Musings on...

A blog for me to try my hand at some longer form writing

[musings-on-everything]

The Best Standard Zoom of the Film SLR Era

This is a blog post about the Sigma 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 MACRO and its derivatives. With the advent of autofocus in the late 1980s, Canon's EF mount ushered in a new era of SLR lenses, but it also ushered in new lenses that had to fit a new mount, and were capable of full electronic control from the camera body. This switch (in particular from Canon's FD to EF) meant that photographers had to buy new lenses for this new system. Canon's solution for casual and introductory film photographers was to create a series of increasingly cheap standard zooms to bundle with their introductory cameras. These zooms often had a range of 28-80mm or 35-80mm and were often quite slow, with 3.5-5.6 being the fastest range most of them were capable of. The idea was that these zooms were sufficient to introduce someone to photography, and then they would buy nicer lenses if they became more serious.

These introductory zoom lenses were flawed in a variety of ways, but the Sigma 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 MACRO was an excellent standard zoom. It's image quality is quite good, and it completely surpasses other kit lenses of the era in terms of both maximum magnification and close focus distance. This is important because beginning photographers may not understand what maximum magnification and close focus distance apply to the lenses they use.

The Sigma lens is not without it's flaws, some minor and others debilitating. The front element rotates during use, which is annoying for for those that use polarizers. The lens hood is completely ineffective, as the barrel extends while focusing, but the hood is fixed onto the body of the lens instead of the front of the lens. And lastly, these lenses have significant issues with certain versions of Canon SLRs and DSLRs, the first generation only works on Canon SLRs made before the release of the canon Elan II (1995) due to Canon changing the lens communication protocol which Sigma had reverse engineered, and the Sigma 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 MACRO II on Canon DSLRs, when the protocol was changed once more. These days, this lens is available for $30 in working condition, but it will not work on any Canon DSLR, or directly adapted onto a mirrorless camera. There is a sliver of hope, as the Metabones EF to RF speedbooster allegedly features a protocol converter function, which may allow use of this lens without error on crop sensor mirrorless cameras.

[musings-on-everything]

On Fisheye Lenses

Fisheye lenses have existed for a long time, as one the most unusual lens types, essentially relegated to the "special effect lens" category. These days, there are a wide range of options available for photographers, from cheap manual lenses to autofocus and aperture controlled lenses from the major manufacturers. Dedicated fisheye lenses often have large bulbous front elements that prevent the use of filters. For these fisheyes, provisions are sometimes made for rear gel filters. This is a somewhat useful for photographers, but requires the removal of the lens in order to apply a gel filter, and not all filters come as gels. Instead manufacturers should consider adding in a drop in filter slot to allow photographer to use any filter they desire.

Out of curiosity, as I still use a DSLR, the #1 search results when I search for a fisheye and sort by price are fisheye adapters, which fit on kit lenses (standard zooms), and turn them into a zoom fisheye. I own one of these adapters, and the biggest benefit it allows is that it features a front filter thread, so I can use filters, and have a fisheye. When I looked to find a mirrorless equivalent, I did not find such adapters as easily. It may be that these have been replaced with the small and cheap manual fisheye lenses from china, which is a shame, as the fisheye lens adapter has it's own benefits.

[musings-on-everything]

The Super-Telephoto Paradox

In the past thirty or so years, super-telephoto lenses have gone from an obscure lens category to one of the most produced and purchased lens types, especially sought after by wildlife photographers.

Super-telephoto lenses are widely accepted as lenses with focal lengths longer than 300mm, whether they be prime or zoom lenses. A further qualifier for all telephoto lenses is that they must be physically shorter than their (longest) focal length, thereby excluding long-focus lenses, which will be included in this post.

Every contemporary (read: not cheapo third party brand) super telephoto lens features image stabilization technology, to allow slower shutter speeds while handholding these long, and often "slow" lenses.

These lenses are almost always used for wildlife photography, to capture birds and animals far away, and often while they are moving. Shutter speeds for birds in flight, and moving animals is usually in the range of 1/800-1/2000 seconds to freeze action, where image stabilization (IBIS or IS) is oftentimes ineffective due to the high shutter speed.

And here lies the paradox; why include image stabilization on lenses where it will not or can not be used effectively? It adds weight and complexity to already large and heavy lenses, increasing cost of development and manufacturing.

Furthermore, super-telephoto lenses are large and heavy, and are oftentimes used on tripods, for wildlife, where the shutter speed limitations still apply, or for landscapes, where shutter speed can be lower, but on a tripod, IS would be turned off to prevent image blurring. On the other hand, because these lenses are so large, they often catch the wind, thus suffering from image blur anyways.

My hypothesis for the inclusion on IS on every contemporary super-telephoto lens is that most photographers who purchase the lens will be using it in challenging light conditions, and if they do not get good photos (i.e. blurry due to low shutter speed), than the lens will not be recommended, or gain a bad reputation for image quality.

I think that there is still a space in the current world for super-telephoto lenses without image stabilization to succeed, whether a major manufacturer will ever attempt this again, I highly doubt it, but it is possible.

Now is there a way to escape this paradox? Maybe. Catadioptric lenses are small and compact, especially when compared to their non-mirrored alternatives. However in order to maximize performance out of catadioptric lenses, they do get a bit larger, and heavier, so it is likely not as clear cut as one might think.