Follow
on TwitterJust published in DAP are distortion and vignetting comparisons at 16mm, 17mm, 21m, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm for five Nikon zooms and the Nikon 20/3.5, 24/2, 28/2, 35/1.4. Also published is material on my own take on the various lenses. All comparisons made on the 24 megapixel Nikon D3x.
Extensive comparison crops at those focal lengths are in progress and will be published soon, so as to show the optical performance of these zooms and primes.
It’s only 10am, but Photoshop CS4 has already crashed on me four times. I estimate I’ll see 20-30 crashes by the end of the day. This is delaying my progress a bit, but by saving and restarting CS4 every 5 minutes, I can make progress. I expect a lot more from a $600 software program. Well, I expect a lot more from a $50 program. It’s ridiculous.
CS4/Mac rarely crashes with ordinary stuff (I can run for hours without an incident), but when I work with a lot of larger layers, it crashes very frequently (24GB memory, 500MB/sec scratch).
The thing is, some people might do stuff where it behaves well for hours or days, but when you hit the right scenarios, it’s about as unreliable a software program in such scenarios as I’ve ever come across.
I hope Adobe gets their act together with CS5. Funny thing is, I recently talked to an expert on digital workflow who expressed profound surprise when I told him that Photoshop crashes on me frequently, with his first reaction wanting to blame me. Sorry, I’ve been a software developer for 25 years, and I know how sausage is made. If I can’t make this shit work, who can? (That’s not self-indulgent self praise, I’m just sayin’ that I’m a lot more technically knowledgeable than the average user). The program should not crash like this— that’s a bug, not an “anomaly”.
It’s also effectively impossible to work in 16-bits with this many layers (D3x files at 120MB each), since TIF is limited to 4GB, and PSB large file format takes ~10 minutes to save or open these files, due to debilitating Photoshop save efficiency— CS4 is not only all but single-threaded on Save/Open, but simply put: badly coded. It could write the stinkin' bits out to my 500MB/sec volume in under 10 seconds were it done right (note to Adobe: add a “do not compress or screw around” option).
My work-around? Work in 8 bit mode instead of 16-bit mode, which gets me under the 4GB file size limit for uncompressed TIF. See my handy tip for a 7X or so speedup.
Have you signed up for the newsletter? I'll be sending it around the 2nd week of February. View the January newsletter.
There’s a good chance there will be at least one special offer in the next newsletter, not available anywhere else.
I spent 5.5 hours today shooting images, filling up 18GB of card space (I re-shot for better light, so it's probably more like 9GB).
It’s all about a comparison of Nikon wide angles, see previous notes for the idea. Working hard on it now. I’ve even added the Nikon 28-70/2.8 and the Nikon 20/3.5, 24/2, 28/2, 35/1.4 AIS primes for context and alternatives. The value increases with context, which is why I’m going to the trouble, as I want to know for myself— considerations about when shooting a lens: sharpness, size, weight, distortion, focusing, field curvature, bokeh, etc. Comparisons can address some but not all of those. Everything shot on the 24 megapixel Nikon D3x.
Be patient, it's coming, as is the Nikon 200/2 review. But many hours of work lie ahead to present things in a way that offers immediate benefits and long term reference value.
I have no medical training. Your health is your own. Figure things out using your own very capable faculties without jumping on bandwagons, but using observation and positionless thinking. I put ideas here at your disposal to Serve you. To wit, maybe the prevalence of prostate cancer in men is a result of sexual inactivity, nature’s way of eliminating the useless. If that idea bothers you, skip to our regularly scheduled programming here.
I’ve written before on Vitamin D, and how my personal experience suggests substantial benefits, and how recent evidence suggests even anti-cancer possibilities. I don’t get sick much, and I recover quickly, even though my kids bring home a jungle of bugs from the local public schools.
Reader Robert Burkhalter has a passion for avoiding heart disease, having suffered the loss of multiple people close to him. His personal trauma has led him to write up what he feels is a clear path to reducing or eliminating heart disease (he is not an MD). Easy reading, then more in-depth stuff, and then citations I’m not even qualified to read. Far fetched? You can decide for yourself, but here is the link if you’d like to investigate.
