Some Equipment, Devices, and Computer Programs I like, and some I don't!
by Michael Furtman

Lens Reviews

A visitor to my website wrote to ask why I didn't have some information on what glass (lenses) I used and liked. I told him that I didn't have much to say because virtually all of my wildlife images were taken with a single lens -- the Canon 100-400 L series zoom. 

Most of the work I do requires being able to move around. In fact, I love stalking wildlife. I know, I know, most wildlife photographers shoot from the roadside, and use 500mm or longer lenses on tripods. That's fine. I just don't like to do that. And I shoot a lot of birds on the wing. Even with a Wimberley head, nailing birds on the wing from a tripod is damn hard. Hence my preference for a lens I can hand-hold.

Over the years I've either owned, rented, or borrowed other telephoto lenses than the 100-400. Here's my take on all these lenses. Please take what I have to say with a grain of salt, though. If you don't mind using a tripod, or don't carry your equipment very far, some of what I've to say isn't applicable. 

Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 Image Stabilized "L" series lens

This lens has a bad-reputation in some circles, and frankly, I can't understand why. Common complaints are that it is heavy (heavy! compared to what?!!); that the maximum apertures are too slow; that the push-pull design is awkward; and that the lens doesn't produce sharp images.

I guess heaviness is in the hand of the beholder, but at 3.1 pounds, this lens can easily be carried all day long, and is a dream to hand hold. In fact, it might even be steadier if it were a bit heavier! This is my favorite lens for stalking wildlife. In it's collapsed position, it is only a bit over seven inches long (about 10 with the lens hood). 

This is a "push-pull" design, which means that to extend the zoom you lengthen the lens (or shorten it) by sliding the outer barrel over the inner one -- like a slide trombone. The alternative is usually a lens that you twist. Critics of this lens don't like the push-pull design, but believe me, it is much faster than rotating a lens barrel, and I've often tracking incoming birds, shooting and shortening at the same time as they drew nearer. It is an excellent design as far as I'm concerned.

The maximum apertures at focal lengths in this lens are a bit slow, I admit. If I still shot film, I'd really complain, since most of us used to shoot film with only a 100 ISO (200 was considered the max for good results). But with the higher ISO's available on today's digital cameras, an f/5.6 lens isn't much of a problem. To achieve a fast shutter speed, you can compensate by increasing the ISO speed.

I don't know about other camera brands, but Canon's high speed ISO settings just keep getting better and better, and I'm constantly amazed at the saleable photos I get at 800 and 1600 ISO! Here's a link to an image on my site that was taken at 1600 ISO. It is of a mallard drake flying in a snow storm. I managed to eke out 640th of a second shutter speed to stop this duck on the wing in very, very bad light. This photo, by the way, has been sold several times to magazines. 

Finally, some don't consider this lens as one of Canon's sharpest. Well, all I know is that for me, using cameras with a 1.6 crop factor, this lens produces stunning results. Here's a shot of a Great Gray owl about to ruin a mouse's day. Look closely at his talons. This shot was taken at the lens's full 400mm extension (at 800 ISO, by the way, yielding a shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second). If that's not sharp enough for you, then I'm not quite sure what to say. It certainly has been sharp enough for the photo editors who've purchased this image, or for those who've bought prints of it to decorate their homes. And remember, the images you view on my site (or anywhere on the internet for that matter) are reduced in size and quality to speed up download. If they look sharp here, you can believe the originals are stunning.

At about $1500 U.S. dollars, I consider this lens a bargain. And if you've read this far, I guess you already know that I think this is a great lens!

 

Sigma 50-500mm Zoom

Another affordable lens (often available on-line for well under $1000), I owned and loved this lens for quite awhile. The incredible zoom range is very useful, and I found the optics to be very good. Not great, but very good. This is a very nice lens.

I got rid of it, though, for one simple reason: without image stabilization, which I've become addicted to, the use of a tripod (or at the least, a monopod) was necessary at the 400-500mm range, at least in the often lousy light I encounter. 

Weight and size of this lens is about on par with the Canon 100-400 (it is a pound heavier), and I found it to be very well built. In some ways, I regret having sold it as this is a truly useful zoom range, and for those of you considering a good starter wildlife lens, and you don't mind tripods, this might be an excellent lens to acquire. Although some might consider the apertures too slow (f/4-6.3), they are on par with the 100-400 Canon. If Sigma ever combines this lens with its own Optical Stabilization hardware (their version of IS), they'd sell a ton of these.

