bevan_donovan

I agree with Sivrupp in regards the South Island, the natural beauty is truely amazing, and if natural beauty is what you're after then this is the place to go. There are however plenty of things in the North island worth checking out,as the two islands are extremely different .

Starting from the middle of the island and working your way up;

Taupo - Mt Ruapehu and closer to Orakei Korako

Rotorua - I can't remember the name of the Thermal park we visited but we enjoyed it (there are quite a few of them), the Blue Lake (a pleasant place to chill out) and the buried village (NZ's own little Pompei though considerably smaller)as examples, plenty to do here just do your research beforehand.

The Coromandel- here you can cover on your way to Auckland. You couldn't pass through here without visiting hot water beach (dig your own little hot spa by the ocean)and a generally chilled out area. I especially enjoyed the water gardens just out of Coromandel town, quite cool and a great place to rattle off heaps of photos at something a little bit different.

The Waikato - this is mainly farming country which to some people rolls into much of a muchness (depends on your own taste) but its tourism jewel are the Waitomo caves. In comparison to the Jenolan Caves in Australia and the Reed Flute caves in China, Waitomo is way better IMHO and a must see in the North Island. This also can be done on your way up to Auckland.

Auckland - is much more than the Sky Tower and Victoria park market.You can't visit Auckland with checking out the West Coast beaches like Piha, Karekare, Bethalls and Muriwai. These are not crystal blue Mediterranean type beaches, these are powerful, rugged places of power and a different beauty. Want history? then you can't go past Howick historical village, an easy place to rattle off a couple of films. Walk up one of Aucklands' landmark volcanoes in Rangitoto or do a cruise of the Hauraki gulf on a nice day. Again, plenty to do.

From Auckland you can head up North - Base yourself in Paihia. From here you can visit Waitangi (birthplace of New Zealand as a nation) and Russell one day, do a cruise of the Bay of Islands (not on the Fullers boats with about 200 others, book yourself a small boat trip, much more personal and you can go places the Fullers boats can't) the next day and then finish off the following day by going to Cape Reinga which is the very tip of the North Island and traditionally a spiritual place for the Maori.

Take your pick and you if you don't decide to go to the South Island then you'll easily fill in a week in the North Island.

Photographically, it may still be daylight saving (summertime) in March in which case dawn is around the 5am mark and sunset around the 7-8pm mark roughly. Hence the "golden hours" don't really change from other places. I'm not sure what you shoot but if I'm shooting around midday/early afternoon I'll use an 81a filter to take out a bit of the harshness of the light (I shoot slide film) and a polareiser is a must as you'll have plenty of blue skies so long as it's not raining.

I hope that gives you a few ideas, as I said you'll have no problem occupying yourself in the North Island.

Cheers

Bevan

I'll put my 0.02 worth in on this one as I tested both these lenses around 6 or so months ago when I was looking to upgrade from my 70-200f4.

I tested them in my favourite photography store on an EOS 1N using a tripod and FUJI Superia 200 film. I took shots at 70mm, 85, 100, 135 & 200mm at f2.8, 3.2,3.5,f4,5.6 & 8. No it wasn't a test done with 100 or 200% crops but as I still shoot film I feel it is a relevent method for me.

My findings were as follows;

Build - Yes the Canon has a stronger build, but unless you're intending on using the lens as a hammer or a missile you shouldn't have any problems with the Sigma build. It's most definaitely not kit lens build and felt nicer in my hands than the Canon. Unless you're a PJ who really puts your gear through some punishment you'll be fine with either.

Autofocus - Yes the Canon is slightly quicker to focus, but you would never miss out on a shot using the Sigma. Having once owned a 28-70 EX Sigma lens, I actually prefer their autofocus myself as you know it has actually focussed. Occasionally I have to check with the USM of my Canon lenses. Overall you're talking a split second difference between the two.