My personal view: many common diseases today are pretty straightforward and in many (not all) cases, they are self-inflicted, namely poor diet and lack of exercise leading to a cornucopia of nasty downstream problems. The kind of stuff that no expensive pill will cure. So I’m a natural skeptic of medications to fix many illnesses; it starts with strengthening the body’s own natural defenses. (I’m not arguing against vaccines or antibiotics, etc).
The arrival of the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR precipitates a desire to know which of the following four professional lenses will best master that zoom range:
Or it might just boil down to size and weight for some. Which is why my 14-24 sits in the drawer most of the time, and the stunning Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon or 25/2.8 or 28/2 or 35/2 Distagons go onto the camera. Price is no small issue either.
The 16-35 cannot be called a small or even medium lens. It’s big, and I’m firmly persuaded that it’s not a solution for those seeking to avoid the 14-24. Want svelte (relatively speaking)? The the 17-35 is your lens. But it’s not that simple, and I share my thoughts on the 17-35 over five years or so of experience shooting it, in my upcoming review.
I have no immediate plans to test the 18-35mm f/3.5 - 4.5, about $600. I’m not enamored of variable aperture lenses, I like more durable equipment not cheesy build, and 18mm is not 16mm. And f/3.5 - f/4.5 is a real limitation as I like to shoot at dusk a lot. That said, price matters too, but a 4-way comparison is challenge enough.
I have already shot and compared (not published) three of the zooms: the 16-35, 14-24 and 24-70. But now the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF has arrived from both LensRentals.com and B&H Photo (two copies for those worried about build variance).
Although I’ve completed four pages of my review of these zooms (not yet published), I’ve delayed it for a day or two to incorporate the 17-35 into the mix to offer full coverage of these four pro zooms (a lens can't just be inserted later, it has to be shot on the same subject at the same time to make a good comparison in terms of lighting and size matching). So it’s off to re-shoot tomorrow am, assuming the monsoon rains blow away.
I’ve been examining the results from the 3-way comparison I shot two days ago, and I have to say the 16-35mm f/4 VR looks very promising in several ways, but that its performance varies over its range in ways that might really matter to some. I also have to say that Zeiss primes deserve my admiration after fitting them into the comparison— but the 4 zooms are the focus of DAP, those prime lens comparisons will end up in my Guide.
Please be patient as I am working hard to provide comparisons for DAP at 17mm, 24mm, maybe 28mm, 35mm, as well as other material on vignetting and distortion and ergonomics, etc on all four zooms. It’s a big job, and the long-term value I’m aiming for does not lie in making snap judgments or quickie comparisons, but rather coolly analyzing just how these lenses compare.
Primes (single focal length) lenses might also appeal to some, so I’ve listed a few of them below that I feel make The Cut. But of course I favor the Zeiss primes for most of my shooting. And speaking of Zeiss, the gnomes over there are not sitting around getting bored, this year will get "interesting" at predictable times.
| Lens | Pricing | Weight (g) |
Filter size | Repro Ratio |
Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR | about $1260 | 733g | 77mm | 1:4 | Big, but not so big as 14-24 |
| AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF | about $1765 | 784g | 77mm | 1:4.6 | Most compact of the zooms, best ergonomics. A classic with quirks. |
| AF 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ED-IF | about $600 | 367g | 77mm | 1:6.7 | Not reviewed, not likely to be. |
| AF-S 14-24/2.8G ED | about $1800 | 1021g | no filters possible(1) | 1:6.7 | Big with bulbous front end see review |
| AF-S 24-70/2.8G ED | about $1740 | 1028g | 77mm | 1:3.7 | big paparazzi lens see review |
| AF-S 24/1.4G ED | about $2200 | 620g+ (nominal) | 77mm | 1:5.6 | review planned, lens coming soon |
| Nikon PC-E 24mm f/3.5 | about $1990 | 730g+ (nominal) | 77mm | 1:2.7 | see review |
| Nikon 16mm f/2.8 fisheye | about $930 | 286g (nominal) | no filters possible | 1:10 | An updated design would be great, but many people like this compact classic |
(1) Screw-on filters are not possible on the 14-24, but Lee Filters has a solution.
This has nothing to do with photography, except perhaps a blurry photo of a roller coaster.
The leadership at AT&T isn’t content to provide service that drops my calls, or to be happy with overcharging me for stuff I hardly ever use. No, they see fit to send me spam bragging about their improved 3G coverage that doesn’t exist within my entire town! And I have line of sight to their cell tower 1/4 mile away. My iPhone reads “E” every day (edge network meaning old and slow data). Sometimes my phone just doesn’t ring, sometimes voice mail takes 3 hours to show up. Well, if you have AT&T you know the drill (screw?).
Mr Terry Stenzel of AT&T sends me greetings. I spent 10 minutes trying to figure how to send an an email to someone at AT&T, anyone to give them some “feedback” with some choice words. Does this Stenzel jackass actually exist? I wonder if the “more good news” means they’ll be jacking up my rate plan soon. Maybe “good news” is one of those newfangled words like “sacrifice” and “hope” and “change”*.
* People who want sacrifice hope for more than your change.
This blog page was down this morning, my apologies.
The cause was simple: a Mac OS X Finder bug.
On a network volume, the Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.2 Finder deletes a file on the destination volume, then silently fails to copy its replacement, in fact indicating (by sound) successful completion. I almost always double-check, but not last night.
This problem happens sporadically and I do not know the cause. But it has happened perhaps a dozen times in the past 4 months, and I believe that it can happen with a single file or a group of files. That’s all I know at this point.
My advice: when copying files to a file server, do a basic sanity check of verifying folder sizes and/or file counts within a folder. I do plan a "how to" page for Mac Performance Guide on the topic of file copying and verification, but that is not an immediate priority. Users can make use of IntegrityChecker for validating and noting missing files, but it is an command line tool that won’t suit mainstream users.
Roger Cicala of LensRentals.com has just posted a fascinating account of his experience at LensRentals.com with a variety of brands (these guys buy lenses by the dozen). Well worth reading to understand what the odds are for getting a “good sample”.
Maybe Roger’s article should be titled “MTF WTF”? Too good to pass that one up. My idea, not Roger’s in case anyone has sensitive ears.
LensRentals.com gets me lenses for testing when I need them in a hurry, like the 17-35 on its way for testing against the 16-35 (below). Going on a photo safari? Rent the lens for a month. It makes a lot of sense in a variety of ways, nothing like trying before buying either.
With a shipping center near the FedEx and UPS hubs, they can get things out very late, too. That sort of need is infrequent, but when it occurs, they’re a very reliable company to deal with.
LensRentals advertises on this site, so I suppose the paranoid can look elsewhere. But then you’ll miss out on the 5% discount code you’ll find under their ad! That’s for you, it doesn’t accrue to me, so certain parties out there can chill out please, no offense intended. I only recommend companies that I personally like to deal with and have proven themselves trustworthy, and if they support my efforts, that’s a huge win/win/win.
Courtesy of our trusted vendor B&H Photo, today I received a loaner copy of the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR. It’s about $1259, very reasonable as such things go, and pre-ordering is a smart move, as it is likely to be a very popular lens.
The last thing I need in a 16-35mm lens is VR. I'd rather have lower distortion or somethin’. It is what it is.
This lens isn’t small. While it’s f/4, it’s a big honkin’ lens, so it’s got to win me over on optics, and f/4 doesn’t exactly add to its versatility. Then again, its business end is a lot smaller than the 14-24, so pick your phallus, so to speak.
Anyway, the $1800 question is whether the 16-35 is a better lens than the 14-24 zoom, or perhaps the 17-35 or the 24-70. All of which makes limited sense, since only the 16-35 and 17-35 are matched in range, and f/2.8 is hardly f/4. Yet everyone wants to know, and so I’ll be bending my will to that question.
About an hour after UPS showed up with the 16-35, I scedaddled over to my favorite mosaic for comparing lenses, and I shot the Nikon 14-24, 24-70 and a few more lenses for comparison. The Nikon 17-35 is still en-route from LensRentals.com and I expect to throw that into the mix later.
Unfortunately, analysis and writing/presentation take 10X longer than shooting lenses! And with an annoying head cold, I can't stay up past midnight to write it up as is my wont— but soon!
Like the recent Canon ultra wide comparisons in DAP, my primary goal is to show the differences between the zooms. But as time allows, a few prime lenses eg Zeiss get interesting also. Not everything can be done at once, it’s easy to throw up a “few quick shots” but I never do that as I must cross-check and double-check and write things up with care because I know my readers rely on my findings for purchase decisions. A single comparison the better part of a day, not including the shooting.
Courtesy of our trusted vendor B&H Photo, a shiny new loaner Leica 28mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH showed up today, and in my initial shooting I had a strange feeling that darn-it I might have to eventually obtain this lens for my own. But at about $3995 it’s no casual decision, so that might have to wait.