UPDATE APRIL 2007

I recently acquired this lens again, and after having used it now photographing waterfowl and other birds, have a few additional comments.

Optically, I'd say this lens falls a bit short of the "L" series lenses from Canon, especially at the 500mm end. It does perform better if shot at f/8 or more. I'm undecided at this point whether I'd consider this a suitable lens for professional work. Yes, I've taken saleable photos with it, but the yield of keepers to "soft" images is a bit higher than I'd like. Still, it is a good lens to have in the bag, as it is small, and so gives one the option of a 500mm lens without carrying around something large and heavy. Just make sure that you zoom in to 100% and examine your photos in the field. You may find the images suitable, and you may not. By checking them in the field you have the option of reshooting at a different aperture, which may provide sharper results, or shooting the scene with a different lens.

This lens is built very sturdily. While it still doesn't have image stabilization, I mounted this lens on a BushHawk shoulder mounted camera "gunstock" and have been enjoying how well the combination works. It also works well with a monopod.

The lens still has a couple drawbacks, but they shouldn't dissuade you from purchasing one. First, as mentioned, it could really benefit from image stabilization. When Sigma first developed this lens, they did not have that technology. Now they do, which they introduced a couple years ago on an 80-400mm lens. Perhaps someday we'll see it on the 50-500. It really could also really use a focus limiting feature, as found on most Canon "L" series lenses. Without it, it can easily hunt from front to back before locking on a subject. Don't get me wrong, the autofocus is good -- on par with the Canon 100-400 -- but if you're pre-focused on something near, and try to quickly lock onto something far away, it takes more time to respond than it would with a focus limiting feature. You can work around this by trying to maintain a "pre-focus" area, but that's not always possible, nor do I always remember to do so. That said, this is fast focusing, well built lens, and still a bargain at about $1000 USD.  

While I've read others have had good luck using a 1.4x teleconverter with this lens, I find it to be awfully slow focusing combination. Image quality is OK, but don't plan on shooting fast moving subjects.

Yes, at f/6.3 this is a slow aperture les. But with today's excellent higher ISO settings in digital SLRs, it performs admirably. I tend to shoot this lens at ISO 320 to 600. 

This is a fine lens, suitable for advanced amateurs and even some professional work, and a wonderful lens for those interested in getting started in wildlife photography.

 

Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO (Diffractive Optics) lens

I really, really wanted to like this lens. Really. At 4.3 pounds, and only 9 inches long (without the lens hood), it's f/4 speed makes it possible to use a 1.4x tele-extender and retain quite excellent autofocus speed, yielding a 560mm hand holdable lens!

Canon's Diffractive Optics technology is designed to decrease lens size and weight while supposedly producing results comparable with traditional lens design. Lenses of this design have be received with mixed results.

You will read lots of reviews out there if you are considering this lens, and some will say that the older versions produced soft images, and the new versions don't -- that Canon fixed it. Well, maybe that's so. I've only used one copy of this lens. But it was provided to me for evaluation directly from Canon Professional Services in the last months of 2005, and no matter what I did, I could not get this lens to produce the kind of images I'm used to getting with the lowly 100-400. And that's with and without and extender. In fact, in head to head comparisons I shot with this lens and the 100-400, at the same shutter speeds, aperture, and ISO, the 100-400 gave me images that were much sharper.

However, I did talk to the folks at Canon, and they claim that there is nothing in this lens' manufacture or design that has changed from the very beginning. 

My results were mixed with this lens. It's not that the images were blurry. It's just that they lacked that "wow" factor when examined on the computer. On a really good image, you ought to be able to zoom in nearly to the 100% size and still be pleased with the image sharpness. Images shot with this lens, though, lost their pleasing sharpness at about 50-70%. The number of "keepers" I got -- images I'd feel comfortable sending to the editors I work with -- just wasn't high enough to warrant the price of this lens. 

I'm actually considering obtaining another copy of this lens, and giving it another try. I do know of other photographers who are very pleased with it. I've corresponded online with one gentleman who is very happy with his 400 DO, and his work is truly remarkable. His name is Omar Brännström, a Swedish nature photographer. You can view his work here and see for yourself what kind of results he's been able to obtain using this lens.

If and when I do try this lens again, and if I get better results, I'll certainly post it here. 

 

Canon EF 500 f/4 lens

This is a favorite lens of just about every Canon wildlife shooter I know. It is their work-horse lens, and they love it.

With a reputation as being one of Canon's sharpest lenses, and with excellent autofocus speed, its popularity as a great wildlife lens is well deserve. Since it is an f/4 lens, it also works very well with the Canon 1.4x tele-extender, yielding a 700mm f/5.6 lens, which is still fast enough for bad lighting conditions.

For me, the biggest drawback to this lens is its lack of portability. Even though it has image stabilization, you'd need to be an NFL lineman to hand-hold this lens for very long. This marvelous lens is 15 inches long, and weighs in at 8 pounds. However, on a monopod, this lens does become portable, although most shooters tend to mount it on a tripod, and, if shooting birds, use a Wimberly mount. 

This is a rugged, dependable lens, that produces great images. When shooting from or near a vehicle, this is a great bird and wildlife lens. If you're so inclined to walk a lot, a monopod with some kind of shoulder sling (like a rifle sling) so that you can carry it over your shoulder will help increase this lens' portability!

 

Aftermarket Batteries for Digital Cameras

This is an easy one -- buy them. I have tried several brands of aftermarket camera batteries that are "clones" of the BP-511 (which fits the Canon 20D as well as several other models) and have found them every bit as good as the genuine article. While in most cases, brand name items are superior, this is an exception, especially when you consider that many aftermarket batteries sell for under $15 compared to nearly $60 for the original. Even if they didn't last quite as long, the savings is so substantial, you'd still be money ahead. 

Of late, I've purchased my batteries from SterlingTEK. Their batteries last as long as the original, and have a great warranty. I don't get any kick-back from them. I just think they provide a great product and since folks (myself included) are often a bit worried about ordering from unknown companies, I thought I'd pass along that they've done well by me.

Best Programs (so far) for building contact sheets

One of the common tasks working photographers must perform is the creation of contact sheets for clients. This has become even more important with digital images because no longer can the photo editor hold up a sheet of transparencies to the window to get a feel for your work. If you send just a CD with images, and the editor is computer-phobic (and there are many) they'll never get viewed. A high quality contact sheet is a must in order to get them to give your images an evaluation.

While Photoshop is a marvelous tool, the contact sheet it generates doesn't cut the mustard. The only information you can include on the sheet are the image numbers. Not exactly an impressive product to send an editor. 

I want to produce a contact sheet with not only the image numbers, but with image descriptions, as well as being able to add headers and footers, in which I customize the presentation. For instance, you can and should include the editor and publishing company's name, the subject matter of the submission, and the date. Can't do that in Photoshop. Also, in the footer, I want to be able to put my contact info -- my name, address, phone, email, etc. Again, Photoshop's contact sheet generator won't perform these tasks.

I searched high and low for a better program, or for a Photoshop plug-in. To date, no plug-in exists (if you know of one, please tell me!), but I did stumble across ACD's FotoSlate. This program is designed primarily for printing images -- designing layouts, etc. But it has a very good contact sheet feature that allows you to do everything I outlined above. Many of you are perhaps familiar with ACDSee, the same company's image browser, editor, etc. It too has a contact sheet feature, which also allows about the same level of customization, but is slightly less user-friendly.

In either case, the marvel is that they will import the Photoshop file information you've used to caption images, which is the place most photographers do their captioning. All you need do to import this is, in the appropriate box in either ACD product, select "Import Metadata." From the rather lengthy menu that appears, select "File Properties" first, open the + sign, and then select "Filename." This will add the image name/number beneath the "slide." Then scroll down and select "Image", open it up by clicking on the + sign, and select "Image Description." This correlates to what you've entered in File>File Info>Description in Photoshop. Of course, if you've not entered anything here, no description will appear in either ACD product.

After you've built your contact sheets, you can print them. This is where FotoSlate is a bit easier to use, since you can go directly to File>Print. With ACDSee you must first create the contact sheet, saving it as a JPEG file, then print from there. I find the print quality from FotoSlate to be a bit better. The nice thing about both programs is that you CAN save the contact sheets as JPEGs. It is a necessary step with ACDSee, and an option with FotoSlate. Having your submissions as JPEG files means you can easily call up the contact sheets to see just what you sent to a particular publisher in a very graphical format. The JPEGs take little space on your computer, and you don't need to print them out and fill up filing cabinets. I just create a separate directory on my hard drive labeled "Submissions" with a subdirectory for each client. Windows Explorer can organize the contents of a directory by date, which I find handy, since I can easily see submissions to a particular client in dated order -- which means I can quickly see which images they've had a chance to evaluate, and how long it has been since I submitted them. Slick.

Here's a sample of what a contact sheet looks like done in FotoSlate:

Remember to print these contact sheets at a high quality setting. I don't use the most expensive photo paper, but I don't use junk paper, either. These contact sheets are your "foot in the door" with the photo editor. The images should be clear, sharp, and with good color, and each "thumbnail" should be large enough so that some evaluation can be made. As you can see in the example above, I limit it to six images per page. At this size, the image reveals good detail.

Downloader Pro -- I can't live without it, and neither should you!

You know how it works -- you download your images with their non-descriptive file name, then have to rename them or suffer with the endless parade of nearly identical file names forever. A confusing mess.

Renaming after downloading isn't that big a deal. Photoshop offers an easy way to do it, as do most image editors. But it is yet another step that takes time. What if those files could be renamed for you while downloading? Wouldn't having one less step in your workflow make life easier? Absolutely!

Enter Downloader Pro from Breeze Systems, an absolutely must-have program for any digital photographer. Not only does this little program rename your files per your instructions (the number of ways you can rename your files is nearly endless -- you can rename them by date, by location, by subject, etc.), it will create a directory for them, automatically rotate losslessly any vertical images, append a color space to the image (such as aRGB, if shot in that mode), set the ppi to whatever you wish, and then open, with the click of the "custom" button, whatever browser, photo editing program, or directory you specify. If that weren't enough, the program verifies that the images were indeed downloaded properly, then allows you to delete the images, thus formatting you card for its next use. It can even download to two directories at once, so that you have mirrored folders, each with identical contents in case you're truly paranoid about accidentally deleting an image! And it also supports the use of external hard portable hard drives (such as ImageTank) taken afield on which images are stored.

I've used this program for years now, and have upgraded each time a new version comes out. I can't imagine not having it.

I retained the same image "filing" system I used when I shot slide film. Each topic matter had its own unique prefix so that I could, just by looking at the slide prefix, know whether it was a mountain landscape or a bull moose. For instance, in my parlance, a photo of a mallard duck would be BWDM_1234.jpg. (Birds, Waterfowl, Ducks, Mallards.) Having some way of giving you a clue as to what an image contains simply by looking at the file name is a huge advantage, even for family photos (Xmas2004.jpg is a LOT more helpful than DSCN_4567.jpg!!!).

I recommend this program to everyone. It is inexpensive ($29), works flawlessly, and truly makes digital imaging easier. I wish every computer program out there lived up to its claims as well as Downloader Pro does. You can download a trial version, so you can give it a try, and if you don't like it as much as I do, you're out nothing.

Breeze Systems has other digital imaging products as well, and the user support is excellent. Chris Breeze, the founder and product developer, actually answers emails, and updates and answers questions on the user forum, a breath of fresh air in a day when emails to "support teams" yield only automated responses filled with FAQs that you've already read, and don't solve the problem. I give this Breeze Systems and Downloader Pro a Thumbs Up (I hope Roger Ebert hasn't copyrighted that!).

If You're Looking For a Great (and FREE!) Program to Recover Images from Corrupted Media, Look No Further

It will happen someday. You'll go to download a day's shoot, and the buggers just won't come off the card. Who knows why this happens, but it does. Must be Gremlins.

I found this program after just such an event. It is absolutely free, works extremely well, and also works to recover corrupted images on a hard drive. Download now while you're thinking about it, then just hope you never have to use it. But if you do, it'll be there to save you some frustration and cursing!

The program is called PC Inspector Smart Recovery, and is distributed free by the fine people at Convar, a German company (yes, there is an English version). To download this program, click HERE.