Optically - Both lenses are outstanding. The only weakness I found with the Sigma was at 200mm where I needed to stop down to f4 to match the Canon. That said, I have read a review somewhere (sorry can't remember where) where the author was of the opinion that you just had to be more precise shooting wide open with the Sigma at 200mm. At every other focal length I found them virtually identical.

After comparing the results, I went back the next week to take some more shots with the Sigma at 200mm . It turned out that the shop had a Canon 70-200 going 2nd hand, just been serviced by Canon, for cheaper than Sigma so I went for the Canon.

My overall conclusion is that yes the Canon is better, but not by much. If you go for the Sigma you will be very happy with it in my opinion.

I hope that helps

Cheers

Bevan

Now you don't mention what sorts of things you generally like to shoot so here's my 5 cents.

Comapring Australia and new Zealand is like comparing England & France i.e they're close but quite different places so I'll leave that one up to you.

If you decide on New Zealand you've got 2 options they way I see it.

1) There's the majesty and beauty of the South Island. As already mentioned they speak for themselves.

2)Hire a car and do the upper North Island.Start in Auckland, there is plenty to see and do there. The rugged West coast beaches, Howick Historical village you'll have no problem occupying yourself there. After a few days you could head down the Coromandel Peninsula for a couple of days, then shoot across to Rotorua,(easy to kill a few days here)and on your way back up to Auckland (to fly home again) stop in the Waikato and visit the Waitomo caves.

And yes the weather can be rather varied around that time of year but the same is true of most places.

Whatever you decide you'll have an awesome trip.

Cheers

Bevan

Just be aware of where you are , and who is around you, don't be silly about things and most times you'll be fine.

While some countries have reputations as havens for thieves common sense goes a long way.

A few months ago I went to a talk given by a well known Travel Photographer who has spent 20 plus years travelling many parts of the world. He thus far has never had anything stolen and openly said he never went to any lenghts to hide his gear. He figured he looked more like a photographer than a tourist.

Cheers

Bevan

Awesome shots Craig, I really enjoyed them.

Shooting in b&e is something that could possibly negate the almost permemant grey skies. I was last there in 2002 and this was something I found a problem (I shoot in colour), b & w didn't occur to me at the time.

Once again awesome work.

Cheers

Bevan

Yes the LP book has been updated to include digital as well.

IMHO it's the best photography guide/help book I've come across.

Cheers

Bevan

Hi Mike

You bought back some great memories. I've been lucky enough to visit China twice, the last time in 2002 for 5 weeks. As you'd know it's such a fantastic place.

I agree with Oilver that you've got a really good eye, especially for a newbie. I wish I'd had such a good eye when I started.

If I could offer a piece of advice, it would be to get yourself a 50mm prime in addition to your current kit. My reasoning for this is that a prime lens with its aperture range can teach you about depth of field and how you can give more impact to some of your shots. The "punch" of a large aperture (small aperture value) can take a sharp but possibly flat shot and really give it life. If I was starting over again, this is how I would start because it took me a while to really learn the art of selecting depth of field. And as you're shooting digital you can practise to your hearts content.

I also look at books (especially ones where the photographic info is given) as I like to know how they've arrived at that composition (from a technical point of view). I'd also reccomend the "Lonely Planet Travel photography" book by Richard L'Anson. I think this is the most down to earth, informative book I've come across. It's in plain language and doesn't leave more questions than it answers like a lot of photography books I've read. It also covers most situations you might come across.

I noticed you often had the same problem I found in China, that of the grey, flat smog skies. The first thing this taught me was to be more aware of the background. Sometimes situations can't be avoided but often they can be and you may just need to frame your shot more tightly (e.g. cut out the sky) or perhaps change your angle of the shot.

For me the biggest thing is not to be afraid to experiment, and make mistakes. It's by mistakes that you learn. Also, take a note of the exposures of your shots (easy with digital). I still do this today as if a shot works I want to know why, and if it doesn't work I like to see if I could have done anything different.

