Upgrading the camera bag…

At some point in your progression as a photographer, you realize that new gadgets don’t make you a better photographer. That doesn’t end the gear lust — but it hopefully makes it easier to resist it. If you listen to photographers like David duChemin and Zack Arias, they also emphasize the “learn to use what you have and get the most out of it” concept, and encourage photographers to upgrade slowly and wisely. It’s something I’ve tried to take to heart.

In my case, when I bought my 7d body about two years ago, I made myself sit down and write up exactly why I thought the body would improve my work, and what weaknesses in my current gear it improved. (as it turns out, I would say I hit the justification pretty closely, too). And I told myself that once I got it, I’d stop buying gear until I was convinced I needed an upgrade and could justify it to myself objectively.

But I’ve just committed some serious gear upgrades. Thinking about this goes back to early this year but when I realized that I was likely to be leaving HP and taking with me some significant accrued vacation pay, the idea of investing that lack of vacation on the camera kit became a real option, and I started a serious exploration of what my goals would be and what my possible upgrades were.

I’ve ended up retiring this from my kit:

  • Tamron 28-300 F3.5
  • Canon 100-400 F4.5 IS
  • Canon 30D

I retired the 30d a few months ago; I came to the realization that the difference in quality between the 30D (about four generations old) was so much different than the 7d that I could tell which body I used for a shot just looking at the previews in Lightroom. The 30d was a good body for the time, but it simply didn’t compare to the 7d, and so I tended to carry it but swap lenses to the 7d for most shots. Once I noticed that was what I was doing (it took me a while), I simply stopped carrying it. I prefer a two body kit, but only if I am willing to actually use both bodies.

It’s been my plan to upgrade the wide angle lens for a while. I’ve written about the Tamron before http://www.chuqui.com/2010/01/a-few-thoughts-on-lenses/ and it’s a nice lens for what it is, but I never really got past the “look not love” phase with the lens, and while it’s a step up from a kit lens, it’s — it’s still an inexpensive lens that’s good for some things, but not enough of the things I want it to do.

People who know me probably are suprised that I’ve retiring the 100-400. I originally didn’t plan on it, but as my research evolved, it started to make sense. it’s six years old, and it’s been used a fair amount. It spent a chunk of time with Canon for repair (twice!) after it got dropped in Yosemite this spring, and I know others who’ve had problems with dust in the lens (because of the trombone design), and some general drop in quality over time because of the normal bumps and bruises of being used. And, frankly, it’s a big, heavy beast of a lens.

While the 100-400 was in the shop, I started shooting more with my 300F4+1.4x combo, and really coming to appreciate that as a bird and wildlife setup. It is — frankly — noticably sharper than the 100-400 at 400mm, with faster AF. It is also a big, heavy beast of a lens, but any lens at this length is going to be. But what it convinced me was that my kit of lenses didn’t need to stretch from 20-400; I could go to a 70-200 and still use the 300 to do what I wanted to do. Hopefully lightening the camera bag along the way. Because of this, I decided if the money was there and the right lens was available, I’d upgrade everything.

In trying to decide what to upgrade to, I started out by deciding what my “budget is not an issue” kit would be. I quickly honed in on the following parameters:

  • EF lenses, not EF-S
  • L Glass where it made sense
  • IS where it was available at a rational cost

These are Canon specific, but basically, these mean lenses compatible with full-frame sensor bodies (EF-S work only iwth crop sensors); the L glass is Canon’s pro quality lenses, and the IS is Canon’s vibration reduction system. The L glass not only implies top quality optics and coatings, but weather sealing, and other features seen on “pro” lenses like internal focus.

I also made one other restriction: If the lens rental places weren’t renting it, I decided that was a hint to avoid the lens because that implied that (a) it was too expensive for the quality, (b) it was too fragile, or (c) it just wasn’t that good. By seeing what Borrowlenses.com and lensrentals.com kept in stock (and I found that the mini-reviews you find on lensrental did a good job of saying what the extended reviews found around the net said, but without all of the geeky verbiage!) I got a good first approximation of what good and reliable lenses to choose from.

For my basic “any budget” kit, I quickly settled on three lenses:

  • Canon 16-35F2.8L II
  • Canon 24-70F2.8L
  • Canon 70-200F2.8L IS II

For those keeping score at home, that’s about $4000 in lenses if bought new. In theory, a great combo. In practice, no way I was going to spend that kind of money. So I started exploring options. The first obvious option: buy used. But since one of my goals was reducing the weight of my bag, moving from F2.8L to F4 lenses would shrink their size and weight — and cost — significantly. So would making a decision to go with an EF-S lens for the wide angle.

