March, 2009


23
Mar 09

Sold off my old Sigma 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 tele-lens

Sigh – nostalgia!

Last week I sold my old first-ever tele-lens on Ebay – I just didn’t touch it anymore now that I have the large high-quality and heavy Sigma 100-300 f/4.

Back in the days when I wasn’t sure if I would use a tele zoom at all – can you imagine? – I decided to go cheap before wasting any serious money and after a quick research session decided that I would get a lightweight (and old, and we’re talking probably about the 80s here!) Sigma 70-210 mm f/3.5-4.5.

I got in on Ebay in August 2005 for about 80€, and now sold it off for 45€. Too bad my Photoshop Elements 5.0 won’t allow me to search (like Lightroom would) for how many photos I took with it in those years, but I found 1714 shots made at exactly 210mm focal length: Most of those had been taken by me with this lens, hoping it would be longer :=).

You will not find much information about this lens on the Internet (at least I didn’t), but build quality and performance were fine for me for a start into the longer focal lengths, looking at it today I’d say

  • Incredibly slow autofocus (gear driven, so it won’t focus on D40, D40x, D60)
  • Noisy screwdriver-type AF
  • Clunky manual focus (but that’s the case with most of the consumer lenses)

On the positive side:

  • Light-weight (ah, I said that already)
  • Sturdy built
  • very nice zoom range on a crop camera
  • Nice macro option for getting close at maximum focal length

And don’t get me wrong, the lens was very well suited for my first attempts at photographing flying birds! Here are some images from the zooom-in class “Artists of the Air” I took in January 2007 led by professional photographer Marion Hogl, all with the little Sigma!

[svgallery name="artists-of-the-air"]

Ah, the beginnings… Certainly it was not fault of the lens if these images do not hold up to my standards anymore. Though I must admit I like the swans. Still so much to learn….


1
Mar 09

Card readers – a no-brainer upgrade!

With the upgrade to the D300, I suddenly noticed that the download of the CF cards using my old card reader were, well, painfully slow. Looking at it I realized I had bought the “first best” card reader back in 2004 I had found in a larger department store, and that it was about time to optimize this part of my workflow tool chain… And this time (and probably only this time…) it came much cheaper than I had feared :-)

After a quick Internet research in October 08, I found the fabulous flash memory toolkit software allowing for a quick and easy benchmark of the current situation. So I hooked on my flash card reader, put in the fastest of my cards – a 133x Transcend 4 GByte – and ran the file based benchmark.

Shock.

3.8 MByte/s read speed (25x)? That explained the less than 1 RAW/s feeling, but how could this be? The device – and I remember I had explicitely looked for that – sported a large and friendly “USB 2.0 high-speed-storage” printed on the top. Well, it’s still faster than the 1.5 MBytes/s that USB 1.0 would have allowed, but way below the theoretical 60 MBytes/s USB 2.0 could offer. Note that I did not use an external USB hub, but connected the card reader directly to the computer’s port.

Ok, decision to buy was easy to make at this point, and a more in-depth search of the Internet brought me to the device of choice: A Digisol card reader 47201 I purchased at Amazon.de for – believe it! – 2.89€.

Add 2.90€ for shipping, and I got the cute little white guy for 5.79€. What kind of gear do you get nowadays for this kind of money? Now, of course I was interested if the device would do any better than my old one (or if it could read cards at all), and now look at this:

Problem solved: About 27 MBytes/s for the important “download to computer” category. And man, you can feel the difference ;-)

BTW – anybody understands the speed ratings of the CF cards? AFAIK they are based on CD-ROM drive speed ratings, which traditionally have been specified compared to the speed of a “single speed” music CD. This has been used for data CDs as 150 KBytes/s, although the Music speed really is 44000 Hz with 16 bit times two (stereo) and therefore approx 172 KBytes/s, but who cares. Using the 150 KBytes/s for the Transcend 133x, it should have 19,5 MBytes/s, and not 27 MBytes/s read nor 10 MBytes/s write (and write is more important for the photographer, I’d say). The Transcend website specifies it with 21.5 MBytes/s max!?


Highslide for Wordpress Plugin