gearhead – Ming Thein

Review: The Olympus ZD 60mm f2.8 Macro and FL-600R wireless flash system

September 21, 2012 by Ming Thein

Although ‘development announced’ (i.e. officially leaked) several months ago together with the 75/1.8, Olympus’ newest macro lens – the M.Zuiko Digital 60mm f2.8 (hereafter known as the ZD60) was formerly announced at Photokina 2012, and should be available sometime in October 2012 at a price of around RM2,000. It’s also only the second macro lens available natively with a Micro Four Thirds mount (and autofocus), the other one being the Panasonic-Leica 45/2.8 Macro-Elmarit, which I reviewed earlier here. Being an OM-D shooter, and heavily product-photography oriented, I was invited by Olympus Malaysia to review the ZD60 together with the new PEN Lite E-PL5 (review coming in the next week or so). The macro work I do almost always involves flash, so I had them loan me a set of their most recent flashes – the FL-600R. This review will therefore be approached from the point of view I’m most familiar with: photographing watches with speedlights, in a pretty much identical manner to how I do it with my main Nikon system. There will be comparative notes throughout, and no pictures of flowers, cats, eyes, coins, trinkets or other typical macro subjects. Let us begin.

All images in this review were shot with an Olympus OM-D and FL-600R wireless flashes; the images are all from the ZD60, except the images of the ZD60, which were shot with the PL 45/2.8.

Let’s talk about the lens first: it offers 1:1 reproduction ratio at a minimum distance of 19cm from the sensor plane, which translates into a healthy 7-8cm of working distance at maximum magnification. This is great news for people who want tight frame coverage; by comparison, if I try to get the same subject coverage (i.e. 2:1 on full frame) with my D800E and Nikon 60 macro, I’m down to around 4 of working distance, which makes even lighting control much more difficult. The optical design has 13 elements in 10 groups, with one ED element, two HR elements and one E-HR element (I presume these are different types of optical glass).

Optical design and MTF chart. From Olympus Malaysia

Three of the groups float and perform focusing functions. This is not a simple optical design! There are traces of a double-Gauss base design in there, but it looks as though heavy modifications and extra elements were added to optimize resolution and close range performance. By comparison, the excellent Nikon AFS 60/2.8 G Micro – which has been my mainstay lens up til now – has one less element and one less group.

Size-wise, it’s similar to the 12-50 kit lens for the OM-D; build quality is definitely better, but still plastic and nowhere near as nice as the 12/2 and 75/1.8 lenses. The plastic used is matte, feels reasonably robust, but curiously has visible moulding lines in several places – I’ve not noticed this on any of the polycarbonate-shelled Nikon or Canon lenses before, but it may be because those tend to have a spatter-finish paint that hides the seams better. It’s also weather sealed, with ‘SPLASH PROOF’ in big letters on the bottom of the lens barrel. The lens is made in China.

Omega Speedmaster 9300.

100% crop of the above.

Two small points of interest on the ergonomics of the lens itself – firstly, although the (optional, shame on you, Olympus) hood is a bayonet fit, it telescopes in and out; neat, but I found it annoying after a while as if you support the lens by the hood and put too much pressure on it, the hood will easily shift or start to collapse back in. Second is the little rotary knob to control the focus range, accompanied by a pointer scale showing the subject distance and corresponding magnification level. The switch has several settings – full range, 0.4m to infinity, 0.19m to 0.4m, and a sprung detent to take the lens to 1:1. It sounds clunky but is actually very practical in use – selecting the right range keeps focusing fast and positive, and the 1:1 position is very helpful in traversing the focusing range when you don’t have a full-time mechanically coupled focusing ring. Overall, ergonomics are excellent.

100% crop of the above.

Once in a while, (though increasingly frequently with today’s computer-designed optics) you come across a lens that is truly outstanding – the last two that come to mind were the Olympus ZD 75/1.8 and Leica 50/2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH. I’ve used a number of competent, but imperfect, lenses in the meantime, none of which were that memorable for their optics. Fortunately, the ZD60 is another one of those lenses that falls into the ‘truly outstanding’ category – I’ve tried hard under many varied test conditions to find fault with the optics, and come up with an extremely short list. If you want the short answer, you can skip the next few paragraphs: this lens offers excellent optical performance at every aperture and focus distance.

The lens has an even more impressive MTF chart than its highly-regarded predecessor, the ZD 50/2 macro for Four Thirds; granted, both designs only have to cover the small Four Thirds frame, and they used a lot of elements to do it, but still: it clearly outresolves the OM-D’s sensor, even wide open. On my copy, I simply didn’t see any improvement in stopping down – you get increased depth of field, and sharpness stays constant (i.e. outstanding) at every part of the frame. There’s diffraction beyond f8, and that’s about it. The plane of focus is also flat, as far as I can make out, and there’s almost zero distortion present. Let’s just say that the ZD60’s resolving power is not going to be the reason for any soft images. Like most of the extremely sharp lenses, the ZD60 also has very high microcontrast – these characteristics are related because high resolving power is required to differentiate between subtle tonal differences in the subject. In fact, it’s amongst the best lenses I’ve ever seen; deserving of the superlative classification (for lenses, at any rate) – of transparent.

For reference, the screws on the right are about 1.5mm across.

Although overall resolution would support a much higher-density sensor, it wouldn’t be practical in use: on the OM-D’s 16MP sensor, you already have minor diffraction from f8, and visible diffraction at f11 and up (even though the lens can stop down to f22, I really wouldn’t recommend it; you might as well use a pinhole at that point). I suppose it would have been nice if it had tilt control too, but I think given the target market for Micro Four Thirds, that option might be a long time coming. I believe Novoflex has a T/S bellows system, which might be worthy of investigation at some point in the future.

Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso Latitude.

As for the other optical qualities of the lens – bokeh, chromatic aberration, color rendition and transmission – there are very few flaws. The only one I could find was some slight texture in the bokeh, and even then only in a couple of frames with circular out of focus highlights at a certain brightness level – one of the signatures of a moulded hybrid aspherical element somewhere in the construction. To keep things in perspective, even the Panasonic Leica 45/2.8 Macro exhibits this trait, and more obviously. Aside from that, bokeh is smooth and pleasant, with very minimal bright edges on defocused highlights. Chromatic aberration was nonexistent laterally, and more commendably, almost completely absent longitudinally, too, even wide open. I have not seen this level of CA performance in any macro lens I’ve used to date, even the Leica 120/2.5 APO-Summarit-S. Color rendition is neutral and pleasingly saturated, and taken in tandem actually quite reminiscent of the Zeiss lenses. Olympus uses their new ZERO coating on the lens, which keeps transmission high – I would estimate the lens to be around T3.0.

The ZD60 uses Olympus’ MSC system, which has the elements moving linearly on a rail; it’s not as fast as the 12/2 or 45/1.8, but with the limiter in the 0.4m-infinity position, it’s similar in speed to the 75/1.8, and definitely faster than the Panasonic-Leica 45/2.8.

FL-600R compared to the Nikon SB900. One would fit in your pocket; pocket the other and you’d probably be arrested on a public indecency charge.

Next up, we have the FL-600R flash; it has a guide number of 50m at ISO 200, or 36m at ISO 100, running off four AA batteries, with a wide panel and zoom head covering from 16 to 85mm. Full-power cycle time is claimed to be 2.0s with NiMH batteries; it didn’t feel any slower than my Nikon SB900s or SB700s, which I find to be pretty fast. In addition to the usual TTL and manual modes, the flash can also act as both wireless commander and slave using Olympus RC system. It’s also got a bright single LED in the base portion – ostensibly for video use, but I actually found it to be a useful modelling light for macro work, making focusing and composition quite a bit easier. If only it was in the head itself and even brighter…

In use, the flashes are fairly simple to operate, though the very low number of external controls means that a lot of button presses are required, and you have to remember what does what – I much prefer the softkey and physical switches approach of the SB900 and SB700. That said, the units are physically much smaller than even the SB700 and SB600, and positively dwarfed by the SB900 – this leaves very little real estate on the back for the LCD and controls.

Overall, I found TTL flash exposure to be mostly good; wireless TTL on the other hand, was a bit hit and miss. There were certain situations – specifically when one flash was firing at the background, and the other at the subject – where the subject exposure was a bit inconsistent. Not much of an issue, I just dialled in manual power. The limited external controls and display space also mean that adjusting settings for remote flashes with the FL-600R as master isn’t so easy, and requires far more button presses than I would like. Fortunately, even with the FL-600R on the hotshoe, the camera itself can be used to set the remotes; the hot shoe contacts then transmit the data to the flash. Coupled with the OM-D’s touchscreen, it’s a fast and easy experience – in this respect, better than the Nikon system. And you can control all three groups of flashes from the camera, regardless of which flash is attached to the hotshoe – which is one more than the Nikon system. There are also three available channels so other users’ flashes aren’t triggered by yours and vice-versa if there are a few of you. I can see this being useful if you shoot Nikon or Canon, but to be honest, I’ve never encountered an Olympus flash shooter…

The only major issue I have with the wireless flash system is triggering – the sensor on the flash unit itself seems to be very small, aimed forwards and somewhat recessed – this makes no sense whatsoever, seeing as the flash is likely to be facing the subject, which means that the sensor will be away from the camera. Even the Nikons – with side and front mounted sensors – still have problems picking up the optical trigger signal at times. With the FL-600Rs in orientations where the sensor wasn’t almost facing the camera directly, triggering was somewhat hit and miss, especially with the small flash supplied with the OM-D. Use of one of the FL-600R units as a master improved this somewhat, but camera companies really need to start making flashes with multiple optical sensors, or better yet, built in radio triggers for both camera and flash. I know some of you might suggest external radio triggers, but has anybody tried looking for a TTL PocketWizard for Olympus lately? It just doesn’t exist.

To date, when using the OM-D for macro work, I’ve either been using my large LED panels (and hence continuous lighting) or the SU-4 optical slave mode on my SB900s and the supplied small flash set to 1/64 power, which works well, but lacks the convenience of being able to set the power output from the flashes either via TTL metering or directly from the camera, let alone both. This can be inconvenient at the best of times – worse still if your flashes aren’t easily accessible. I’ve wanted to try the Olympus wireless flashes for some time now; my thoughts are that so long as you can spare one unit to use as a master trigger, they’re a viable alternative to the Nikon system; the problem is that I’d have to buy another five flashes to get the same flexibility as I have now, which seems somewhat silly.

That said, the Olympus system – and Micro Four Thirds – for macro work has a lot going for it; firstly, a truly outstanding lens which is almost completely CA-free; flashes that aren’t that expensive, and very, very small – like the rest of the system. I could fit an equivalent system to what I use now in a bag half the size. Although on the face of things, the Nikon system has a huge resolution advantage – you lose something in diffraction (despite the D800E not having an AA filter), and the OM-D files are clean enough to upsize well to 25MP or so. The difference is much less than you might think. I think I’d have a very difficult time deciding what to buy if I was starting over again with the same objectives. As it is, I won’t be returning the ZD60 to Olympus; it’s unquestionably earned a place in my arsenal, edging out the 45/2.8 (it’s also nice that I no longer have a focal length overlap with the faster 45/1.8). As far as I’m concerned, this is the new reference lens for Micro Four Thirds. It’s that good. MT

The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 60/2.8 Macro is available here from B&H and Amazon.

The FL600R flash is also available here from B&H and Amazon.

Come back again tomorrow for part two: a four way shootout between the M.Zuiko Digital 60/2.8 macro, Panasonic Leica 45/2.8 Macro-Elmarit, Zeiss ZF.2 2/50 Makro-Planar and Nikon AFS 60/2.8 G Micro!

____________

Visit our Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including Photoshop Workflow DVDs and customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Parting shot – another 100% crop.

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: 60 2.8 zuiko digital macro, equipment, fl 600r, fl600r, flash, gearhead, lighting, micro 4/3, micro four thirds, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, olympus, om-d, rc, review, thein, wireless flash

Review: The Panasonic 100-300/4-5.6 Lumix G Vario for Micro Four Thirds

September 20, 2012 by Ming Thein

Micro Four Thirds users have a lot of consumer-grade choices when it comes to telephoto lenses. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of any serious lenses – fast aperture, fast focusing, or even prime. Thanks to the 2x crop factor, this is one of the places where M43 actually offers a substantial advantage over larger formats. It’s just a shame that there aren’t any telephoto lenses of serious optical quality to make the most of this. Wildlife photographers and sports shooters still favor DX crop bodies when there’s enough light – the increased pixel density and extra 1.5x reach can’t be ignored. I was still birding during Nikon’s transition to FX with the D3; I remember being frustrated at the quality of the sensor, but the lack of reach. There are some species that simply will not allow you to approach close – I frequently used a 500mm with 1.4x TC on a DX body, for a total of 1,050mm f5.6 equivalent. To reach 1,000mm on FX, you’d be a stop down in brightness and having to deal with the associated optical quality limitations of a 2x teleconverter.