I seriously considered the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. I seriously considered the Sigma 23-70 F2.8. I seriously considered the Canon 24-105 F4L IS. For the telephoto, I quickly narrowed it down to the Canon 70-200F4 (and to decide on IS depending on budget), although I must admit to be tempted by the 70-300 as well. And to be honest, I kept hearing the 70-200 F2.8′s whispering at me that siren song that said “Arthur Morris keeps saying use me with a 2X teleconverter, and life will be wonderful…”

When I finally got the logistics of the job change settled and I knew I was moving on from HP, I started shopping. Both Lensrentals.com and Borrowlenses.com sell off their gear and lensrental did their winter sale about the time I started shopping, but most of what I was interested in went quickly and before I was ready to buy. I also was watching KEH.com and B&H’s used sales to see where the right lenses were at the right price.

And as it turned out, when I was ready to buy, Borrowlenses had what I wanted. Even better, they’re local, so I could drive over and pick it up (which I did), and I’ve worked with them and have talked to them about rental options in the past, and everyone I’ve talked to about them gives them rave reviews. All of that made for an easy decision I could trust, unlike the risk that sometimes come from sites like eBay.

Originally, I hadn’t planned on buying a second body, but during this time I went shooting with a friend who happened to have the lenses I was considering, because he was ready to upgrade his body and wanted some advice. He got his advice (and new body) and I got some hands on time with some of my lens options, and we all won. He then came back later and said he’d realized he could buy the body using his Amex points, which reminded me I had some Amex points sitting bored and restless as well — and while they didn’t pay for the entire body, they let me buy it as a significant discount (so I did).

In the end, I have picked up a couple of lenses and a new body:

  • Canon 24-105 F4L IS
  • Canon 70-20 F2.8L IS (not the IS II)
  • Canon T3i body

The more I looked around the web at what photographers had in their bags, the more I saw photographers who’s work I liked and respected carrying the 24-105. In the end, it won out over other options, even though it didn’t meet a couple of initial goals: I’ve given up on the widest part of the range (only going to 24mm, not 15mm) and it is not a smaller, lighter lens than the Tamron in any way. In fact, by the time I was done I saved no real weight out of my kit, becaues the 70-200 F2.8 is actually heavier than the 100-400 by a bit, and I also get to carry the 2X teleconverter to pair with it. I’m going ot be curious when I can go head to head between the 70-200+2X combo and the 300+1.4x combo how the sharpness compares. If it’s close, hopefully it’ll mean I can stop carrying the 300mm and maybe sell it to put away towards the 500mm lens fund or something. Too early to tell yet — with the holidays and the new job, shooting time has been basically zero other tahn some really simple test shots to verify everything’s working.

In all honesty, the amount of time I’d be working in the 15-25mm range is pretty small. It doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of cash to extend my kid to that range, not when I can rent a lens when I know I”m going to want it. So while I didn’t meet that original goal, I met my key needs, and I can add a lense to cover that when necessary at a reasonable cost. I definitely could use a 500mm more than I need something like a 10-22.

Total cost? about $2800. If you think back to the “any budget” option, I was looking at about $4000 for lenses, plus another $1500 for a 2nd 7D. By making some informed compromises, I cut that by about half, with little significant loss of functionality — and what I have is a big step up from what I was using before.

I did a little shooting with the 24-105 with the family over the holiday. I hope to go out and put the 70-200 though some serious paces shortly. I’ll talk about both in more detail as I get some images and experience with them, but with limited use, both are impressing the hell out of me.

The reason I ended up getting the T3i is more complicated; every time I go out shooting at a place like Merced or Isenberg for the cranes, I find myself really wanting to experiment with video of the fly-ins and to try shooting some timelapses. I also want to start capturing audio to try to bring the experience to those who can’t get out there. Those are things I couldn’t do with the 30d in any way; and in practice, I am going to want a unit to shoot the video or timelapses AND a unit to shoot regular images while it’s chugging away, so I couldn’t start exploring that without a second body. The T3i seemed a good compromise between not having the capability and not wanting to pay for a 2nd 7d body. Time will tell if I’m right, or if I’m any good at that stuff… But at least now, I have that option.

Well, as soon as I buy a few things, like filters and an intervalometer, and… (it never ends, right? but that’s half the fun).