The 28mm focal length is the widest that can be shot using the built-in frame lines of the Leica M9, which to me is a major plus over a hot shot mounted viewfinder, which forces the time-wasting frame/focus/frame ad-nauseum dance.
With the 28mm, you can frame and focus with no viewfinder using the Leica M9’s built-in frame lines. Anything wider and you pay big bucks for the “optional” viewfinder (a bizarre claim), and the hassle along with it. But wider is sometimes needed. I’ll be testing 18mm and 24mm focal lengths, and I’ll have more to say on that.
Sunstars are very attractive with the 28/2 Summicron-M ASPH.
Anyway, I’ll get the Leica 28mm f/2 Summicron-M-ASPH into my User’s Guide and Review of the Leica M9 in DAP sometime soon. Actually, I daresay that one piece is worth the price of DAP all by itself should you have any interest in the Leica M9. And I do have a long term commitment to expanding my coverage of lenses on the Leica M9.
Update: reader feedback on this topic ranges from puzzlement (“How could this be construed as anything other than helpful information?”) to robust support for providing information about rebate, buying info and the like (“I would not have been aware of the Canon rebates had you not brought it to my attention”). I don’t intend to change my approach of Service as to what I think is useful to most of my audience. Thank you to all my readers for feedback of all kinds.
Reader Doug Dolde writes in reference to my blog entry below:
I'm sure you'll tell me to mind my own business, but this crass commercialism is bringing your site down IMHO.
I’m always interested in feedback, all of its a positive thing, it’s all part of the pulse.
I've just been covering the Canon 200mm f/2L IS, and the $500/$1000 rebate seems more than a little relevant to my readers who have written inquiring about it, especially since many of my readers are prone to making buying decisions based on my research. I've also recently covered the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, same idea and it also has a rebate.
I”m not always aware of rebates myself, and I consider it a service to make my readers aware of them, because who wouldn’t want to time a purchase to not be one day late for a hefty rebate?
I’ve written on unrelated topics too, like sardines and Lyme disease. Funny thing is that I often get more encouraging emails on such things than on the photo topics! Life has more than one dimension, so I make some effort to keep things interesting, and I have no plans to stop doing that.
Maybe the issue for Doug is my referral to B&H Photo, a vendor I’ve used with satisfaction for 12 years? You can buy anywhere you like, but I can’t work for free, and when you do buy at B&H, you do help me do what I do at no cost to yourself, thank you. Subscribing is even better.
Doug might have missed the fact that the only reason readers have been treated to free reviews of a dozen or so binoculars is because B&H Photo supplied loaners for review. Ditto for various cameras and lenses I would have had difficulty obtaining or affording in a timely manner. I hope my readers support that kind of everyone-wins contribution from a reliable vendor I’ve used myself for 12 years or so. Appreciation is a High State.
Canon has announced rebates on a variety of lenses and flashes. Some are instant rebates. The camera+lens double rebate does require some paperwork.
The rebates double when purchased with a 5D Mark II body or kit, and there are also rebates for EOS 7D systems.
For example, you can get $500 off the outstanding Canon 200mm f/2L IS, or $1000 off when purchased with the Canon 5D Mark II (see yesterday’s on the Canon 200mm f/2L IS).
Click here to view eligible items at our trusted vendor 
.
All the lenses on the rebate list are excellent choices, even the 16-35 (recently reviewed). My top picks as far as outstanding image quality are the 200mm f/2L IS, the 85mm f/1.2L II, 50/1.2L and (if you can get a good sample), the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. Those are the lenses I’d buy first when looking for the best. I also like the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.
Here for your quick-glance convenience is a handy cheat sheet, shamelessly cropped out of the visually heinous marketing poster:
It’s an odd dichotomy: last year’s leaves and debris with eager bloom well along. Such is winter in the San Francisco Bay Area, California.
The Canon 200mm f/2L IS is one heck of a nice lens in multiple ways — world class — so go get one if it suits your habits and your biceps.
But don’t count on the 5D Mark II to focus it perfectly— close is not good enough for its outstanding sharpness. I’ve had to resort to Live View with the 5D Mark II. Perhaps the camera fine focus adjustment would address that issue, I just don’t know and I probably won’t bother as I suspect that images will really sing on the Canon 1D Mark IV, which is what I’ll be trying with it soon. See my review of the Canon 1D Mark IV in DAP.
See yesterday’s notes on the Canon 200mm f/2L IS.
Just posted is my review of THREE of the Nikon EDG line of binoculars. See my other binocular reviews. B&H Photo provided these binoculars for review, so please consider giving them your business.
You can get almost any brand of binoculars at our trusted vendor B&H Photo .
I’m working on a review of the Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS for DAP, with the 200/2L IS on loan courtesy of our trusted vendor B&H Photo in New York. Give B&H a try, they carry just about everything for photo, video, computers and more.
Initial results look very impressive in terms of sharpness, flare control, bokeh, etc. The original 200mm f/1.8L had a great reputation, but this new 200/2L looks to be outstanding as well, and perhaps even better. Although Canon offers an aging 200mm f/2.8L II design, the 200/2L IS is easily superior.
At 6.1 pounds = 2773g with hood and rear lens cap, it’s no lightweight, but that’s actually relatively light for a 200mm f/2. Add 269g for the E-145B lens cap. Those are “as weighed” weights on a gram-accurate balance. The main downside other than weight and bulk is that it’s impossible to shoot without attracting attention. Men and women seem equally attracted, possibly for different reasons, as I observed this evening while shooting it.
As usual, never allow such a lens to hang off your camera’s lens mount unsupported— support the lens at all times or risk a warped lens mount. The lens is a large lever arm, and no lens mount can support that kind of weight unscathed for long. Always tripod mount it using the lens foot, for which you’ll need a lens plate for your tripod head. Handholding just means supporting the lens with one hand, no problem.
Tonight I shot a series comparing it using the EF 1.4X Extender II to the 300m f/2.8L IS, so I’ll be looking to answer the question of weather the 200/2L IS + 1.4X teleconverter is a versatile substitute for the 300/2.8L IS. I personally find a 200/2 more useful than a 300/2.8, so it’s a question I want answered for my own purposes, but I suspect that anyone considering such lenses will also find that quite interesting.
Get the Canon 200mm f/2L IS at our trusted vendor B&H Photo, about $5300 . The EF 1.4X extender II at about $309 is a no-brainer if you’re getting the 200/2L, since it’s less than 6% of the cost of the lens itself.
Adding it to the 200/2L IS yields a 280mm f/2.8 (nominal).
Just updated is my review of the OWC Mercury Extreme solid state drive (SSD).
I’ve added test results from a reader for Photoshop CS4 32-bit and 64-bit test on Windows Vista 64, a discussion of a sleep issue, discussion of SuperCap and the Sandforce 1200/1500 controllers.
The sleep issue is most important— suggested reading.
Want an unbelievably fast Photoshop machine? Contact me for a consultation.
According to HardMac, the new Mac Pro is due out March 16, and should sport a 3.33GHz hexacore processor. No one but Apple can say whether this rumor is accurate, but it’s consistent with the expected availability of the Intel i7-980X chip.
The Intel i7-980X is clocked at 3.33GHz with turbo boost to 3.6GHz. Apple currently charges a ~$1200 premium for a quad-core 3.33GHz Mac Pro Nehalem (see review), so it remains to be seen how pricing will pan out on the new model. Whether a dual-CPU dodecacore (12-core / 24 virtual core) Mac Pro will also emerge remains to be seen.
It appears that the new model is likely to use existing 1066MHz memory as in the current Mac Pro, a boon for anyone upgrading an existing Mac Pro Nehalem, since the memory can simply be moved into the new machine. That’s my best guess, not a fact. This is a huge savings if you’ve invested in 24GB, 32GB or 64GB of memory.
What new features the new model will have is also unclear. USB 3.0 is possible, but seems iffy at best. More memory slots or drive bays (or fewer) or better SSD support also remains to be seen.
Worth keeping in mind is that even if Apple does announce a new Mac Pro on March 16, availability in the past has been 1-6 weeks after announcement. Custom configurations generally take longer; stock ones take less time.
I plan on thoroughly testing the new Mac Pro as soon as I can obtain one.
February is springtime in northern California.This time of year is so fresh and invigorating: hail and pounding rain today, with skies clearing and a freshness that makes me wish I was 10 years old again (I’d settle for 30). It’s a fantastic time for photography, but I’m usually locked up working for the benefit of the readers of this site! If I had no bills to pay, I’d plunk my butt down in Death Valley for a few weeks and get a nice tan— it’s wonderful right about now.
I had a brief chance to play with the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux-M ASPH at dusk tonight, after the rains had ceased, though the local trickle remained swollen enough to drown in.
Now f/0.95 is good for bragging rights, but it’s only 1.1 stops faster than f/1.4, so don’t rush out to buy a Noctilux 50/0.95 for one stinkin’ stop. All that means is that you can make an out of focus motion-blurred picture at 1/15 second instead of 1/8 second, since it’s darn hard to focus a rangefinder to begin with, let alone focus accurately enough for f/0.95 in the dim late of late dusk. I discuss that issue in detail in my review of the Leica M9 in DAP. There is no depth of field at f/0.95.
Talk about a “personality lens”. I could pick it to shreds on technical grounds at f/0.95, but you know what? I really enjoy the look wide open, which is what photography is about. I have a review of the 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux-M ASPH in DAP, and I might add some more samples, if anyone cares. You can get the Noctilux-M 50/0.95 at B&H Photo, when they show up in stock (rarely). If you do get one there, please use my links from this blog, that’s never happened before! Use this list.
Leica can only hand-craft 12 or so of the Noctilux-M 50/0.95 ASPH a day, and they aren’t made most days. But it’s one of the few good reasons to own the Leica M9: buy a lens that you really like, then get the camera you need for it, and that applies to any lens of any brand. Lenses are a long-term deal, cameras come and go.
While I’m on the topic, the Leica M9 kit that makes sense to me is the Leica 28/2 Summicron-M ASPH, the Zeiss ZM 35/2 Biogon, the Noctilux-M 50/0.95 and the Leica 75/2 APO-Summicron-M. Wider than 28mm is a pain— separate viewfinder required, but the Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 Biogon is approachable on a cost basis. See my handy-dandy wish list. Just tell your kids that community college will have to do.
Today a subscriber emailed me stating “I subscribed to DAP on Monday afternoon and have yet to receive my username and password.”.
I always send login info promptly (unless traveling) and this information had long since been sent to this subscriber.
This subscriber’s email associated with his paypal purchase was invalid. But when I tried to respond to his query, that email also bounced.
I am helpless to respond to inquiries when the email address used is invalid, mailbox is full, zealous mail servers reject outright diglloyd.com, email is marked as spam, no phone number is supplied, etc. This happens more often than I’d like, with hotmail.com the worst culprit in spam-boxing even basic text messages.
Update: email got through today. I'm glad the situation is resolved.
Monday March 1, 2010
Just published is my 9-page writeup on using Apple Time Machine for backup.
Photographers might be keen on reading my discussion of backing up the Adobe Lightroom catalog file with Time Machine.
Time Machine is a great solution that solves multiple problems very conveniently, but it is not a substitute for regular backups, to be stored away from the machine.
I wouldn’t work without Time Machine, it has saved me on numerous occasions, even if it’s something as basic as restoring yesterday’s Mail preferences so that Apple Mail would stop malfunctioning.
Monday March 1, 2010
On Thursday I decided the Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L and EF24mm f/1.4L II would be good lenses to test against the Canon 17-40 and 16-35 zooms.
So naturally I headed for LensRentals.com, reliable and fast!
One day later (Friday), the lenses arrived. I shot them Friday evening for the comparison, worked intensely to publish the results in DAP, and on Monday dropped the lenses off at UPS.
At LensRentals.com, you can rent Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony lenses and cameras and more, all in an easy to use web site with straightforward policies and reliable, fast delivery. The lenses show up with a self-adhesive return label: when done, just seal the box, stick the label on, and drop off at UPS. You can rent for 4 days, a week, 10 days, two weeks, whatever you like.
It doesn’t get any easier than that, and it sure beats buying them, or going without.
Heh heh... here in California it was warm and sunny today while you poor guys out east wondered if the weather was good enuf for a walk in the cold before the sleet hits again.
Flowers are blooming, and the California Buckeyes are leafing out. The birds making song think it’s the cat’s meow.
That’s why California is proposing a new “global warming isn’t free” fee on all sun-warmed butts in California, the “Public Employees and/or Looters According to Perceived Need Act of 2010 ”, so as to feed the yawning sewer known as the budget deficit.
It takes balls to shoot these nuts.