Collapsed at 100mm.

Fully extended. This is not a short or discrete lens, and I haven’t even added the hood yet.

The current crop of M4/3 lenses stops at 300mm. This gets you to 600mm equivalent; the Olympus 75-300/4.8-6.7 (150-600mm equivalent) and Panasonic 100-300/4-5.6 (200-600mm equivalent) are your only two options. (A 300/4 or 400/5.6 with Olympus’ MSC-grade fast AF would be wonderful, but sadly not to be – at least not yet). The Olympus is the more compact of the two (and by all reports, slightly sharper too), but also quite a bit more expensive than the Panasonic – US$899 vs US$599-699 or so. The bigger issue is that you’re down half a stop on the Panasonic; with complex multi-element zooms, this difference in physical aperture translates into more when it comes to light transmission. The Panasonic is probably closer to T7-T8; the Olympus may well be at T9-11. More worrying is that with both lenses you’re going to be right up against the diffractions limits of the higher density M4/3 sensors, such as the OM-D and GX1, even when shooting wide open. To be useable at 300mm, this lens has to perform optically – we’ll address this later.

Untitled. OM-D, 100-300

The 100-300 is a moderately-sized lens, weighing in at about 500g and similar in heft to consumer DSLR 70-300 lenses. Despite only having to cover the M4/3 image circle, it isn’t any smaller; size advantages are more apparent in wideangle lenses due to the short back focus distance of mirrorless cameras not requiring a rear telephoto group*. The lens has a 67mm front thread, metal rear mount and front plastic bayonet hood; this is included with the lens. (Olympus, I’m looking at you: not including lens hoods is just penny pinching.) The zoom ring is a broad, rubber affair that should be easy to operate, but is actually very difficult to set precisely in practice because of friction between the plastic surfaces inside the lens; it tends to bind and move in jumps. There is an ample focus ring up front, narrower than the zoom ring and distinguishable by touch, but it runs fly-by-wire and obviously has no hard stops at either end of the range. With telephoto lenses, it’s nice to have the ability to place the focus range by feel, or at least kick it over in either direction closer to the subject distance to avoid hunting – especially important with the CDAF systems used in mirrorless cameras. Overall, build quality is acceptable at this price point, but nothing to write home about. The plastics feel a little brittle and thin, I’m generally fairly careful when handling this lens.

Caught in the act. OM-D, 100-300

*The rear telephoto group on a lens is used to straighten out the image-forming rays so they fall perpendicular to the sensor, and extend the image plane further than the natural distance associated with the focal length – in order to clear SLR mirrors. This distance is proportional to the focal length of the lens. Rangefinders and mirrorless cameras can use symmetric retrofocal lenses whose rear elements can be positioned very close to the sensor, making the lenses physically much smaller. Lenses with a focal length longer than the flange distance do not require the rear telephoto group to project the image plane out to clear the mirror, which is what removes the size advantage between DSLRs and mirrorless cameras for lenses over 50mm or so.

Reminds me of Gibraltar for some reason. OM-D, 100-300

However, by far the biggest gotcha of the whole setup is that the lens is physically large and not well balanced at all, especially on the smaller M4/3 bodies; even the OM-D requires a grip for optimal handling. Given this, the omission of a tripod collar is unforgiveable; you simply can’t mount it on the body’s tripod socket because it not only places a large amount of stress on the mount, but it’s also impossible to frame precisely especially at 300mm, because the image frame droops perceptibly through the viewfinder. This means you’ve got to shoot it handheld; here, the relatively light weight of the whole system works against you, because there isn’t enough mass to damp the vibration. And forget about using it at arms’ length without an EVF. The good news though is that the OM-D’s EVF and IBIS system are excellent, and allow you to brace the entire setup against your forehead. Being a Panasonic optic, the lens has moving-element OIS built in; and it’s pretty effective, too. Although it’s very difficult to scientifically test, I feel that perhaps the IBIS in the OM-D is very slightly more effective than OIS built into the lens – but it could go either way, really. Both systems allow consistent critically-sharp-at-100% handheld shots at 1/100s and 300mm, which is about 2.5 stops. You could probably push it a stop further, but then your hit rate will fall considerably.

Painterly. OM-D, 100-300

Let’s talk a bit about optical performance. The lens is a 17/12 design with one ED lens and several aspherical elements; no fancy coatings, but a decent specification that should yield decent optical results. Like most of these consumer telephoto designs, performance is surprisingly good below 200mm; 200-300mm is so-so, with weakest performance at 300mm. Stopping down by one stop below 200mm improves clarity a hair, but anything more starts to reduce resolving power due to diffraction. At 300mm, f8 is slightly better than f5.6 because there’s less chromatic aberration and improved contrast, however, the resolution gains are once again offset by diffraction losses. There isn’t any point in going beyond f11, even though the minimum possible aperture is f22.

Surprisingly decent bokeh. OM-D, 100-300

The lens never gives you the impression of clarity or transparency as the best lenses do; there’s always a layer of something between you and the image, which can be somewhat ameliorated through good postprocesing. No amount of postprocessing can put back the missing microcontrast, however. Part of the problem is there’s chromatic aberration visible at all focal lengths; this causes the image to separate out slightly, reducing resolving power. It’s especially obvious in the corners and at high contrast edges at the 300mm end of the zoom range; a good 2-3 pixels’ worth at times. There is some vignetting, but it’s very, very minor and easily correctable. Finally, bokeh is surprisingly smooth, though large out-of-focus highlights have the telltale texture that signifies the use of moulded hybrid glass-plastic aspherical elements.

Lily pads. OM-D, 100-300

All of this said, the 100-300 is still a cut above most of the consumer-grade offerings; I haven’t used the Olympus 75-300, though. I certainly don’t think the Nikon 70-300VR had this level of resolution – on the lower pixel density D700 and D7000 bodies, the 70-300VR’s resolution above 200mm left much to be desired.

Contemplation. OM-D, 100-300

So what’s the 100-300 useful for? To be honest, I bought it out of curiosity and the lack of a telephoto solution for any of my other systems. It’s actually a pretty good option for reach in a pinch, especially when you’re not sure you’re going to need it – and don’t want to carry around a large 300, 400 or 500mm supertelephoto. The combination of lens and OM-D doesn’t occupy much space in the bag at all. Aside from slightly reduced optical quality and a slower aperture, the biggest limitation is continuous AF performance. It’s already a problem for the M4/3 system since all focus systems are contrast detect; it’s even worse with the 100-300 because the focus motor itself is slow, the required amount of physical movement of the lens elements between the infinity and the 1.5m near limit is large, and the lens is one of the earlier generation of designs that doesn’t have the benefit of the technology used in Panasonic’s current lenses. It isn’t slow per se, but it definitely isn’t up to the latest Olympus primes in speed. Note that I’ve had a couple of experiences where the camera/lens confirmed focus, but it turned out that things weren’t quite perfect. Very shallow critical depth of field (especially at closer distances) is nothing new with telephotos, but it’s not easy to tell without magnification exactly which small bit of the frame is in critical focus with current EVF/ LCD technology.

Crowded. OM-D, 100-300

Given those limitations, I think its strength is probably in situations where you need reach or perspective but your subject isn’t moving much, if at all; some forms of wildlife, landscapes and perhaps even architecture or abstracts; I tried using it for street work, but it just felt far too conspicuous. It’s also surprisingly difficult to frame a 600mm FOV shot when there are a lot of people about – the foreground takes forever to clear, and by the time it does, your primary subject has probably moved on. That said, I used it without issue at a recent concert I was covering – in that case, it’s all about timing and making sure that your subject hasn’t moved out of the depth of field of the lens, which is actually a bit more than you’d expect. It’s also worth noting that whilst AF is fast and positive up to about 200mm, beyond that if the new subject is far outside the previous subject distance, or contrast is only moderate, you’re going to see situations where the combination hunts and sometimes even fails to find focus.

Smoke break. OM-D, 100-300

I think the best litmus test for any lens is the question of ‘given a chance, would you buy it again?’ I didn’t pay very much for mine on the secondary market – mint, boxed, pretty much as new ran all of $400 – so yes, I definitely would. It’s not a staple lens for me, but it is fun, does offer something that none of my other lenses can, and the optics are good enough. Overall – recommended, but with caveats. MT

The Panasonic 100-300/4-5.6 is available here from B&H and Amazon.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

On the lookout. OM-D, 100-300

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: g, gearhead, lumix, micro 4/3, micro four thirds, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, panasonic 100-300, review, thein

Review: The Carl Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon T*

September 12, 2012 by Ming Thein

One of the legendary wideangles for SLR users, the Carl Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon T* (referred to simply as the ’21’ after this) is a fairly complex – by Zeiss standards, anyway – telecentric design with 16 elements in 13 groups and a floating rear group for close range correction. As with most of the modern Zeiss lenses, it’s based on a derivative of the older Contax/ Yashica 2.8/21 Distagon (however, that was a 15/13 design). It’s currently available in Canon (ZE, fully electronic) and Nikon (ZF and ZF.2, the latter of which is fully electronic) mounts.

Like all Zeiss lenses, this is a piece of glass that is extremely solid, moderately heavy (~620g) and very well built all-round – it’s like an old-fashioned scientific instrument, in a good way. There is no plastic on this lens; except perhaps some of the baffling at the front and rear. The barrel is black-anodized aluminium, with chrome front bayonet for the hood, and chromed brass rear mount. My two minor complaints about build quality relate to the hood lining and mount – like all Zeiss lenses, the mount seems to wear very quickly, showing brassing after just a dozen or so lens changes. The hood is metal, solid, and locks into place on the front bayonet thread with a reassuring click – and doesn’t move thereafter. However, it also has very crisp edges that are prone to denting, and the felt lining can easily start peeling around the front edge if you get it caught on something. A thin rubber bumper lip around the front edge would solve both problems handily (and if I’m not mistaken, the hoods for some of the Sony Alpha Zeiss lenses have this).

One curious design quirk is the front portion – it reminds me very much of a martini glass. Although the glass itself appears to be able to fit within a similarly-sized housing as the 2/28 Distagon, the front filter thread is a whopping 82mm. I presume this is so one can stack filters without worry for vignetting, but it could also be because some parts such as the hood and bayonet are shared with the similarly martini-like 4/18 Distagon. Unfortuantely, this makes the lens rather cumbersome to pack as it occupies virtually cube-like dimensions.

Boats, stored. Le Sentier, Switzerland. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

This is, of course, a manual focus lens – apparently the tale goes that all of the autofocus patents are held by the Japanese, except for Hasselblad, who bought technology from Minolta. Needless to say, these patents are being kept very closely guarded; I honestly can’t think of a reason to buy a large portion of Nikon and Canon’s lenses if I could get autofocus with Zeiss. Industry politics aside, the manual focus ring is perfect – spinning freely enough to change focus distance quickly, but not so loose that you can’t set the distance precisely. The amount of damping is perfect. Why Zeiss can’t make all of its other lenses feel like this is beyond me – they’re mostly a bit too heavy in feel for my tastes, especially in a fast moving reportage scenario.

Spiral. Sasana Kijang, Kuala Lumpur. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

The near focus limit is just 22cm, which makes for some very dramatic closeups indeed; however don’t be expecting fantastic magnification because it is, after all, a 21mm lens – which means you’re looking at 1:5 or so. More importantly, however, is that optical performance across the frame is maintained even at this focusing distance; undoubtedly thanks to the floating rear group that compensates for near aberrations. I personally can’t think why I’d use it at this range, though it might make an interesting lens for food photography on the OM-D – being a 42mm equivalent.

Boutique interior. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

Sharpness and resolving power are excellent; this is one of the few wides that really does the D800E sensor justice – even into the edges. The center is already extremely sharp from wide open, and the extreme corners catch up at around f5.6 or so. There are very mild traces of lateral CA wide open in the corners with high contrast subjects and the D800E; they’re not visible at all on the D700 and DX bodies. And there’s no odd color smearing, either – everything resolves in the same spatial location, which can’t always be said of wide angles (the Sigma and Voigtlander 20mms come to mind). Interestingly, this lens has an extremely impressive MTF chart* – almost flat by f5.6 – made even more impressive by the fact that Zeiss MTF charts are measured averages not theoretical maximums.

*The interpretation of which will be the subject of a future article.

Dreaming of the high seas. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

What of the other optical properties? Well, there’s some vignetting; around 1-1.5 stops in the corners at f2.8, but it’s almost entirely gone by f4. There’s distortion, too; up to 2% taking an odd moustache or sombrero-shaped pattern that isn’t so easy to correct manually, but can be taken care of easily by ACR’s built in profile for the lens. Bokeh is neutral and pleasant, with no hard edges; that is, when you can get enough subject separation to see any bokeh in the first place. You’re pretty much going to be at hyperfocal from 2m if you set f5.6.

Gallery. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

Finally, a quick word on that famous Zeiss microcontrast – it’s present as expected. Microcontrast is the visible result of several optical properties: high resolution; even and high spectral transmission, and as little chromatic aberration as possible. The 21 has all of these things. Resolution and chromatic aberration are functions of the optical design; transmission dependant on the glass types and coatings used. As with all Zeiss lenses, the transmission of this lens is very high thanks to the excellent coatings – note how in the images above, the front few elements mostly disappear; this is due to the surface coatings not allowing reflected light. It’s especially important for maintaining contrast; good coatings manifest themselves in a deep, saturated look that I like to think of as ‘tonal richness’. But I digress: the T stop of the 21 is 2.9, which is just 0.1 stop down from the physical aperture of 2.8. It means that you’re pretty much going to get as much light as you can out of the optical design.

Boats, in use. Lac de Joux, Switzerland. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

All of these technical qualities are useless if the lens doesn’t produce great images; it does. The 21 somehow manages to be an excellent balance of technical competence and personality; it’s not entirely a transparent lens, but its personality definitely lends a positive influence to any images shot with it. And despite the distortion, you can use it for architectural work uncorrected if you don’t put any straight edges too close to the frame border – in practice, it’s not that noticeable; far more obvious will be whether your camera is level or not. For critical applications, correct the distortion with ACR/ Photoshop. The drawing style of the 21 falls somewhere between the 2/28 Distagon and the 2/50 Makro-Planar; both resolve at very high levels, have excellent microcontrast and transmission, but the difference in ‘personality’ here seems to be related to the amount of field curvature and distortion; the 21 is not perfectly flat field, but it’s pretty close – which is a surprise for an ultrawide.

MRI machine. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon with flash

One of the things I like very much about the way this lens renders – and perhaps more generally about the 21mm field of view – is that it’s about as wide as one can go without the perspective starting to render subjects unnaturally, so long as you carefully place the foreground in your images. It’s wide enough to convey space – especially in tight interior quarters – but not so wide as to appear unnatural, which is a problem I’ve always found with ultrawides. It’s simply impossible to achieve anything approaching a natural-looking perspective with anything wider because of the configuration of our own eyes: 21mm is roughly equivalent to your peripheral vision. Psychologically, our brains just aren’t conditioned to interpreting anything wider on a regular basis.

Solidity and transparency. Sometimes perspective distortion is actually useful to add a bit of abstraction to an image. Sasana Kijang. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon.

I want to add a quick note on compatibility: thanks to it being a telecentric design, the lens actually works very well on smaller formats – Micro Four Thirds, for instance. Carrying say a Nikon FX body, a M4/3 body and the 21 and 100mm lenses gives you an optically excellent and reasonably light landscape kit covering 21, 42, 100 and 200mm – a nice spacing of perspectives. I did this for several early-morning walks in Switzerland whilst on my last assignment, except I had the 1.4/85 Planar instead of the 2/100 Makro-Planar.

One of those falling trees in the forest that nobody ever hears about. Olympus OM-D, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

Up until fairly recently, I’d done my wide architectural work with either a Voigtlander 20/3.5, whose low contrast and lack of bite I didn’t like very much; or the Nikon AFS 24/1.4G, which didn’t have the same microcontrast as the Zeiss. All I can say is that I have no idea why I didn’t get the 21 sooner; it’s another one of those truly outstanding lenses that is a must if you’re a wideangle shooter. It isn’t the most discreet lens for documentary work, but the pictorial results are excellent; but it is an absolute no-brainer if you’re an architectural or landscape photographer. Highly recommended! MT

Get your Zeiss 2.8/21 Distagon is available here from B&H and Amazon

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Old factory reflections. Olympus OM-D, Zeiss ZF.2 2.8/21 Distagon

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: 2.8/21, carl zeiss, distagon, equipment, gearhead, lens, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, review, thein, zeiss, zf

Review: The Panasonic Leica 45/2.8 Macro-Elmarit for Micro Four Thirds

September 2, 2012 by Ming Thein

One of the earliest lenses for the Micro Four Thirds system, the Panasonic Leica 45/2.8 Macro-Elmarit (hereafter known as just the 45 for the rest of the article) is also perhaps one of the most underrated. It acquired a reputation of being a slow focuser; that might have been as much due to the bodies available at the time as the lens mechanics. (The lens actually has a range limiter switch).

Square hoods are a very typically Leica thing – just look at the S lenses. Oddly, the hood for the 25/1.4 is much deeper than this one.

Something I’ve always wondered was whether this was a Panasonic design, a Leica design, or a mix of both. Turns out that the answer is that the optics are designed by Leica in Germany; they’re assembled at Panasonic’s factories in Japan, and QC’d by a Leica rep who’s based there. Regardless, the optics are pretty darn superb. The lens is very useable even wide open at f2.8; unsurprisingly, for a macro lens, every focus distance is sharp. Performance is slightly worse in the corners than the center, but even this slight degree of blurring is removed by stopping down to f4 or smaller.

The midsize lens balances well on the Olympus OM-D.

Don’t go any smaller than f11 though, because after this point there is clear diffraction softening visible on the OM-D’s sensor; fortunately due to the short real focal length, you’re unlikely to need to do so even if you require extended depth of field. f2.8-f8 is a good practical working range.

I’m pleased to report that the lens is also very low in chromatic aberrations of any kind; lateral CA is almost completely absent, and longitudinal CA (spherochromatism or ‘bokeh fringing’) is mild, and completely gone by f5.6. This suggests that the lens’ design is almost entirely tele centric, and definitely optimized for the M4/3 mount as we don’t see any evidence of purple fringing.

Study of a pepper, 1. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

Bokeh is a slightly different story. Whilst bokeh is superbly smooth and uniform with no ghosting or double images if you have enough distance between subject and out of focus area, there is a very odd transition zone immediately on either side of the focal plane that is both slightly nervous and displays bright edges on highlights. It’s worse at larger apertures and complex/ busy subjects. If you stop down to f5.6 or so, this property goes away.

Hublot Big Bang Ferrari Chronograph Magic Gold. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

Outside of macro work, in truth, a 45/2.8 as a multipurpose lens just isn’t that exciting because it’s a bit in no mans’ land. You have the equivalent FOV of 90mm, but none of the bokeh separation; it isn’t a sufficiently compressed perspective to be exciting or let you do something compositionally different with all-in-focus telephoto shots. In fact, it feels more like shooting with a 60-75mm lens in that regard. Yet you can’t be lazy with your shooting discipline, because it really needs about 1/100s for a consistently sharp image – providing you’ve got either one of the stabilizers off.

Maitres du Temps Chapter Two Tonneau. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

As with all of the Panasonic lenses on Olympus bodies, you have a choice of which stabilization system to use – either the moving-lens based system, controlled by a switch on the side of the lens, or the sensor-shift type built into the body. I did quite a lot of testing comparing the two systems – unfortunately there’s no real quantifiable way of doing this – and didn’t see any significant benefit of one over the other. As with all IS systems, you need to turn it off if the shutter speed is high enough otherwise you will actually land up with double images. The threshold is probably around 1/500s. I think this is because it can’t react fast enough to the high-frequency vibration caused by the shutter, but I’m sure there are others far more knowledgeable on this subject.

Doctor Zoidberg. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

There’s a second switch on the side of the barrel, and that’s to control the focus limiter. Like all M 4/3 lenses, manual focus is entirely fly-by-wire; I personally don’t like these systems because they don’t give you enough tactile feedback and lack hard infinity or near limit stops. Although I prefer to use manual focus when shooting close focus so I can set my magnification before focusing, this is one of the few lenses where I have no choice but to rely on autofocus.

Street scene in Geneva. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

It will hunt a bit if you have the lens set to full range and aren’t focusing on a close subject; but for the most part, focusing is actually pretty swift if only small changes in focus distance are required. Switching on the limiter – near focus of 45cm – makes things much faster. (The full limit is 25cm, which gives 1:1 magnification and about 10cm or so of working distance from the front of the lens). I haven’t actually tried it on the E-PM1, but I don’t expect focusing performance to be much worse.

Hublot Ultra Thin. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro, ambient light on location.

The 45 works much better as a dedicated macro lens, and will serve handily as a portrait lens in a pinch; however, my general purpose pick would be the Olympus 45/1.8. Image quality is superb; there’s a biting sharpness and fine microcontrast structure you’d expect from a lens with this price tag and implied heritage. It definitely renders in a very different way to the Olympus 45/1.8; I suppose the best way to describe it would be tight and controlled.

Geometry. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

It’s a midsize (for M 4/3, but about the same size as a 50/1.8 for any SLR mount) lens which balances well on an OM-D, with or without the optional grip. Sadly, the only metal parts in this lens appear to be the lens mount and screws; whilst the plastics are of high quality and the build quality and tolerances are tight, it just doesn’t have the feel of a precision instrument in the same way that say the Leica M or Zeiss ZF lenses do.

Study of a pepper, 2. The full size shot shows some nervousness of bokeh around the focus transition zone near the stem. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

I would personally prefer a bit more control over my depth of field in a macro lens. Having said that, the extended depth of field offered here can be useful for certain applications where you need to get a large amount of the subject in focus. Perhaps the forthcoming Olympus 60/2.8 macro will better suit my requirements. However, it does offer some advantages over my normal setup – at maximum magnification, it covers a 17x13mm frame, against 36x24mm for full frame, and without the need for any extension tubes and the accompanying degradation in quality*. I can also see some uses for it for macro video, though the fly-by-wire focus ring may prove to be a bit of a problem.

Grilled wagyu done right. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

*Extension tubes add another set of mount interfaces into the optical system; any slight deviations in planarity, or looseness, or give, will result in the optics being slightly off-axis. This is visible as softening, coma or astigmatism.

For now, though, the Panasonic Leica 45 retains a place in my bag, especially for use as part of my backup system on watch shoots. Don’t let the plastic exterior fool you: optically, this is a serious lens, and in the grand scheme of things it actually represents fairly good value for money despite being one of the more expensive lenses in the M 4/3 system. MT

The Panasonic Leica 45/2.8 is available from B&H and Amazon.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Hublot Diver’s Chronograph. OM-D and 45/2.8 Macro

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews, Leica Tagged With: 45/2.8 macro elmarit, gearhead, leica, micro 4/3, micro four thirds, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, olympus, om-d, panasonic, review, thein

Review: the Voigtlander 25/0.95 Nokton MFT

August 16, 2012 by Ming Thein

There are several fast-normal options available today for Micro 4/3 users – the Panasonic 20/1.7, the Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 DG Summilux, and the fastest of them all, the Voigtlander 25/0.95. There are also a whole host of modified CCTV and C-mount lenses, some of which cover the whole M4/3 frame, some of which don’t. None of them have enough resolving power to match the resolution of the sensor at full aperture, either.

Given the limited high-ISO capabilities of the earlier M4/3 sensors, there was an obvious gap left for a hyperspeed lens of any sort; being one of the M4/3 consortium members, Voigtlander stepped in to fill the gap. However, not having AF technology, Cosina had to make do with a manual-focus only design, but with a native M4/3 mount. The lens feels nothing like the M4/3 lenses from Panasonic, Olympus or Sigma; it’s a hefty lump of metal, built with the same solid feel as the more premium modern manual focus lenses. It’s not a small lens, especially once you attach the supplied hood – it’s actually about the same size (and much heavier) than the Voigtlander 75/1.8 for M mount. This lens rates very highly on the tactility scale; the focus ring is well-damped but turns smoothly without much effort; there’s no backlash and this makes focusing a very pleasing experience. The aperture ring has neat half-click detents, but I would prefer the stops to be a bit more decisive and less easy to turn.

Cinnamon. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

Let’s talk a bit about focusing – because one of the most frequently asked questions I’ve had with this lens. I would say it’s easier than expected, but not as easy as I would like – especially when using the lens stopped down. Since there’s no electronic linkage between the lens and camera, aperture is entirely mechanical; this means that you’re always seeing the stopped down view through the finder or on the LCD. The trick is to shoot raw, and turn focusing on your jpeg settings up to the maximum – this actually creates a little bit of a shimmery halo in the finder. (These settings of course do not affect the raw file). It also accentuates sharpness of the image, which makes it easier to tell when things are in focus – as you turn the focusing ring past then point of focus and back again, there’s a slight shimmer in the live preview. The focusing ring is also well-spaced – the normal range from about ~0.4m to infinity is easily covered by a turn of the wrist without having to reposition your hand; the near range – down to just 0.17cm – is more widely spaced, and allows for precise placement of the focal plane.

The whole frame at the near limit and f1.4. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

One doesn’t buy this lens with the intention to use it at any other aperture than wide open, at least most of the time. There’s simply no point in paying so much (it’s considerably more expensive than the Panasonic-Leica, which of course has autofocus and is about one stop slower) and carrying around so much extra weight if you’re going to use it at f2. In fact, you might as well get the Panasonic 20/1.7 – it’s cheaper, much smaller and focuses itself. The good news is that the center produces acceptable sharpness, even wide open – providing you focus it accurately. (The shallow depth of field transition profile of a 25mm focal length lens means that that finding the optimum plane isn’t always easy, either.)

Satay. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

There’s a considerable improvement in acuity at f1.4 in the center, and again at f2; however, the corners don’t reach anywhere near central levels of sharpness until f2.8 and beyond. Note that I use the term ‘acceptable’: it’s not great at f0.95, and there’s a distinct softness that’s probably caused by internal flare; I suspect that if the internal surfaces of the barrel were better coated against reflection, we’d see a corresponding improvement in contrast and sharpness. Microcontrast is simply nonexistent until f2, and macro contrast is generally quite flat, too – making it good for retaining dynamic range under extreme lighting situations, but poor for fine texture reproduction.

The hills are made of rice. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

What about the other common lens shortcomings, like vignetting, chromatic aberration, flare and distortion? The 25 has all of them, and in quite generous amounts, too. It will vignette wide open, but this is easily corrected and gone by f2.8. Chromatic aberration is a bit more problematic; we see that and purple fringing against high-contrast backgrounds, especially when subjects are backlit. If you get a bright point light source in the wrong part of the frame, you’re going to have fun with flare, lowering already low contrast even further – and the hood isn’t going to help you much. I didn’t actively look for distortion, so I can’t comment on it; the types of subjects this lens is suited to probably wouldn’t show it anyway.

Family corner, at f0.95. Due to the short real focal length, f0.95 doesn’t have as shallow depth of field as you might have otherwise imagined. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

After all of that, you might have come to the conclusion that this lens is pretty bad – optically, it’s definitely not the best I’ve used. But, what other lens offers a true f0.95 aperture (and T stop that’s not far off, either) at US$1200? I can see some uses for the 25 – portraiture, mostly – but it just doesn’t suit what I do. Even though the optics at f4-5.6 are excellent, and the 17cm near focus distance makes it quite useful for food photography, there just isn’t enough reason for me to keep the lens around since it replicates the performance of the Panasonic 20/1.7.

Untitled. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

As much as I love using the lens simply because it feels like a real lens, not a plastic shell – I just can’t recommend it for the kind of photography I do; it’s not sharp enough wide open to be used as an available-light lens, and is further hampered by the difficulty of focusing it under low light conditions; it’s big enough to defeat the point of the compact M4/3 system, and expensive enough that I think having the 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 lenses instead makes much more sense.

Burger time. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

If you’re an object shooter, as tempting as the close focus capability is, you can’t really use it wide open without dealing with rendering that’s best described as ‘impressionist’; you’re better served by the Panasonic-Leica 45/2.8 Macro, or the forthcoming Olympus 60/2.8. If you’re an available light shooter, and don’t mind the occasional softness due to focusing misses, then go ahead; if sharpness bothers you, then go for the Panasonic Leica 25/1.4 Summilux. However, I can see a very narrow niche of portrait photographers for whom pictorial style takes precedence over sharpness; this is your lens, and it offers a look previously limited to larger format systems.

If you must still have one, get it here from B&H or Amazon.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Crash test portrait dummy. Olympus OM-D, 25/0.95

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: 25/0.95, gearhead, micro 4/3, micro four thirds, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, nokton, review, thein, voigtlander

Revisited and reviewed: The Zeiss ZF.2 2/100 Makro-Planar T*

July 27, 2012 by Ming Thein

I’ve actually owned two of these lenses. My first experience was in mid 2010, with the D700 and after discovering the joys of Zeiss microcontrast; I found it stonkingly sharp, very contrasty, yet capable of delivering images with a rich saturation and three-dimensional pop. In other words, very much in line with the rest of the Zeiss ZF lineup.

A study of apples, 1. Inspired by the lighting of the old Dutch Masters. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

This lens is my second one – now revisited because I feel the need to find lenses capable of making the most of the D800’s incredible resolving power. Between watches and food, I shoot a lot of macro work. This also means that I’ve got some specific requirements that can only be addressed by a mixture of several lenses; a tilt-shift for increasing depth of field in one plane, or moving the camera out of reflections; something short for use with extension tubes to produce high magnification; something longer to produce better separation/ isolation; and finally, something in a normal focal length that can focus a bit nearer if required.

A study of apples, 2. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

I’ve had everything in each category so far until the something longer. The Nikon 105/2.8 VR was my previous choice of all-round macro, but it did have some fairly annoying CA issues that wouldn’t be remedied until stopped down by quite a bit; and the working distance at high magnification was actually pretty short because the non-extending internal focus design necessitated shortening the focal length at nearer distances. I replaced it with the 60/2.8 AFS, which I’ve always felt was a little better optically.

Two-tone pears. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Enter the Zeiss ZF.2 2/100 Makro-Planar T* (hereafter the 100MP). It’s a full stop faster than the Nikon at f2, which it impressively maintains throughout the focus range; it also doesn’t shorten the focal length as it focuses closer, which maintains working distance, as well as minimizes focus breathing (especially important for videographers). The downside, of course, is that a huge amount of extension is required to deliver only 1:2 magnification (extension for a given magnification is proportional to the focal length). 1:1 would have been nice, but I honestly don’t know where they’d pack that extra helicoid. Near focus limit is 44m at 1:2 magnification, with a clear 20+cm of working distance in front of the lens barrel (less if you choose to use the hood).

This is not a small lens when fully extended at maximum magnification with the hood on.

What does amaze me about the 100MP is its ability to cut an image into very clear planes; at every aperture there’s an abrupt transition between in focus and out of focus; in this regard, it reminds me a lot of the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH-M which has a similar ability. This impression is further reinforced by a complete lack of ghosting or fringing of any sort around the focal point, even at maximum aperture. The lens also produces excellent bokeh; out of focus areas are rendered as walls of blur, with no harsh edges or double imaging. The sole exception to this is the occasional cats’-eye-shaped highlight from very bright off-center sources. The iris is placed in the center of the lens’ optical elements, and made up of 9 blades with rounded edges. (The only perfect circle you get is at f2).

Bokeh. Note odd ellipses from off-center. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

It’s a moderately complex 9/8 optical design, which doesn’t use any aspherical elements (as is traditional for Zeiss) – relying instead on different types of glass and the excellent T* coating to keep optical aberrations at bay.

Flames. Bokeh from the 100MP mostly looks like this. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Once again, the coating does its job admirably – flare is very minor, and in fact, almost nil when you use the supplied deep hood; contrast is always excellent, and the microcontrast rendition is superb – very much three dimensional and ‘like a Zeiss’. Color is warm and fully saturated; the lens’ spectral transmission matches that of its siblings, but will probably require some correction if you’re going to use it with those from another manufacturer. And needless to say, as a macro lens, it delivers an almost completely flat plane of focus.

Golf course dawn – shot into the sun. Note complete lack of flare. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

However, there’s no such thing as a perfect lens – although some manufacturers might claim there is – but the 100MP comes pretty close, in my opinion. Its one sole flaw is longitudinal chromatic aberration caused by uncorrected spherochromatism – in plain text, it’s colored fringes on out of focus highlights (‘bokeh fringing’). It’s especially noticeable front-back on a high contrast subject. The only way to avoid it is by stopping down to f4 or smaller, or some handy Photoshop work with the sponge tool in post processing.

That fruit I can never pronounce. No bokeh fringing because of the relatively low contrast subject. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

I just want to touch on one last optical property before talking about build quality and some general observations/ conclusions – and that’s diffraction. Although the primary driver of exactly when diffraction kicks in is down to the pixel density of the sensor, I can’t help but notice that there is also definitely some effect caused by the lens used – perhaps this is related to focal length shortening and effective apertures at different magnifications; I’m not absolutely sure. All I know is that if I compare this lens at f22 and the Nikon 60/2.8 G at an indicated f22, the Zeiss does seem a fraction softer – I’d continue the comparison at smaller apertures, but there aren’t any more on the Zeiss.

Sinn 756 S UTC. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Moving on to the physical qualities of the lens – like all the ZF/ZE optics, it’s a superb thing to use. The lens is all metal, with a buttery smooth focusing action, and incredibly solid feel. The felt-lined hood locks on to the end of the lens by means of a bayonet mount (in chrome). Let’s just say the lenses feel like instruments, rather than disposable plastic toys. Actually, I do have some criticisms to do with both the cosmetics and the construction, though. Firstly, the red distance markings for feet are too dark and nearly impossible to read unless it’s fairly bright; this holds true for all Zeiss lenses.

Hommage a Monet. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

The flocked hood is great at reducing stray light, but it’s also great at picking up lint, and the front edge is easily dentable – if only they would put a small rubber lip on it. I know it’s a macro lens, and the feel is superb, but the focus throw is just much too long – half a turn should be more than enough; the Nikons do this and get to 1:1; there’s no need to have a whole turn of rotation. It makes things slower to use than they have to be. Oh, and despite this huge distance turned…infinity to three meters is probably less than about 10 degrees of rotation.

Mount Yotei Dawn. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Finally, it’s a macro lens: for photographing objects, with the lens in close proximity, which may or may not be reflective. The chrome hood bayonet looks magnificent, but it’s also the cause of a huge hotspot (hot ring?) in many shiny objects. The hood helps to some degree, but you can still see the inside of it a little. And that brings me to the nameplate on the lens: white lettering on the black front rim – guess what, this reflects off your subjects too, and has to be retouched out. Again, it’s not as bad when the hood is used (and much, much worse on the 2/50 Makro Planar because of the even shorter working distance of that lens) – but it should be black, or put somewhere else. Better yet, include with the lens a plain matte black blanking ring that covers both the chrome hood bayonet and the nameplate ring when the lens is used specifically for macro work.

Lips. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

This is perhaps one of the easiest lens reviews I’ve written: the optics are stunningly good, and there are no complaints here. Within it’s optimal working range – it’s fantastic, and longitudinal chromatic aberration aside, can’t be beaten. That said, the LoCA we see here is no worse than any of the other 100/105mm lenses on the market. It’s not only a great macro lens, but it also does very well at longer distances too – I actually like to use it for landscapes, because its tonal rendition really makes scenes pop. You can use it for portraits, but your subjects had better have perfect skin…at least bokeh will be beautiful, though.

Spot the mosquito (hint: click on the image, and look near the ear). Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

If you do any sort of macro work, or are an aficionado of great optics, I can’t recommend this lens enough. It’s one of the few lenses that can keep up with the resolution of the Nikon D800E even at maximum aperture, and versatile enough to serve both as a macro, a portrait lens, and a short telephoto. I’m now off to tape up the front of mine to go shoot some watches. MT

The Zeiss 2/100 Makro-Planar is available here from B&H and Amazon, in Nikon or Canon mounts.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Spring. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Home. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

The ZF2 2/100 and D800E produces wonderfully natural color….

…but can also be used as a very painterly tool thanks to its drawing style (D800E, ZF2 2/100).

Waiting for the train in rural Japan. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/100

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: 2/100 makro planar t*, equipment, gearhead, lens, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, review, thein, zeiss

Review: The Olympus ZD 75/1.8 for Micro Four Thirds

July 22, 2012 by Ming Thein

One of the more eagerly awaited lenses for compact system users, the Olympus Zuiko Digital 75/1.8 ED MSC (hereafter just referred to as the 75) is one of the final confirmations that Micro Four Thirds has finally come of age. We now have all of the popular lenses we need – including a fast 24-70/2.8 equivalent, fast primes at 24, 35, 50 (multiple choices) and 90mm equivalents; the very fast portrait tele like a 150/1.8 (for example, the subject of this review) or 200/2 is now here to round out the lineup. Curious, there’s no fast 50 from Olympus, and no fast AF 35 from any of the manufacturers; that Schneider-Kruzenach 14/2 looks extremely interesting indeed.

But we’re not here to talk about that.

Compared to the 12/2.

I picked up a final production sample 75 from Olympus Malaysia a couple of weeks ago, having handled a much earlier prototype; honestly, the only thing that seems to have changed is the lens’ finish color (a light champagne color over bare metal) now matches that of the 12/2 perfectly. Unfortunately, during my free days, the weather has not been as conducive for shooting as I would have liked; I look forward to updating the review again once I’ve had a chance to use the lens for a longer period of time.

The 75 is a superbly well built lens; it’s solid, but not unexpectedly heavy, say in the same way as a brass Leica lens. However, the only plastic to be found anywhere on the lens is the cap – I’m guessing the rest of it is aluminum, including the optional hood. It sits at the top of Olympus’ lens pyramid for M4/3, together with the 12/2 – and presumably other lenses too, at some point. Curiously, for a lens of this build quality and price (RRP around RM3,200 give or take; availability at retail end-July or early August) there is no weather sealing – unlike the much cheaper (and honestly, cheap feeling too) 12-50 EZ. So, don’t get this one wet – even if your OM-D can take it. The focusing ring is well damped and smooth to rotate, with about the right amount of resistance. Sadly though, it’s once again a fly-by-wire design, like every other M4/3 lens except the 12/2. A nice touch is that all markings on the lens are engraved deeply and painted in relief – including ‘Made in Japan’ on the bottom.

With hood.

I was also given the (optional) hood; it nearly doubles the perceived size of the lens, and is thoroughly enormous. It secures with a thumb screw (why no bayonet, Olympus?) and provides good shading of the front element. I’m told that it will ship with another cap that clips on to the end of the hood; this is absolutely required as there’s no way you can get your fingers in to remove the originally supplied cap once the hood is in place. It also reverses for storage. Again, given the price of the lens…not including a hood seems a little, well, cheap.

A Bollywood still. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8
All images in this review may be clicked on for larger versions (and click through the Flickr landing page again).

That’s about all of the improvement points i’ve got, though. There’s a lot to like about the 75, and I’ll start with focusing speed. The 75 is a fast, silent, and most importantly, accurately focusing lens. Unless there are huge changes in subject distance, the lens snaps into focus with the same speed as the 45/1.8. I’m told this is due to the design philosophy employed; there’s only one element that moves to achieve focus, and it runs along a track/ rail. The first part of this means that a) the focusing assembly is light and therefore requires little energy to move quickly or change direction; b) the focusing action can be entirely internal. The latter portion contributes to speed – most lenses contain focusing elements that are attached to a rotating helicoid assembly; a linear motor rotates this entire assembly in either direction to move it back and forth by means of a static cam and follower. However, using a linear motor or magnets (I haven’t been able to find out which), movement of the focusing element along a track/ rail can be accomplished much, much more quickly – and without the grinding sound of rotating parts. Bottom line: don’t question it too much, it just works.

Two old men. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

On the subject of focusing, the 75 gets much closer than most 150/200mm equivalent lenses: the near focus limit is just 0.8m, which is even a little shorter than most standard 85mms. This makes for some impressively tight frames; just remember that your depth of field is also very shallow (though of course not as shallow as a true 150/1.8), and slight movement in either the camera or the subject will result in front or back focus.

Delivery man. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

You’ll notice that up til this point, I haven’t said much about the optics of the lens. We are now fortunate enough to live in a time when there are very few truly bad lenses, plenty of excellent ones, and a few really exceptional ones -but the difference between excellent and really exceptional is so small, that it takes near perfect conditions to see it. I think the 75 is one of those that manages to cross the excellent threshold into exceptional – at least in my mind. It delivers absolutely stunning resolution and sharpness across the frame, even from maximum aperture at f1.8; stopping it down increases your depth of field, but doesn’t really make much difference to sharpness. In fact, it’s one of the sharpest lenses I’ve ever used for Micro 4/3. There is a tiny improvement in microcontrast visible between f1.8 and around f2.8; things are pretty static from there on down, until you hit the diffraction limit somewhere between f8 and f11 (on the OM-D).

Mirrored thought. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

Resolution isn’t everything, of course – if the lens had an ugly bokeh signature, a horrible transition zone, odd color transmission, or worse, massive lateral/ longitudinal CA – then we might well write it off completely for any one of those flaws alone. Except…the 75 doesn’t suffer from any of those maladies; it’s one of those very rare things: a transparent lens. It delivers a neutral, accurate rendition of the subject with very little of its own ‘personality’ (read: charmingly artistic optical flaws) impinging on your vision. The only flaw I could find was a trace of spherochromatism (color fringes on bokeh) on very strongly backlit subjects; regular lateral chromatic aberration is completely absent, and there are no odd corner gremlins to be wary of, either. Place your subject wherever you wish, with confidence.

Searching for value. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

I think resisting the temptation to go to f1.4 or faster has paid off here – slower lenses of course being easier to make optically perfect than fast ones. Compared to the already excellent 45/1.8, there’s no contest – the 75 outperforms it in every way; it’s just that bit crisper, that bit clearer, that bit more vivd, and that bit more transparent. (Sadly, it’s also more than just a bit more expensive).

Overall, there are very few lenses I would place in the company of the 75 – the Nikon 85/2.8 PCE, perhaps; the Nikon 200/2 VR, definitely; the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH FLE; and I would go so far as to say it has that same level of clarity I’ve seen only so far in the Leica 50/2 APO ASPH. (Who knows if the 75’s ultimate resolution is as high as the 50/2 AA; it doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t designed to cover more than 17x13mm anyway.)

Yet another stop. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

The question is, though, what would you use this lens for? I think it’s actually a bit long to serve as the second lens in a two-lens kit; I’d still pick the 12 and 45mms for versatility, perhaps adding the 75mm if I feel I’m going to be shooting in a larger space. I suppose it would be good for portraiture if you have enough space to make it work – remember, we’re talking 150mm FOV equivalent here; alternatively there’s indoor sport (once we have a CSC that has decent continuous AF capabilities) or perhaps landscape work (though I’d go with the 100-300 and a tripod for more flexibility, since speed isn’t required).

Suspicious lunch. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

It’s good for generating very cinematic images; this is a lens that will only deliver one type of look, and you must both like and know how to use it – it’s not a flaw of the lens, but more a consequence of the angle of view. No doubt street photographers will find it extremely handy to get closer to or isolate their subjects, because its relatively small and unintimidating physical size is out of proportion to its magnification. Put the 75 on an OM-D body without hood or grip, and you’ve got a package that’s still smaller than the entry-level DSLR and kit lens most people are toting around these days. After a week with it, I feel that the lens is one which you will just find a use for – solely because the way it renders images is rather addictive. It was a sad day when I had to hand mine back (even sadder, because one normally doesn’t give things away on their birthday.)

Rainy traffic jam. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

I can’t help but think that to round out the lineup, Olympus needs a lens like this in 17/1.4, 25/1.4 and 300/4 flavors. MT

You can order the 75/1.8 here from B&H or Amazon.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Lego city. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

A hand in an inappropriate place. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

Diner and watcher. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

Between destinations. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

The older you are, the less you care about the rules. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

Veiled (but empty) garden of pleasures. Olympus OM-D, 75/1.8

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: 75/1.8, gearhead, micro 4/3, micro four thirds, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, olympus, review, thein, zd

Long term review: The Carl Zeiss ZF.2 2/28 Distagon T*

July 19, 2012 by Ming Thein

A cinematic lens needs a cinematic product shot.

I’ve been lucky enough to own and use a lot of lenses in my time. And some of them pretty exceptional – off the top of my head, there’s the Nikon 200/2; the Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux-M ASPH; the Leica 21/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH; the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH FLE (you can probably see where this is going); the Leica 50/2 APO; the Nikon 85/1.4 G; the Zeiss ZF 2/100 Makro Planar; the Nikon 85/2.8 PCE…suffice to say, it would be difficult to pick one as an outright favorite. But I think if there ever was a contender, then it’d be the Zeiss ZF.2 2/28 Distagon T*.

Firstly, it’s not a technically perfect lens by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it tends to score quite lowly on common testing metrics – especially in the corners – because its defining signature is highly pronounced field curvature. Imagine a ball around the camera; the plane of focus for this lens follows the surface of that sphere. It lends a very unique rendition to subjects shot with it because it has the property of emphasizing the out of focus areas by making them effectively further away from the camera. This, in turn, results in greater separation between the subject and background – it’s not always obvious, but if you shoot the same scene with a relatively flat-field lens like the Nikon 24/1.4, you can instantly see the difference.

Proper DOF scales, but they’re too short.

This property makes for great bokeh and a very cinematic rendering. In fact, the earlier Contax/ Yashica mount version of the lens is known as the ‘Hollywood Distagon’ for its huge popularity amongst filmmakers for use in indoor scenes; I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of these lenses landed up being converted to some cinema mount. As far as I can tell from their block diagrams, the ZF and ZF.2 versions are almost (if not exactly) identical optically, with some minor updates to coatings and the like – as well as a different mount, of course.

Dessert. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

On axis, there’s plenty of sharpness at every aperture. You cannot focus and recompose with this lens; use either live view or AF assist to focus edge subjects, else they will be out of focus. f4 seems to be the optimal aperture, but frankly there’s not a lot of difference from wide open. However, you’ll need at least f5.6 on full frame before your depth of field covers the effects of field curvature completely. Similarly, the lens vignettes noticeably at f2 – perhaps 1-1.5 stops in the corners – which almost disappears by f5.6. All of this adds to the flavor.

Fire. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

The one optical quality that isn’t so hot is a propensity for purple fringing on bright contrast edges, especially noticeable around in-focus backlit subjects; it goes away with stopping down. It doesn’t look like CA, which makes me suspect that it’s an odd interaction of the older lens design with digital sensors. For most subjects, it’s fairly easy to correct by masking out the affected area and desaturating the magenta channel. There is some slight CA in the corners, but it’s almost completely gone by f4. Thanks to the excellent coating, flare is almost entirely absent – point the lens into any light source you wish, just watch your eyes. It’s a great lens for shooting contra-jour; what little flare does show (if the angle is just right) is mild and cinematic.

That’s the most flare I’ve ever been able to get out of this lens. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

The ZF 28 has a rounded-polygon aperture with 9 blades; it isn’t perfectly circular, but I can’t complain about the bokeh – it’s absolutely beautiful, and renders even complex backgrounds in a pleasingly melted fashion. There are very slight highlight fringes on out of focus point sources, but the transition is fairly gentle so it’s not at all distracting.

All about the bokeh. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

I find that the Zeiss ZF lenses seem to fall into two camps – there’s those with a very ‘crisp’ rendition, like the 2.8/21 Distagon, the 2/50 Makro-Planar and the 2/100 Makro-Planar, and those with a softer rendition, like the 1.4/50 Planar and 1.5/85 Planar. The 2/28 seems to straddle those two camps – it has higher contrast than the latter group, but not quite as much punch as the former. I personally find it very pleasing.

Waiting. The 28 Distagon’s excellent tonal separation makes for great B&W conversions, too. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

Like all Zeiss lenses, microcontrast is excellent thanks to the T* coating. Speaking of coatings, the first few elements of the lens actually seem to disappear when you look into the front – this speaks volumes about little light loss there is going on inside the optics. This translates into excellent light transmission – T2.1, in fact. (It’s the same lens optically as the Zeiss CP.2 T2.1/28, but with different focus gearing and a much smaller price tag.)

Kitchen portrait. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

Being a manual focus lens, you’re probably wondering how practical it is for regular photography – the answer is that it’s not too bad, but you’ll definitely see the benefit in having a split prism or similar screen installed. All modern DSLRs have focusing screens with a narrow scatter angle that are optimized for brightness with slow zooms rather than focusing snap; in fact, it’s a slow change that’s been ongoing since the beginnings of autofocus.

Untitled, Nikon D3100, ZF2 2/28

You’ll probably find it nearly impossible to focus with an entry level APS-C DSLR; their focusing screens don’t have anywhere near enough magnification or ‘snap’ to make life easy. Although you can use the focusing aids – the green dot and arrows for Nikon users, or the beep for Canon shooters – depth of field with the 28 Distagon is shallow enough that you need to take care, because there’s a bit of range in the focus ring position for which the dot will stay lit or the beep will sound. And the extreme ends of that range will be clearly out of focus if the lens is shot wide open. You could stop down and use the DOF scales, of course, but the focus ring throw is a bit too short and the DOF scales too incomplete for that.

Coffee time. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

One nice feature is that the lens focuses very close indeed – 25cm from the sensor plane – for some interesting closeup angles. Optical performance remains consistently excellent even at this focusing distance.

You’ll notice I haven’t said much about construction – that’s a good thing. Use any of the ZF or ZE lenses (optics are of course the same) and you’re in for a treat. They’re solid, fully metal (anodized aluminum barrels, I believe) with chromed brass mounts and buttery smooth focus throws; just enough resistance not to move or be nudged, but with a really nice tactile feel that reminds me of a well-damped heavy piston moving through oil, or something similar. For want of a better analogy, the lenses feel like scientific instruments. On the ZF.2 versions, there’s an aperture ring that locks at f22 for electronic control on modern Nikons. The ZF version has ‘rabbit ears’ for coupling with earlier cameras’ metering pins. And the ZE version is fully electronic with no aperture ring at all.

Stair #173. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF2 2/28

There are a few areas for improvement, though – while the hood bayonet mechanism is beautifully made and locks with a nice positive detent, the hood itself is easily dinged and scratched on the rim if bumped into something. A rubber lip would be nice. And the velvet flocking on the inside of the hood might be great at preventing stray light and flare, but it’s also very good at picking up dirt (especially light-colored dirt) and seems to peel off the metal quite easily. To be honest, I land up not using mine a lot of they time because I’m particular enough to like to keep my equipment pristine. Finally, the lens caps need help – there’s not enough thread on the edges to keep them securely gripping the filter ring; the springs aren’t strong enough to keep the caps from moving if bumped; and they’re impossible to remove if the hood is attached. I’ve replaced all of my Zeiss caps with Nikon ones.

Mt. Yotei wears a hat. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

If you think I’m gushing about this lens, it’s solely because of the pictorial results I get from it justify it. To my eyes, they have a special quality that I rarely see, and just makes images that pop – with saturated, slightly warm colors, great microcontrast separation, and a very three-dimensional rendering. And the enjoyable tactility of the thing as an object doesn’t do any harm, either. Frankly, if they did an M-mount version with thes same optical formula – size be damned – this would be permanently welded to my M9-P.

Perbadanan Putrajaya. (Vignetting added). Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

How does it compare to the other 28s or 28 equivalents I’ve used? This is an interesting question, because the new Nikon AFS 28/1.8 G (which I recently reviewed here) seems to actually have a lot of the same optical properties as the Zeiss – field curvature, great central sharpness, smooth bokeh, high transmission – and most usefully, autofocus. Honestly, I think the Nikon comes very close; however, the one missing ingredient is microcontrast – it just doesn’t pop in the same way as the Zeiss. Color saturation is a little lower, too. I’ve come to the conclusion that if I’m running and gunning, I’ll take the Nikon, but if I’ve got time to craft the image, then it’s the Zeiss all the way. I don’t think any of the other Nikon mount 28s are in the running, even the legendary f1.4; admittedly, it’s been a long time since I’ve used one. Both lenses have some distortion, which would probably render them unsuitable for architectural work without correction; I think they make much better contextual documentary lenses anyway.

Train driver. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

I admit I’m a bit of a 28mm FOV junkie, so I’ve tried many lenses on different mounts and formats; in my mind, the two interesting competitors are the Leica 21/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH and Zeiss ZM 2.8/21 Biogon, both on the 1.3x crop Leica M8 rangefinder. The former is the only wide I’ve ever used that gives the same sort of subject separation as a telephoto; the latter has similar 3D qualities to the ZF 2/28, and in fact reminds me quite a bit of the ZF 2.8/21 Distagon, too. Unfortunately, I haven’t had a chance to evaluate the Leica 28/2 Summilux ASPH in any great detail, and the Leica 28/2.8 ASPH is very sharp, but a little characterless. The ZM 2.8/28 is a very competent lens, but missing that little something I can’t quite put my finger on.

Riding the big yellow snake. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

I don’t say this lightly, but despite its optical imperfections, the ZF.2 2/28 Distagon joins my personal pantheon of great lenses – if you’re a fan of cinematic rendering and the 28mm FOV, then this is the lens for you. It positively shines on full frame, but will do well on APS-C cameras too – if you can focus it reliably. Now, if only they’d make an autofocus version…MT

Note: some of you may be wondering why none of the images from this review were shot with the D800E; the honest answer is because I haven’t had a chance yet. However, my initial testing shows that the lens continues to perform as expected and without issue on the higher-resolution sensor.

Addendum: If you’re a Canon shooter, I actually recommend buying the Nikon (ZF/ZF.2) versions if you have a mirrorless cameras as well – you can then use this lens on the CSC with an adaptor, and retain full aperture control. This isn’t possible with the Canon version as the diaphragm is activated electronically.

Both versions of the lens are available here from B&H or Amazon.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Roots. Nikon D700, ZF2 2/28

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: gearhead, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, nikon, review, thein, zeiss, zf.2 2/28 distagon t*

It’s my birthday – so I’m giving you all a present

July 17, 2012 by Ming Thein

Sharing is caring. Nikon D800E, Zeiss ZF.2 1.4/85 Planar

Product of the labors of the last few weeks, the observant of you will notice that there’s now a new tab on the second line called CAMERAPEDIA! It’s a 22,000+ word monster that contains a concise opinion on every piece of equipment I’ve ever used (and can remember) – that’s a lot of gear, folks. I figure instead of asking me if X or Y is any good, I might as well put all of the info in one easy to access place. It also links to my detailed reviews, where I have one. It’s a live document, which will be updated as I use more stuff. The best way to use it is use your browser’s built in search function – either command-F or ctrl-F – and type in the name of whatever it is you’re looking for. For lenses, just the focal length should be enough. Everything is in alphanumeric order.

It can be found here, and also accessed via the CAMERAPEDIA! button next to ‘Contact/ Ask a question’.

Enjoy! MT

Quick update – the competition is coming along nicely; we’ve got 20+ great entries so far, but come on folks, I see plenty of great images in the newly-minted Flickr pool that would qualify and do well – but no corresponding entries! Remember, the more people entering, the larger the cash prize. Entry details can be found here.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: birthday, camerpedia, database, equipment database, gearhead, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, reviews, thein

For the curious, a dissertation of opinions on my current equipment choices

July 10, 2012 by Ming Thein

This is a little preview of something I’ve been working on for some time and have gone through many packets of ginseng-garcinia cambogia to keep energized for – a concise database of quick reviews/ opinions on every single piece of equipment I’ve ever used. Think of it as a reference for a quick opinion instead of having to send an email – look out for it soon, the magnum opus is nearly complete and will weigh in at nearly 20,000 words…

Cameras

Apple iPhone 4** – The first phone whose image quality I actually liked. Crisp, detailed files; limited dynamic range – as expected from this kind of sensor – some kind of rudimentary spot metering. Color accuracy is horrible in anything other than bright sunshine, and way off indoors. Doesn’t seem to have the range of shutter speeds to cope with very dark or very bright conditions. Also, noisy. Needs a physical two-stage shutter button. Nevertheless, it’s produced images that went into the Getty library, so no complaints. Oh, and I can make calls and blog off it, too.

Leica D-Lux 5/ D-Lux 5 Titanium** – Actually won a regular one in a competition; wasn’t impressed and sold it fairly quickly thereafter. However, extended time with the camera has made me change my mind. Not only is the image quality excellent, the pixels are surprisingly robust and stand up to a decent amount of post processing. Excellent macro mode that makes it a good food camera. Also, great stabilizer. Color output needs a lot of work though, and I see that customary Panasonic cyan tinge. Still, makes a great backup/ pocket/ M-companion camera.

Leica M9/ M9-P** (May 2012) – The M9-P is one of those cameras that just feels right. Tactility and the ‘want to use it’ factor are high. Image quality is superb, so long as ISO is kept below 800; 1250 is still okay (about a one stop improvement on the M8) but still nowhere near the other FF DSLRs. The lack of an AA filter gives images tremendous bite – just watch your rangefinder calibration. It’s very easy to shoot fast lenses and then wonder why they’re soft, when in fact it’s probably due to a misaligned rangefinder. Most of the woes with the M8 are gone (lockups etc) but you have to be very careful with what cards you use; faster ones can cause corruption and crashes.

Nikon D700** (May 2012) – My workhorse since late 2009, and the end of the First Leica Period. Shares the incredibly versatile sensor and AF system from the D3, and delivers identical image quality and performance for almost all purposes. Capable of hitting 8fps with the battery grip and suitable power source, too. I can’t think of a better value camera today – there isn’t anything that delivers the same image quality, same usability, customizability and durability for the price. Along with the D3, the first camera where I felt that I was now the limitation in the imaging chain, and would have to progress substantially to change that. Mine has done over 70,000 actuations and remains in my arsenal for available light reportage work, and as a backup body to the D800E. Smart move by Nikon to keep in production (at least for a few months) and on sale; I would actually recommend this over the D800 if you don’t intend to print enormous (D700 files still look great at 40×60″) or require video. Save the difference in price and go buy some glass instead – and enjoy the wider choices, because the larger pixel pitch is very forgiving indeed.

Nikon D800 (Apr 2012) – Best dynamic range of any 35mm format DSLR at the moment; incredibly accurate color, and shunts around those enormous files like it’s nothing. Video quality catches up to Canon 5DIII, and offers headphone monitoring, adjustable audio input and uncompressed full HDMI out feeds. This camera has moved the bar for 35mm DSLRs. In fact, it’s so good that most lenses can’t keep up with the sensor – every optical flaw is revealed. The lenses that work well on the camera are just as surprising as the ones that don’t (compared to the 12MP FX cameras); the 85/1.8 G for instance is better than the 85/1.4 G, and the 28-300VR becomes pretty good. Pixel-level noise performance is probably a stop behind the D700, but you’re actually going to lose a bit more than that because of the shutter speeds required to negate camera shake at these pixel densities. A non-issue if you downsize, but then why would you do that after having to suffer huge file sizes? Highly recommended to spend some time calibrating your lenses using the AF fine tune function. Watch out for AF issues with side focus points.

Nikon D800E** (May 2012) – The comments that apply to the D800 also apply to the D800E, if not more so; it’s even more demanding on lenses, and shows up CA more than the regular D800; it will moire, but you’re saved by the high resolution which means moire doesn’t kick in until much finer structures are resolved. This camera takes the Oscar for Best Image Quality in 35mm Format at the moment – by a long, long stretch. It makes the D3x feel like positively old, slow technology by comparison (even though the images it produces are of course still the same as the day it was released). It just makes achieving results like this so effortless and accessible, than you forget how many pixels you’re actually packing. And did I mention that the battery life is better than my D3 ever was?

Olympus OM-D E-M5** (May 2012) – The most impressive new camera I’ve used so far in 2012. Not because of any one of its features, but because of its combination of features. It’s a game changer in its ability to combine excellent image quality – I’d say very close to the D7000 in every way, including high-ISO performance and dynamic range – to a very compact body, which also happens to be weather sealed and able to shoot at 9fps. EVF is finally good enough to use, though has limited dynamic range and of course can’t replace a good optical finder. In the tradition of Olympus cameras, it’s highly customizable, too. The only thing that lets it down is AF – yes, it’s blazingly fast, but not always accurate especially at longer distances with fast wides. And continuous AF is nearly worthless – good thing single AF is so fast. Also available with a two-part battery grip that makes quite a big difference to the handling and overall usability of the camera – but it’s still positively tiny. No built in flash, but they give you a little weather-sealed one that can also double as a wireless commander for other flashes. Olympus still hasn’t learned that putting the strap eyelet in the middle of your palm is uncomfortable. Sigh.

Olympus E-PM1 Pen Mini** (May 2012) – The best value M4/3 camera out there today. Decent image quality; great color and acceptable noise at ISO 1600. Very responsive and lighting fast focusing – same system as in its more expensive siblings. Incredibly compact body means you can slap a pancake on it, chuck it in your pocket and call it a day. And not notice it’s there until you need it. Surprisingly customizable once you find the hidden custom function menu – I can’t think of any other cameras of this size (or even professional DSLRs) which let you change the color temperature of the LCD. Great battery life, too – easily a thousand shots before you need to swap out packs. Design *looks* great but could use refinements – why on earth would you fit a 16:9 LCD to a camera whose native aspect ratio is 4:3? Most of the LCD is black and unused; the strap lugs are still idiotically positioned (this seems to be an Olympus design hallmark) and the ring on the back is fiddly. Other than that, I really do love this camera. It’s largely taken over from my Ricoh GRD-III.

Ricoh GR-Digital III** (May 2012) – Round three. This iteration of the ultimate pocket PJ camera increased lens speed to f1.9, brought the sensor from the LX3 and G9, and more speed. Still remains hugely customizable. You could now shoot DNGs like JPEGs and not pay any usability penalty; focusing got faster; ISO 800 was now useable, and 1600 OK for emergencies. However, the lens’ notional f1.9 speed brought more improvement than expected – I rarely have to go over ISO 400 indoors, which makes me think the lens design and coatings are truly excellent. Files are surprisingly good for such a small camera, and up to A3 indistinguishable from larger sensors; plenty of latitude for processing and capable of both excellent B&W conversions and color tones. My favorite point and shoot, at this moment in time. No impulse to buy the GRD IV because I don’t see anything that camera would give me over the GRD III. If I had to take only one camera with me for a trip, this would probably be it – and was, on several occasions.

Zoom lenses

Nikon AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR II** (May 2012) – The FX equivalent of the 18-200VR, and the replacement for the original 28-200 Swiss Army Knife. Delivers acceptable quality between 35 and 200mm on the 12MP FX bodies; 300mm is soft even at f8, and 28mm is both haloed and soft until f5.6 – it almost seems that there’s a slight focusing issue only at 28mm. Strangely, delivers sharp results everywhere in the range on the 16MP DX bodies; it’s actually very, very good on the D800, and excellent by f8. Who would have guessed? If you travel, and want to go light but maintain resolution, buy this and a D800. Note that it has a very slow T stop thanks to the 20+ elements inside it, so don’t expect it to be a low light lens. VR is quite effective but you’ve got to give it a second or two to ‘lock down’ before shooting, and turn it off above about 1/500s or it will just cause a double image. It’s not on Nikon’s recommended list of lenses for the D800, but they bundle them as a kit in Japan – I can see why. Notice I haven’t talked about D800E: that’s because on this camera, somehow the same lens performs like it did on the D700 – hazy wide open, and not pretty at all at 28mm. However, stopping down by one stop improves things dramatically, and we’re nearly back to the same level of resolution it produces on the D800. Odd.

Olympus ZD 12-50/3.5-6.3 EZ** (July 2012) – A multitalented Swiss army knife of a kit lens that feels a lot more complicated than it needs to be – motor zoom, 1:3 ‘macro’ mode locked at 43mm, weather sealing, fly by wire focusing…sadly, the optics aren’t really up to par for the OM-D it’s bundled with. It will do fine if there’s enough light, but you’re going to need a lot of light to make the f6.3 end work well. The plus side is that it focuses very quickly indeed.

Olympus ZD 14-42/3.5-5.6 IIR** (June 2012) – The standard kit lens for the Pen cameras – it’s actually pretty good, with decent sharpness over the entire field even wide open. I much prefer this to the 12-50. It has very…er…lightweight construction, which means plastic mounts, thin plastic sections on the barrel, and generally you want to be careful because I don’t think it’ll take that much abuse. Good optics though, even if (as rumored) none of them are actually glass. Focuses fast.

Panasonic Lumix G 100-300/4-5.6** (June 2012) – 200-600mm equivalent zoom for M4/3, topping out at a very useable f5.6 at the long end – what’s not to like? Sharpness is very good to excellent everywhere in the range, with the 300mm end being (predictably) the weakest. Optical stabilizer works well. Focusing is reasonably fast, but not as fast as the Olympus MSC lenses. (Actually, it feels about the same speed as the Nikon 70-300VR). Best used with an EVF camera for stability; you can’t really mount it on a tripod because of the lack of a collar and resulting imbalance (which is a shame).

Prime lenses

Nikon AFS 28/1.8 G (June 2012)** – A very light, relatively small lens. Focuses fast. Weather sealed, but doesn’t have any metal in it apart from the mount and some screws. It’s sharp in the center at all apertures on the D800E, but isn’t flat field; you’ll have to take care for edge subjects – it can be sharp if you get the focus plane right. Doesn’t have the 3D microcontrast of the Zeiss 28/2 Distagon, but surprisingly offers better transmission f-stop for f-stop. Neutral bokeh and color. Now if only they’d make an f1.4 version.

Nikon AI 45/2.8 P** (May 2012) – Currently on my second copy. I had one of the much rarer black versions with my FM3A back in 2004; stupidly, I sold it. I’m rediscovering the joys of the simple Tessar optical formula with the D800 – the center zone is always bitingly sharp, and progressive ‘rings’ of sharpness open up as you stop down; by 5.6 it’s great everywhere across the frame. I suspect this is actually field curvature rather than softness, because you can focus on an edge subject, recompose and the edge subject will be perfectly sharp. I have a feeling I’ll find this to be one of those lenses with personality, like the similarly field-curvy Zeiss 28/2 Distagon. Color transmission is neutral, there’s a tiny hint of longitudinal CA, and bokeh is very nice indeed. Unfortunately it won’t make sunstars, though. Oddly the edge focusing points seem to work inconsistently for focus confirmation on this lens; the center point works much better and focus holds if you do the center-focus-and-recompose thing. Now if only there was an AF f2 version! Pentax was on to something with its Limited series of pancake lenses.

Nikon AFS 60/2.8 G Micro** (May 2012) – This lens is one of my two studio workhorses, the other being the 85/2.8 PCE. This one gives me the convenience of AF, 1:1 and higher potential magnification with extension tubes. I switched to this lens from the 105/2.8 VR due to the huge amount of lateral chromatic aberration (bokeh fringing) present in the latter; not great for product shots as it required some often very tricky retouching to remove the color casts without affecting the color of the underlying subject. I feel it’s also a touch sharper, too. The 40/2.8 and 85/3.5 VR macro lenses do not make any sense to me; the latter is not much cheaper, and the working distance of the former is terrible. Bokeh-wise, it’s neutral to good; color wise, it’s neutral; all in all, it’s a very transparent lens that does its job and avoids imprinting its personality onto the picture, which is great. Note that it doesn’t change length with magnification, but it does shorten focal length a little, so working distance at maximum magnification isn’t more than about 5cm. Not suitable for photographing biting insects.

Nikon AFS 85/1.8 G** (June 2012) – An impressively sharp optic on every body I’ve tested it on, including the D800 and D800E; no CA, edge to edge perfection even at f1.8. Sharp and contrasty all over, probably thanks to the small number of internal elements. I have no idea how they do it – the optical design is incredibly simple, and has no aspherical elements, no ED glass, no IF/ RF groups and no fancy coatings. The T stop is about half a stop down on the 85/1.4 G for the same aperture, though – must be the effect of the Nano Crystal Coating on the 85/1.4 G’s elements. I think this may be the best general purpose/ fast 85mm out there at the moment, and I don’t say that lightly. Beats the 85/1.4G and Zeiss ZF.2 85/1.4 handily for sharpness. Highly recommended if you don’t already have the 85/1.4 G, and recommended for D800 users even if you do.

Nikon PCE 85/2.8 Micro** (May 2012) – One of Nikon’s sharpest lenses. Full movements, and a macro to boot! Nothing to complain about optically, at any aperture. However, the tilt and shift axes should be parallel; the way they are installed from the factory not only does not permit easy rotation like the old version, but there’s also a PCB and ribbon cable that has to be changed at the cost of US$300 or so – for something that shouldn’t have been design that way in the first place. My other issue is that the focusing ring on all of the samples I’ve tried is extremely stiff; no amount of working it in or lubrication helps that. I dismantled part of my lens to find that there are a few friction rings between the top keeper that stops the focus ring from slipping off, and the ring itself; the problem is when the focusing ring is moved, it naturally exerts force on the friction ring and keeper because of the focusing cams. It’s actually so stiff that it requires less force to rotate the lens about its movements axis, which means you’ve got to be careful when using it. It isn’t a fluid or easy lens to use, but produces excellent results. PCE version means an electromagnetic diaphragm that stops down with a button instead of a lever; unfortunately it also means you can’t use it on a non-electronic body or bellows, other than wide open.

Olympus ZD 12/2** (May 2012) – The best of the wide angles for M4/3 at the moment; it’s fast, sharp, and doesn’t have any obvious optical deficiencies other than slightly nervous bokeh (but chances are you’re not going to see bokeh with this spec anyway). It does distort a bit, so it probably isn’t that suitable for architectural photography. I don’t think the T stop is quite f2 – feels like it needs a higher shutter speed than you’d expect for a given lighting condition. The lens does have this interesting focusing ring which can be either fly by wire or mechanically linked manual; the latter has distance and depth of field scales and everything! However, it may not be fully mechanically coupled as it seems there are only five or six distinct focus ‘zones’ you can select, which means hyper focal use isn’t quite as easy as you’d think. I tried it a few times and was disappointed by the inexplicably out of focus results I got at times until I discovered the previous fact. Use it in autofocus mode and be happy (it’s one of the newer, fast MSC designs anyway).

Olympus ZD 45/1.8** (May 2012) – Probably my favorite lens for M4/3 at the moment. Optically, it’s superb. Sharp, moderate contrast, excellent color, neutral, smooth bokeh, and a great microcontrast structure the helps to generate that 3D look and feel to images. Sharp already wide open, but improves to peak at around f2.8-4; don’t go past f8 on M4/3 bodies because you will run into obvious diffraction effects. The price is spectacularly good for what you’re getting, but the compromise is a plastic, somewhat flimsy-feeling outer shell, no lens hood, and an easily-lost blanking ring at one end to cover the hood bayonet.

Panasonic Lumix 20/1.7 G** (May 2012) – One of the must-haves for M4/3 because of its small size and reasonably high optical quality. It isn’t the sharpest or fastest-focusing lens out there (in fact, it’s one of the original lenses that was launched with the system) but it does seem to hold up well on the newer 16MP cameras. My only complaint is that it’s a bit too contrasty, and the micro contrast structure lacks the same refinement of say the Olympus 45/1.8. Not expensive and worth having around; makes a good two-lens kit to pair with a zoom for travel.

Panasonic Leica Lumix 45/2.8 Macro-Elmarit OIS** (May 2012) – The only real macro choice for M4/3 at the time of writing this; good thing it’s an excellent lens. Reaches 1:1 on the M4/3 sensor size, which means close to 2:1 equivalent magnification on full frame. I’ve not done any serious shooting with this yet, but my early watch tests and casual shots suggest that it’s one of those rare ‘transparent’ lenses that just does a great job at faithfully reproducing the subject. A cautious favorite, so far. The OIS system also seems more effective than the in-body stabilization on the OM-D – and no, don’t use them together because there’s some weird interference going on.

Zeiss ZF 21/2.8 Distagon** (Jun 2012) – Possibly the ultimate wide angle lens, period. Sharpness is excellent across the entire frame even wide open on the D800E; there’s noticeable vignetting, but it goes away completely by f5.6. More importantly, the lens has a rich, 3D saturation and microcontrast structure that makes fine textures (e.g. landscapes) pop. This is how all lenses should be constructed – focus throw and weighting is utterly perfect, with just enough resistance, plenty of smoothness and no backlash. The only thing I don’t like is the enormous filter size – the front element is much, much smaller than the filter ring; why on earth did they have to use 82mm? It makes the lens very difficult to pack because it’s almost conical.

Zeiss ZF 28/2 Distagon** (May 2012) – This is one of my favorite lenses of all time; has the same optical formula as the legendary C/Y ‘Hollywood’ so beloved of filmmakers (hence the nickname). I know I keep going on about Zeiss microcontrast; this has it in spades. I’m convinced it’s all in the coatings. You know the transmission of a lens has to be good when you can’t see the first few elements – that’s a sure sign that there isn’t any light being reflected back out of the lens (or worse still, around inside the lens, causing internal flare). Color transmission is on the warm side, but very rich and saturated throughout the spectrum. It’s worth noting that this is not the best lens for reproduction or architectural work; not only does it distort, it also has highly pronounced field curvature (concave with edges closer towards the camera). It is this field curvature that both gives the lens its unique character – exaggerated subject separation from the background, as the background is effectively more out of focus than if the lens were flat-field – as well as its horrible test charts.

Zeiss ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar** (Jun 2012) – The fastest short macro lens currently available, but only goes to 1:2 reproduction; 1:1 would have been nice. Working distance is a little short, and there’s some spherochromatism/ longitudinal CA wide open on high contrast subjects. Optically, it delivers nice separation and ‘bite’ at all distances. Has a very long focus throw, with far distances a bit too bunched up. My problem with it is that the white front lettering and silver ring are very obviously reflected in shiny subjects…

Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar** (July 2012) – Reputed to be one of Zeiss’s highest resolving lenses for F mount; I can believe it. Switched to this from the Nikon 105/2.8 VR in the hopes of lower longitudinal chromatic aberration; sadly, it was not to be. Interestingly, there’s no lateral CA, though. However, the lens doesn’t shorten its focal length when focusing close, which means framing stays the same on focusing. It’s also constant f2 throughout the magnification range, which makes for some spectacular separation. Reaches 1:2 on its own; 1:1 would have been nice. Only downside is that once again like the 50/2 Makro Planar, the further distances on the focusing ring are very close together, which makes precise focusing a little tough. I acquired a second one of these recently to give me something with longer working distance for the D800E – and it’s utterly superb. The lens is capable of outresolving the sensor everywhere in the frame wide open. I may have an exceptional copy, though I doubt it because my previous one was similarly spectacular. Highly recommended.

Zeiss ZM 28/2.8 Biogon** (May 2012) – Although sharp, the lens somehow doesn’t have the optical magic of its 21mm brother; there’s some slight internal flare that reduces crispness wide open. Great by f4 and excellent by f5.6, however. I bought this lens to use as my go-to 28mm on the M9-P, thinking it would replicate the 21 Biogon’s signature, but it has hardly seen any use since the arrival of the 35 ASPH FLE.

Zeiss ZM 50/2 Planar** (May 2012) – Optically, a much better lens than the 50/1.5 Sonnar; it’s bitingly sharp wide open out to the borders; the edges and extreme corners come into line at f2.8. Neutral bokeh and pleasing (slightly warm) color rendition; has that Zeiss ‘pop’ in the microcontrast. No complaints overall – just one of those transparent lenses that doesn’t get in the way of your picture-taking, or impose a signature of its own.

Accessories

Apple Macbook Air 11” Late 2010** (May 2012) – What I use when I’m on the road. I have the 1.4 C2D, 2GB, 128GB SSD configuration. It’s more than fast enough for everything except the most heavy duty video or image editing tasks; in fact, it’s the first computer which doesn’t make me feel like I’m carrying a computer. Also, it looks cool. Much preferred to an iPad because I can actually do work on it. However, I don’t do editing on this machine for one big reason: the screen. It’s both too small and too inaccurate (even after calibration) to do critical color work. Battery life is excellent – I can actually hit 5h with moderate brightness and wifi on; more if I turn it off and dim the monitor.

Apple Macbook Pro 15″ Mid 2010** (May 2010) – My primary editing machine. I have the 2.66 i7, 8GB/ 512MB and 500GB/4GB SSD hybrid HDD configuration. I use it with CS5.5 and Snow Leopard; upgrading to Lion would be too painful to patch all of the little add-ons etc that I use. Handles 12MP 16bit raw files just fine; in fact, I can open about 20 in Photoshop before noticing any slow down. Curiously though, I can’t open seven 36MP files at the same speed; there’s definitely some nonlinear effects going on here. Four is about the max before things start to hit traffic. Could well be the way Photoshop is allocating resources, however. Battery life is okay – 3-4 hours for web browsing etc, probably closer to 2 if running processor heavy tasks like Photoshop (which also uses the discrete GPU).

Fotodiox AV1000PRO LED panels** (Jul 2012) – Enormous 1.5-foot square LED panels with a high CRI and reasonable amount of brightness; runs off wall power with an optional battery pack. Great for food work as the temperature doesn’t affect what you’re shooting.

Gitzo GT1542 Carbon 6x Traveller** (Jul 2012) – My new travel tripod – it’s so unbelievably light, yet sturdy thanks to the leg locking mechanism. Unlike Gitzos of old, you no longer have to undo the locks one by one – you can undo all of them, extend/ retract, then tighten. Much faster. I think it’ll easily hold more than its rated weight capacity. Legs fold up to reduce overall size. The only downside I can see is that there are only two leg positions – flat, and 30deg. An intermediate position would have been nice. Makes an excellent pairing with the GH1780QR ball head.

Gitzo GH1780QR ball head** (Jul 2012) – A compact, low-profile ball head that pairs well with the GT1542 Traveller. Holds a D800E, 85 PCE and focusing rail sturdily with no play; doesn’t quite lock down as decisively as the Manfrotto Hydrostat, but it’s more than good enough. Slightly fiddly quick release locking system with tension adjustment, but in practice works well, and most importantly, prevents camera from reaching the floor in the event of an accidental bump. Has now replaced my Hydrostat for travel, because as good as the Hydrostat is, it weighs more than the GT1542 tripod…

Gitzo GT5562LTS Carbon 6x** Systematic Geant (Jul 2012) – My new studio tripod – even though it has six sections, it feels completely rigid because the largest section is about 2″ in diameter. I can even use it as a makeshift stool without too much trouble (sans head and column, of course). Easily the most sturdy, yet compact and portable, support system I’ve ever used. Weighs about 3kg or thereabouts. I imagine it’d be pretty useful for birders, too.

Kenko Pro DG extension tubes** (May 2012) – A critical part of my watch photography kit. So critical and heavily used that I actually wore out the contacts on my first set after about six years; it wouldn’t communicate the aperture properly to the lens (or AF for that matter) – a new set joined the arsenal earlier this year. Now if only Nikon would make a bellows with electrical contacts and a tripod mount…

Manfrotto 444 Carbon One tripod** (May 2012) – one of Manfrotto’s first carbon fiber numbers; it’s strong, but not particularly light. Extends to just below head height with the column down. Capable of holding a 400/2.8 without breaking a sweat. I pair it with the 468 RC0 Hydrostat head. One complaint – the column doesn’t lock down very well; the friction clamp doesn’t have enough friction to stop the column from rotating if you apply torque to the camera, but have locked down the head. Not a big issue for most uses, but can get annoying at times.

Manfrotto 468 MG RC0 Hydrostat ball head** (May 2012) – I firmly believe the Hydrostats are probably the best ballheads currently made. They use a vacuum system to lock down the ball, which is Teflon coated aluminum (I think; it could also be ceramic). The body of the head itself is cast magnesium. This is the only head I’ve used which doesn’t droop when you lock it down – it’s binary; either the head is locked or it isn’t. This is especially important for high magnification macro work as predictable fine positioning is critical. Has a separate pan lock and tension adjustment for the main ball. Not at all lightweight (about a kilo, I think) – but is rated to 16kg; I know it can hold far more than that as I’ve used it and the tripod as a stool on occasion (with another rail on the head to make it less pointy, of course).

Manfrotto 1052 BAC light stand** (May 2012) – I use these to hold my flashes and LED light panels. Lightweight and made of aluminum, but able to reach up to 7ft whilst carrying moderate (probably not over 2kg or a couple of speedlights) loads. Tubes fit together very precisely, and have some sort of gasket that prevents the loaded section from falling uncontrolled into the base, but instead uses the air trapped inside the bottom tube as a pneumatic cushion. Neat. Also folds flat to stack together multiple stands with ease.

Manfrotto 5001B compact light stand** (Jun 2012) – They’re light and compact (about 45cm long when folded) but not capable of supporting much more than a flash – good for travel. The leg extension mechanism isn’t as smooth as the 1052s because they have to fold out through 90deg rather than just extending downwards. Still, to the best of my knowledge, there aren’t any alternatives.

Manfrotto Super Clamp** (Jun 2012) – Does what its says on the box – it’s a standard lighting mount with a clamp on one end, and a ballhead with cold shoe on the other. Useful for holding flashes in position in awkward places, or for holding things on stands which don’t have standard mounts.

Michael Tapes Design Whibal cards** (Jun 2012) – A little piece of gray plastic that happens to be perfectly gray, and invaluable for ensuring perfect color (or as near as you can get to it given current sensor technology). Use either with your lights to set a manual WB, or add a frame with the card in it to eyedropper and sync WB off afterwards in post. Highly recommended.

Michael Tapes Design LensAlign** (Jun 2012) – A graduated tool to calibrate focus for lenses and AF systems – shows you exactly how much front or back focus you have, and how to make adjustments accordingly. Has come in very, very useful now that the D800/ D800E is far more demanding on lenses and its focusing system…

Nikon DK17M** (May 2012) – 1.2x magnifier for threaded Nikon professional camera eyepieces; will fit the D700, D800, D2 series, D3 series and D4 series cameras. Makes precise framing and focusing a lot easier, but note that it reduces eyepoint, so if you wear glasses, you may no longer be able to see the corners of the frame easily anymore. Works well with the DK-3 eyecup (which is rare, out of production, and has been superseded by the less snug fitting DK19).

Nikon ME-1** (May 2012) – Stereo shotgun microphone for video-capable Nikon DSLRs. Mounts to the hotshoe and is powered via the microphone jack. Sound quality is definitely better than the built in mic, but nothing to write home about. There’s a wind cut switch, rubber isolation mount for the mic portion, and a small foam dead cat. If sound is absolutely critical you’re probably better off using collar mics or a dedicated audio recorder.

Nikon SB700** (May 2012) – Best value flash for Nikon users at the moment; serves as a good primary, and works well as a CLS commander. Physical switches for modes make it faster to use than digging through the softkeys and menus of the SB900. Has one annoying trait; the lock button on the power/ mode switch is difficult to press and rotate simultaneously – similar design to the SB900, but somehow it doesn’t have this problem. I’d rather have two of these than one SB910; functionality is almost the same and the price isn’t that different, either. Note that TTL only (not TTL BL) mode is gone from this flash – I don’t know why. Has one of the most stupidly designed cases ever – looks like a washbag – Unlike the SB900’s case, it isn’t a holster you can put on your belt; when you open it up, the contents all fall out because it isn’t rigid and the opening is huge. Good for storage but nothing else.

Nikon SB900** (May 2012) – I’m slowly acquiring a small collection of these as people dump them in favor of the SB910s; I’ve never had overheating problems despite fast, hard use in the studio. Recycle time is a lot faster than the SB800 even with the extra battery pack. Unfortunately it’s physically larger than the SB800, which makes it a bit challenging to pack; you get a bit more power and a much larger zoom head range, which means you can do interesting things like spotlight effects with the head set at 200mm (and your lens presumably much wider). Allows you to control the beam pattern (not that it seems to make a lot of difference) and communicates color temperature to the camera via the hotshoe pins. Also uses some sort of optical filter to recognize what color gel or accessory you have clipped over the head to alter output accordingly.

Nikon SC31-IR** (May 2012) – Most of you probably have never heard of this little gadget, let alone seen one; it’s a little IR-only transmission panel that mounts on the hotshoe and flips down in front of the built-in flash to prevent seeing the built-in flash in the exposure if you’re using CLS commander mode. A very specific tool, but for people like me who use the built-in for exactly that, it’s a godsend and beats having to put your hand in front of the flash all the time.

Sandisk Extreme Pro SDHC UHS** (May 2012) – Fast and reliable, I use these in all of my SD-based cameras except the M9; this card is on the watchlist and is apparently ‘too fast’ for the camera.

Sandisk Extreme Pro CF UDMA** (May 2012) – I use these in my D700.

Sanyo Eneloop AA** (May 2012) – The best rechargeable batteries ever; has the best of both worlds of lithium and NiMH – it’s rechargeable, can support high discharge rates, but at the same time doesn’t self-discharge and has no memory effect. Perfect for flashguns, especially if you don’t use them that often. I’ll get around 700-800 shots on an SB900 per fully charged set of four.

Transcend Class 10 SDHC** (May 2012) – Currently using this in my M9-P, to avoid card corruption issues – it seems that the fast Sandisk cards still aren’t fully reliable.

Wacom Intuos 4 M** (May 2012) – Upgraded to this in early 2010; I was seduced by the OLED shortcut display and the promise of more sensitivity levels. The former has turned out to be pretty useless because of muscle memory, and the latter is true, but it’s more about ease of control than actual additional pressure levels. I feel that the build quality on this version isn’t quite as good as the previous one – the button feel is not as positive, and the actual surface itself is very easily marked by the pen tip. To make things worse, the pen tips seem to wear faster on this surface; I used perhaps two in the four years I had the Intuos 3, but in two years with the 4, I’ve already gone through six. And no, I don’t think I’m doing any more retouching than before – but all the same, the active area of my tablet is mirror-reflective in places. In fact, you can probably figure out the layout of my Photoshop palettes by looking at the tablet surface alone. Still, highly recommended – an invaluable tool for any photographer that has to do serious retouching.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!