Gear for Tomorrow's Gig

Gear List:
Canon EOS 5D (main)
Canon EOS 30D (backup)
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF TS-E 24mm f/3.5L Tilt-Shift
Canon Speedlite 430EX
Canon Speedlite 550EX
Canon Speedlite Transmitter ST-E2
Canon RS-80N3 wired shutter release

Not Shown:
Tripod and Bogen Magic Arm
* Strapped outside the bag
Canon RS-80N3 wired shutter release



I have to shoot a golf club /resort for their brochure tomorrow. I tried to fit everything in one bag as I figured I would have to walk around a lot. Last time I had a job like this, I took a camera bag, a lighting bag, and a tripod /light stand bag. It was painful.

This is the first time I'm going to a gig without my favorite lens - the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. It is quite heavy, I replaced it instead with the Canon 24-105mm f/4L. I don't think I'll need the 24-105mm, but just in case I need some semblance of a telephoto lens. I still might leave this lens behind and carry Pocket Wizards instead. I'm not happy with taking the Canon Speedlite ST-E2 Speedlite transmitter, but I can't fit the PWs in my bag without bending the antennas. With the money I'm going to make with this gig, I think I'm going to buy a set of the new Pocket Wizards - that way, I wouldn't have this problem and those would still be compatible with my old PWs.

I've never been to this place but I think I would only be using the 17-40mm mostly. The other lenses I'm taking gives me several options. This way I'll have Tilt-Shift (24mm), Fisheye (15mm), and Low Light (50mm) options. Which is why I'm open to leaving the 24-105mm behind and instead carry PWs.

I'm going to start shooting at around 4 or 5pm. Outdoors, I'll probably just do slightly longer exposures on a tripod. The interior shots, I'll just stick to what I know - two lights on sticks with the Stofen diffusers for the Bare Bulb effect. Except that they won't be on sticks - I'll use my tripod for one and use the Bogen Magic Arm with a Manfrotto Super Clamp for the other.

Well, off I go to charge batteries. I will post photos from this gig in a few days. Until then ...

A Fishy Review - Sigma EX 15mm vs. Canon EF 15mm

In true curber fashion, I found a good deal on a Sigma EX 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens and bought it! I have no intentions of keeping both. Initially, I had intended to keep the Sigma and sell the Canon as it would put more money in my pocket and since this would be a luxury since it is a lens that I rarely have the need for. In fact, after a year of owning the Canon, it only comes out of the bag during drunk moments ... "Lets take fffffffisheye p-p-p-photos!!!" And for that, I wouldn't really need sharpness, high lens IQ, etc.

First impressions ... The Sigma feels bulkier but not as well-built compared to the Canon. The two-part front lens cap of the Sigma might get annoying in the long run and that makes it two pieces that I may eventually lose. Oh, the Sigma rear lens cap ... Sigma lens owners know what I'm talking about. It is the scourge of the earth - frustrating at times, as it only goes in one way - you have to match the dots, unlike the Canon rear lens cap where you slap then twist, done! Moving on, the Sigma EX came with a pretty nice lens case. I can't say that with the Canon. In fact, I can't even say "it came with a case" with regards to the Canon. $650 for a lens, you can't give me a pouch, case, or something? I think this is essential for a novelty type lens considering that its not going to stay on the camera for long periods of time (unless that is your thing, to each his own). So dust accumulation might be a problem in the long run since the lens cap slides on instead of locking on - it may suck up dust while sliding it off or on. The zoom ring of the Sigma EX is also better, focuses faster and quieter. I didn't delve into the efficiency of the autofocus though. One weird thing about the Canon, when autofocusing, the lens barrel does not extend but the front element does! Its trippy to watch that big piece of glass moving forwards and backwards within the built-in lens hood. Another reason for the need of a pouch.

On to images ... I'm not a pixel peeper type of guy. I'm pretty much just into the aesthetic of the image. I don't really care if its sharper around the edges etc. etc. And with review of these lenses, barrel distortion shouldn't be a factor (or is it?). Anyways, on to the images ...

Sigma Shot # 1 (f/8 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


Canon Shot # 1 (f/8 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


Sigma Shot # 2 (f/7.1 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


Canon Shot # 2 (f/7.1 at 30 sec, ISO 100, Tungsten White Balance)


I took about 6 shots using the same process. Shoot with the Sigma, remove and mount Canon, Shoot. Repeat. The results were pretty consistent - not much between them BUT the sticking point is that it seems like the Canon produces brighter photos. By bright, I meant if it was "properly exposed" on the Sigma, it is very slightly overexposed on the Canon. This is illustrated in Shot # 2 above. HamburgCam from Flickr! commented on Canon Shot #2 above that:

Thank you for your comparison photos. From what I can see in the 1280Pixel Resolution samples, the Canon lets more Light in at f/7.1, it seems to be a tiny bit wider on the sides (hairsplitting, I know) but sharpness is difficult to judge from these samples. Especially since the Canon photos are brighter and lost more detail in the well lit areas.

My conclusion? I can't really come up with one because I think the color and sharpness comparisons would not really be the same since the Canon seems let in more light. Based on my Flickr! account - oddly enough, two people commented on the Canon photos, but not on the Sigma photos. Also, the Canon photos have been viewed more than the Sigma photos. Coincidence? Hmmm ... I think I'm keeping the Canon.

UPDATE: I listed the Sigma on eBay earlier ... it sold after an hour!