shooting the moon because the moon is so bright object that the image quality is still acceptable.
Notice that the Tamron teleconverter is a 7-element teleconverter and should give far better results than some cheap 4-element 2x teleconverters. The Tamron also has a nice feature: it doesn't stop the body from autofocusing. Typically attaching 2x teleconverter informs the body that the autofocus should be disabled due to insufficient aperture. This Tamron one doesn't do that and the camera keeps the autofocus going. On bright light situations the autofocus hunts a little but eventually seems to get the focus. In low light situations I'll be sensible and switch the lens to MF for good. I have tested the Tamron teleconverter with some other lenses I have but haven't fallen in love with the results due to visible decrease in saturation, contrast and sharpness.
Other vital and non-vital stuffIn addition to the body and the lenses I have managed to get a pile of other photography stuff.
So I would like to point out that the body and the lenses is not everything you need. Here is a list
of what I have found important to have:
Now a word or two about the photo editing software. I currently use Adobe Photoshop Elements 5. Due to the large and widely-known web galleries I have to use legal licensed software. My dream was to purchase Adobe Photoshop CS2 but I felt that it was way too exensive for a hobbyist. I downloaded evaluation copies of Adobe Photoshop Elements 5 and Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo XI and also gave a go to the GIMP and GIMPshop (Photoshop-like versio of GIMP). The clear winner for my purposes was Adobe Photoshop Elements 5. It is works much like the CS2 or CS3. There seems to be all the vital adjustments present like "photo filter" which I use a lot. And the performance is excellent compared to the other software.
One thing more to consider is the insurance: it is a nice thing to know that when your equipment gets robbed or stolen you will get a full refund. My photography equipment set has a purchase price of many thousands euros so I have decided to have an insurance to ensure that the hobby can go on even after such an unfortunate event.
© 2004-2008 Heikki Siltala. All Rights Reserved.
Page changes: