Home > Other stuff > My camera equipment
Years Make and model Type Description
2009 - Tamron SP 28-75 mm F 2.8 Lens I bought this lens second-hand at a reasonable price. So far I have had good experiences. Many reviews find autofocus slow, but I find autofocus to be quite fast and in real world fast enough. This lens comes with a hood as standard - the way it should be (Canon however charges a lot of money for this little piece of plastic...). And Tamrons hood is much easier to mount than the Canon hood - I always have trouble mounting the Canon hood, especially on the 17-85. Another nice feature on the Tamron is that the lens cap can be easily removed with the hood on. Canon could learn a lot from Tamron. The Tamron lens is fast, F 2.8, this is better than many (most) other in this range. This means that you can use a faster shutterspeed and also have a very small depth of field, useful for portraits. Last the most important thing, this lens gives sharp, detailed pictures with good colors, so it is a good companion to my Canon 70-200 4.0 L.


2008 - Canon EOS 20D Digital SLR I have bought a second 20D camera so I now have 2 20D bodies. This means I can avoid to change lenses. One body normally has the Canon 70-200 mm attached, the second has a "normal"-zoom attached. For my comments on the 20D, look further down on this side.


2009 - Canon 28-105 3.5 - 4.5 USM II Lens Even though I may be - at least partly - changing system from Canon to Nikon, I have also considered sticking to Canon and get some better lenses than the 17-85, that doesn't impress me. I have read numerous reviews and a couple of older Canon lens generally get god reviews. Among these are the 24-85 and 28-105 (the 3.5 - 4.5 version, NOT the 4.0 version). In january 2009 i bought a second-hand 28-105. The 28-105 doesn't have much wide-angle on a DSLR with a 1.6 cropfactor, I knew that before I bought it. I have used this lens in situations where I don't need real wideangle, primarily for train pictures.

This lens isn't as sharp, as I had hoped - I have made comparisons with my 70-200 L - I know this is more expensive and belongs to a higher class - but because of the generally god reviews of the 28-105, I thought it would be close to L-quality. But sharpness and richness of details is visibly better on the 70-200 L. However, the 28-105 is much better than the 17-85 IS. I haven't missed the lack of wide angle "below" 28 mm. Perhaps Tamrons 28-75 mm 2.8 could be a future lens?


2008 - Nikon 40D + 18-55 mm DSLR + lens I haven't been satisfied with my Canon 17-85 IS and the cash back took much longer than promised by Canon. So I have been thinking about switching to another brand than Canon. Sony's A200 have been considered, to me it seems like a very capable camera with 10 megapixel, dust protection and anti-shake at a very reasonable price. But I was worried that the quality of the kit-lens wouldn't satisfy me. I have also considered Nikon, and when I came across a second-hand Nikon D40 with the kit lens at a very reasonable price, I bought it.

Update January 2009: Nikon D40 and the kit lens delivers very sharp and bright pictures, I'm quite amazed by the sharpness from the kit lens. The colors are also "vivid", actually a bit to much for me, but this can be adjusted, so it's not a problem. Also the big screen on the camera is a pleasure, and overall the camera is very easy to use - I often find that my Canon cameras needs exposure adjustment (+/- EV) - the Nikon seems better to find the correct exposure - but in certain conditions the Nikon also needs manual adjustment.

Before getting the Nikon I was a little worried that it would be a problem for me to use to different camera brands - the menus, the buttons etc is different. But this hasn't been a problem, in real life the differences are easy to live with.


2008 - Canon 70-200 mm 4.0 L Lens I bought this lens secondhand and decided on this lens after having read a lot of reviews. The IS model is too expensive for me, and the 2.8-models are too heavy and too expensive, so the 4.0 L (non-IS) was the right choice. The first test was a trip to USA in spring 2008. After a few unsharp pictures, basically caused by wrong focuspoint on my Canon 20D, I managed to get VERY sharp pictures. Compared to other, less expensive tele lenses, the Canon 70-200 is big, and it can be a bit unhandy - I haven't been able to find a suitable camerabag where my 20D can fit with the 70-200 mounted. But for me, the sharpness this lens delivers is more important than size and weight, so I normally use it on my travel, more or less only for train pictures.

As I mainly use this lins for taking pictures of trains and have found a problem with flares, because the very bright headlights on (american) locomotives gives a reflektion between the lens and the camera. However, this is also a problem with other lenses.

Update september 2008: I have now used this lens for about year and I'm very satisfied with it. On a trip through Europe I have taken VERY sharp pictures with this lens on my Canon EOS 20D.


2008 - Canon EOS 20D DSLR This is an upgrade from my EOS 10D. The reason for my upgrade was basicly: higher resolution (8 MP versus 6 MP), faster startup and the option to shoot RAW and jpg together (the 10D does this as well, but the jpg is not saved in a separate file.

The Canon 20D is a nice DSLR. The fast startup is a real advantage, especially fotographing trains where timing can be essential.


Updated January 30, 2010 / copyright Finn Møller
This page is HTML 4.0 Transitional