Sarah Fox's
Equipment Inventory

CAMERA BODIES

My first digital SLR, a Canon EOS 10D, pictured here, served me very well. I sold it long ago, but I have its picture here because practically every camera of this form factor, including my 5D and 40D, look almost exactly like it. I have since moved up to the Canon EOS 5D full-frame digital SLR (not pictured here), now the heart of my system. Its enormous, full frame, CMOS sensor (the size of a 35mm negative at 24mm x 36mm) collects much more light than the tiny CCD sensors of consumer-grade digital cameras and even 2.6 times larger than the APS-C format of more advanced consumer and prosumer cameras (e.g. the Digital Rebel series, the 50D, 60D, and Nikon's numerous equivalents). Full frame digital cameras are quite expensive, due to production complexities, but they offer numerous advantages to the photographer, including lower noise, higher light sensitivity, higher dynamic range, smoother tone representation, better saturation, better detail, brighter/larger viewfinders, more optimal utilization of the capabilities of wide angle lenses, the capability of shallower depths of field, and the easing of diffraction limits (so that a wider range of apertures may be used without diffraction blur). In some respects (max shooting speed at a given noise level, as well as the depth of field capabilities), having a full frame camera is equivalent to having slightly more than one full stop faster optics throughout one's lens collection. Those interested in Canon's full-blown technical discussion on the issue can find a great Canon "white paper" on the subject on a Nikon digital website here.

The 5D is one of the few cameras to become a classic very early in its production cycle and remaining a staple of professional photographers even after being superceded by a new model (the 5D Mark II). It is particularly loved by wedding photographers and those doing high end candid photography, due to its large format and compact form factor, as well as their relatively quiet shutters. Canon's full frame 1 series digital cameras are impressive machines of their own right and do some things the 5D will not (e.g. provide waterproofing in a heavy rainstorm); however, they are huge, heavy, and noisy. Some photographers like this, but I do not. The 5D has already been superceded in resolution and, in fact, wasn't even the world's highest resolution camera when launched (the title belonging to the 16 MP 1Ds Mark II). However, photographers have found its 12.8 MP resolution an excellent compromise between resolution and sensitivity. Higher resolution would mean smaller pixels (therefore higher image noise and lower sensitivity to light), while yielding no appreciable benefit to image quality. When Nikon launched a number of full frame digital cameras in response to Canon's, this was the resolution of sensor they chose to implement, as well. There now exists a divergence between Nikon and Canon. Canon continues to push the bounds of resolution, while Nikon continues to improve the quality of the pixel. Canon's 5D may well be the last point where Nikon and Canon found common ground in design philosophy, with the 12.8 MP format Nikon now seems to prefer (but see the G11 below).

PROFESSIONAL-GRADE LENS COLLECTION, CANON EF MOUNT

My Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM, in Sigma's professional EX series, is not my very best lens, but it's probably the greatest feat of optical engineering in my entire collection. It has proven itself indespensible for interior architectural photography, getting me into small spaces where no other lens can tread. It is tied with the new APS-C format Sigma 8-16mm (a scale-down 12-24 with essentially the same design?) and the Voigtlander 12mm prime as the widest angle rectilinear lens ever designed. Unlike the Voigtlander, it is designed with a long focal-plane-to-lens clearance that enables its use on an SLR. So advanced was the design that it won Sigma the 2004/2005 EISA lens of the year award. This lens enables me to simultaneously photograph all four walls of a rectangular room, with grazing shots of the nearest two walls. Although there are shorter lenses (e.g. in the 10mm range in both the Canon and Nikon lineup, these lenses are designed for the smaller format of the APS-C sensors and are actually equivalent to 16mm lenses in the full-frame (35mm) format. Shooting with such a wide lens may seem like overkill, but rooms almost never appear as large in a photograph as they seem in person, due to limitations in view angle. This is particularly true for small rooms like bathrooms. I boast that my ultra-wide architectural capabilities are the best in the industry for the following reasons: (1) No other photographer has a wider lens. (2) A good copy of this $1000 lens rivals the optical quality of even Canon's and Nikon's ultrawides, none of which are as wide. And most of all, (3) Very few professionals are able to find the lens I have found. Build quality varies enormously for ultrawide lenses, even amongst the top manufacturers, and Sigma has more than its share of problems in this cutting edge lens, with the finished product rarely living up to specifications. I bought, tested, and returned a number of these lenses before being lucky enough to find the rare one that is "perfect." Very few photographers are this lucky. More information on this wondrous lens can be found here.

It is worth discussing, here, why I use f/4 zoom optics, rather than f/2.8 optics. Many professional photographers prefer the f/2.8 optics for their low-light handling abilities and their ability to deliver a shallower depth of field and therefore create a larger background blur. This decision comes down largely to photographic style. I will sometimes rely on extremely shallow depths of field, and I am equipped with wide-aperture prime lenses for that purpose, but the lion's share of my work is done between f/5.6 and f/11, with the objective of maximizing depth of field, while not sacrificing sharpness due to lens diffraction. Considering my shooting style, f/2.8 optics are unneccessarily expensive, heavy, and conspicuous. Beyond these obvious factors, however, f/4 optics are better optimized for smaller aperture photography and deliver superior results to f/2.8 optics (which are better optimized for wide-open shooting). What do I do when I want to shoot a picture with a very thin depth of field, yielding an extreme background blur? Rather than having fewer lenses that do everything, I've opted to have more numerous lenses that better satisfy the various niches in my photographic requirements. Rather than to have f/2.8 capabilities on my zoom lenses, I prefer to have f/1.8 and f/2.0 capabilities in a couple of prime lenses that deliver superb results at these large apertures. I am not able to dial in these capabilities on the fly, as with the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. However, with a few moments to change my lens, I can get an even better shot with one of my fast primes.

By the way, some people wonder why my zoom ranges overlap as much as they do (e.g. 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200). There are two reasons: First, lenses often have slight deficits at the extremes of their zoom ranges, so overlap ensures these extremes can be avoided. Second, overlapping zoom ranges mean fewer lens changes, meaning less lost shooting time, more efficient work output for the client, and less dust exposure for the digital sensor.

This lens is very similar to Canon's EF 85mm f/1.8, which is probably their most popular portrait lens. I prefer the slightly longer focal length of the 100, but this decision really comes down to shooting style. The bokeh in the 85/1.8 is touted to be quite smooth, similar to the 100/2. It is curious, though, that the 85 has sometimes tested rather poorly in edge sharpness. This is reflected somewhat in Canon's own MTF data, but also in some rather astonishing test data (particularly in the full frame format) from SLRGear. (Perhaps they received a bad copy?) Upon seeing some convincing test images on the web from this lens, I don't know whether these test results are quite fair to the lens. It is possible that field curvature has resulted in these discrepancies, such that the corners of a flat target would be out of focus if the center is in focus.

Also in this family is Canon's exotic 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens -- at over $2000. (Not many people own this lens -- not even the pros-- and I simply couldn't justify this cost for an occasional-use lens.) A much underappreciated lens sometimes used for portraiture is Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro, which delivers superb sharpness from corner to corner. However, the 100/2.0 is faster/larger and delivers almost the same fine-grained sharpness. In the same category as the 100/2.8 macro is Nikon's classic 105mm f/2.5, which many have argued is the best portrait lens ever made by any manufacturer. I own and use this lens (which I've adapted to my Canon EF mount), but frankly I consider the 100/2.0 a better portrait lens, owing to its larger maximum aperture.

CONSUMER-GRADE LENS COLLECTION, CANON EF MOUNT

When a professional photographer has invested thousands of dollars in professional-grade optics, why would she still have any consumer-grade optics? There are at least a couple of good reasons. The first and most obvious is that some accident or malfunction could put one of the pro lenses out of commission, and a backup would be required until the necessary repairs could be completed. Every conscientious pro photographer has backups of all equipment, so as to insure rock-solid, reliable service to the client. I have two digital bodies, two film bodies, two of every focal length of lens, two light meters, a half dozen flash units, multiple flash triggering methods (hardwired, IR, RF, optical), and so forth. If anything fails I'll still be operational, albeit perhaps not with my favorite equipment. Beyond that, there are hazardous situations in which I would not want to risk my very best equipment, for instance while doing wildlife photography from a canoe. Finally, there are some consumer grade lenses that, for one reason or another, perform to professional standards and can be used as such.

My MC Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye lens (not pictured) is a truly unusual find. Were it not for the poor machine tolerances and quality control deficiencies, I'd probably classify it as a professional grade lens because of optical performance alone. I was fortunate to find an optically excellent copy with a couple of manufacturing flaws I was able to fix. I do use it professionally on odd occasions that I need a fisheye geometry, rather than a wide rectilinear geometry. The lens is of Russian manufacture, a hangover from the old Soviet military industrial era. I understand the lens might have been used for missile guidance systems. Although the build of this lens is not really up to Western standards, it nevertheless has the distinction of greatly outperforming some very fine optics from Canon and Nikon of several times the cost! I use this lens rarely -- for ultra-wide shots involving people/faces and other round objects I don't want to distort. (If I were to use the Sigma, which keeps lines and angles intact, round objects in the margins would be stretched into ovals.) I did a writeup on this extroardinarly little lens here.

My EFS 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens is a little $100 wonder. It's not to be confused with the non-IS version, which is optically inferior. Most people would consider this humble little lens a piece of junk, and I suppose it is. The design of the lens is very basic, and the build quality leaves much to be desired (e.g. plastic mount, rotating front element, non-USM focus). However, it's also got a few good things going for it. First of all, it's really quite sharp, and the simple optical design results in very high contrast images. Its only weakness, optically, is that chromatic aberration is not well controlled. There are postprocessing solutions to that problem, and it certainly would not be the first lens with this problem. Nikon enthusiasts like to boast that their junky 18-55 counterpart is the superior lens, but objective tests really show it's a bit of a draw. Canon's junky lens is slightly sharper. Nikon's junky lens has slightly less chromatic aberration. The reason I own and use this lens is that it is tiny and feather-light. I like to carry a camera with me wherever I go, just "in case." My preferred carry-around rig at this time is my 40D with this lens mounted up. When I'm out with more specific photographic objectives, I'll usually carry my 5D with my 24-105 mounted up, but I'll return with a sore neck. I will add that despite its simplified design, the performance of the image stabilization on this lens is nothing short of superb. The only limitation is that the range of correction is perhaps not as great as one might have on other IS lenses. However, it's rock-solid stable.

The first EF lenses I acquired were very well performing consumer grade models, somewhat lacking in build quality, but excellent optically. My 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, now semi-retired, was the first of such acquisitions. Although I don't use this lens much, it does have its uses. I mount it (or my 75-300, below) up to my 40D to take out on the water, whether in our 27'cabin cruiser or even in a canoe. When out on the water with any camera, I seal it inside a snap-lid plastic bucket, which is air-tight and will float in the event of the unthinkable. This upper-middle lens performs well above average for a zoom. Its distortion is very minimal, and its chromatic aberration is quite well controlled, except at extremely wide focal lengths. This has got to be Canon's most under-appreciated lens, as it was produced in such great numbers as a kit lens for the older film bodies and is somewhat bulky for the APS-C digitals. The lens can be found rather cheaply on the used market by the patient Ebayer.

CLASSIC, MANUAL FOCUS LENSES I USE FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS:

My Takumar SMC 55mm f/1.8 lens, which I originally used with my Spotmatic F, was among the best of the optical lineup of Pentax, when the company was in its prime in the 1970's. I couldn't let this wonderful lens gather dust, so I adapted it to my EOS system for use as a portrait length lens with respect to APS-C sensors. Its coatings were unsurpassed in the industry and even still rival the flare suppression of modern day professional lenses. That's not to mention that it's sharp!

The older mirror telephotos might yielder sharper images with less chromatic aberration, but they suffer from a horrible "donut bokeh." It was for this reason that I chose to try out this monster refracting lens. Besides that, these lenses start at f/8 (where the Takumar gets good), and a mirror f/8 is not as good as a refractor f/8, as the focus is much, much fussier, with much thinner depth of field and very objectionable bokeh.

Anyway, my 500/4.5 and 2XTC combo are an experiment in progress as I write. I may later describe my "pentapod" that I made just for stabilizing this awkward rig. If I haven't, feel free to drop me a note to ask about it.

METERS AND LIGHTING EQUIPMENT:

I'm pretty old-fashioned when it comes to calculating exposure. In fact I've adapted much of my technique from Ansel Adams' zone system. Unlike Adams, I work with color photography and digital format, both of which require modification of the traditional zone approach. Some of these modifications are widely discussed on the Internet. One of them is not -- and is a trade secret of mine, at least for now. My meter of choice remains my 1970's vintage Gossen Luna Pro CDS (right), which I have recalibrated to use modern silver-oxide cells. (Click here to find out how.) I find that it is dead-accurate and measures light levels a few stops lower than the lowest sensitivity limits of my 10D and my modern Sekonic meter (left). However, my Sekonic Flash Master L-358 is indispensable for setting up flash lighting and balancing it intelligently with ambient light.

Of course there are other items of equipment in my arsenal that I've not discussed here. My Epson Stylus Pro 4000 professional wide-carriage printer (a brute that literally weighs almost as much as I do) certainly deserves mention, as do my high-powered computer and my Minolta Dimage film scanner. And of course I have countless other cameras in my antique camera collection, which are a small, but essential aspect underlying the good karma that make me a good photographer. However, the items I've discussed on this page are the ones I might bring with me when I show up for a photo shoot.

I would of course be happy to answer any questions about my photographic equipment. Just ask.