So now, all I need to do is get out and start shooting again, right?

 

You might also want to read:

  1. How not to be a doofus with a camera The one thing that marred the visit to Merced was that I ran into a couple of doofuses. Here’s a quick guide on how not...
  2. What if Steve Jobs was the CEO of a Camera Company? What if Steve Jobs was the CEO of a Camera Company?: Suppose Apple hadn’t abandoned its digital camera business. What effect would Steve Jobs and...
  3. Upgrading your photography kit part 2 — toys and accessories Every so often, I think it makes sense to evaluate your gear and think about how the pieces are performing and whether you should consider...
  4. Upgrading your photography kit part 1 — bodies and lenses Every so often, I think it makes sense to evaluate your gear and think about how the pieces are performing and whether you should consider...
  5. Upgrading your printer — and do you really need one? The Online Photographer: What a Printer Costs:     Regarding the expense of printers: remember that the cost going in is sometimes not an adequate...

  • Pingback: Merced Birding….. @ Chuqui 3.0

  • Anonymous

    The 24-70 is notorious for softness and lack of durability:
    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

    good thing you chose the 24-105!

  • BWJones

    I absolutely love the 24-105 and think you made the right decision, particularly on the 70-200 IS USM.  With those two lenses you could pretty much travel the world and aside from really long bird shots, should meet 80-90% of one’s work.

    • http://www.chuqui.com chuqui

      Appreciate the note; that’s really how I ended up here. My original idea for the tamron was a one lens “street kit”; in practice, It was good in the 28-150 range, but not so much beyond that (IMHO). This new setup I can do 99% of what I want with two lenses and a 2x tele, plus one body. it’s still not a LIGHT set (the 70-200 lens isn’t tiny — I swear, at some point I”ll buy the 70-200 F4 ALSO, just so I can lighten the kit when it makes sense) but it’s something I can carry. I just gotta figure out what bag(s) I want to do that with. 

      For anything wider tahn about 24mm, I can’t justify buying the lenses; they’re better off rented. For anything beyond 400, they’re out of budget now, but at some point, a 500mm is on the wishlist, definitely. That’s probably the only lens I feel like I HAVE to buy; given how often I’d use it, rental isn’t economic except for the occasional special trip. but it’s not cheap. 

      Any other lenses I get would be “nice to haves”, whether it’s something like a Sigma 10-20, or a fisheye, or a tilt/shift… but I’m probably done buying big pieces of kit for a few years, barring a major surprise…

      • BWJones

        Yeah, I can’t figure out how the 500 would make me money or pay for itself…  Perhaps if I shot sports, but I don’t.  I still want one in a bad way.  The 16-35 I did purchase, and its OK, but it does not spend as much time on the camera as I thought it might.  The 15mm fisheye though… I picked it up for a specific assignment, the C-5 Super Galaxy shoot and found it to be a rather fun lens to shoot with.  Far sharper than the 16-35.

      • http://www.chuqui.com chuqui

        “My lens is bigger” 

        For me, the 500mm is a necessary add on to get into some of the bird work I want to do. The alternative is either hefty cropping or a lot of stealthy field work trying to get closer in (if that’s at all possible). Small subjects that fly away simply limit options here…. 

        The fish-eye seems like a niche/special effect lens, but I’ve seen photographers using it in fascinating ways, for instance, of all things, Jeff Cable using it to shoot hockey ( http://jeffcable.blogspot.com/2010/12/san-jose-sharks-vs-edmonton-oilers-ice.html ); it’s an interesting effect and it opens up ideas for use out in the wild, too. One of my road trips, I’ll rent one and experiment along with my normal shooting. 

      • BWJones

        Oh, I totally agree on the bird photography.  Absolutely and completely.  Lots of bird shots are simply impossible to get as you *can’t* get close enough.  The 500 (or a 600) with an extender is the necessary gear.  In fact, I caught a shot of a bald eagle in one of our public parks the other day and only had the 70-300L with me.  I was desperately wishing I had a bigger lens.

        For me its just a problem of paying for the gear…

      • http://www.chuqui.com chuqui

        the 70-300 was tempting. If my birds were bigger or friendlier, I’d probably have gone with that lens. But 300mm just isn’t long enough. the 200+2x just barely gets you in the game some days… 

        a curious part of me wonders if it makes sense to consider selling the 300 in favor of the 400 F5.6 (which is affordable, at some point), and seeing what I might be able to get away with using a 1.4x on it. Maybe the “tape three pins” hack might be usable here.