I hope this pointers help you a bit Mike, they're things that have helped me.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers

Bevan

Hi Kirsten

How good you will find this lens depends on your shooting style.

I owned the 75-300 for around 5 years and got to know it pretty well in that time.

Now I like you use my lenses wide open, or very close to it. From 75-200 this lens is a decent performer wide open, in the 200-300 range however it shows its weakness.

Like most consumer zooms it is at its best at f8-11. If you're wanting to shoot action shots, or in average to not so good light then you will probably have problems. If however your shooting style sees you able to shoot regularly at f8-f11 then you'll be fine. You could get around this on occasions by using high ISO films like 400,800 or even 1600 if you had to.

Again depending on what you're shooting, don't be afraid to stop this lens down and use the manual focus focus instead of the autofocus. In my experience this gives you better background blur when using this lens.

I take it you're a relative newbie to photgraphy, (pardon me if I'm wrong) you will be able to get a lot of use out of this lens, like any piece of equipment you just have to find its strengths & weaknesses. Don't be afraid to experiment.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

Bevan

Hope that help

A question for owners of the Sigma 90mm Macro.

How is the autofocus on this?Is it reasoable, atrocious?

My reason for asking is that I find my 50mm too short and may be able to pick one of these up 2nd hand.

There's not a lot of information online about this lens so any opinions on it are welcome.

Regards

Bevan

As someone who has fairly recently bought a Sigma 50mm macro (which is a great lens) I'd go for a 100mm.

The way I use it I'd prefer the longer range.

Cheers

Bevan

For what it's worth, the photographer at my wedding used the 24-85 with a f90x and the results were awesome.

Cheers

Bevan

Hi Neil

Great shots! I especially loved your Thailand shots but they were all great.

You've got a great eye IMHO, you look to bring the everyday to life.

As for suggestions, keep shooting mate.

Cheers

Bevan

I cannot comment on the Tamron as I've never used it, other than to say it seems to have a very good reputation.

I did however use to own the Sigma in question.

IMHO it is a very good (and underated) mid range lens. It is a step down from the 28-70'L' lens (I now own, and love one of these beauties) but if you can't take decent shots with the Sigma then you're doing something wrong.

As I've never printed anything bigger than an 8 x 12 I can't tell you how it goes for a 12x16 or 20x25.

What I can tell you is that it is usable at f2.8, sharp at f3.5 and very sharp at f4. It's not weathersealed like a an 'L' lens but mine survived a few downpours. Also, the bokeh is not as nice as an 'L' but definately satisfactory.

One real weakness is that it had more barrell distortion than I liked, though this was only a problem it shooting tall, architecture shots and it's distortion was way better than the Canon 28-135 IS I replaced the Sigma with.

Additionally, vignetting was not an issue with the Sigma (again a problem with the 28-135).

To summarise my rant, you won't go wrong with the Sigma. Learn its litle idiosyncrasies and you'll take great shots with it.

Cheers

Bevan

I was wrestling with the same decision some months ago.

Basically I decided to go for the Sigma as I had an oppotunity to pick one up 2nd hand at a very good price.

I have also put a few shots through with the Canon on another occasion so can do a very rough comparison.

Basically the autofocus of the Canon is definately faster, my copy of the Sigma seems to hunt quite painfully in lowlight situations. Whether this is an issue for you depends on how you'd use the lens. It's not an issue for me.

The Canon is reported to be good wide open if I remember correctly, my Sigma sometimes suffers a bit of light fall off at f2.8 (seems to be if shooting a darkish subject)but is superb from f4 onwards. As I generally use this lens from f4-5.6 onwards it is also not an issue for me.

You will not go wrong with either lens. IMHO the Canon would double as a better general walkaround lens than the Sigma, but I wouldn't give my Sigma up for anything as it takes great shots, and is a great Macro lens.

Just an additional thought, what subjects are you going to be shooting? If you're going to be shooting smaller things like flowers then a 100/105mm might be more useful. I do sometimes find that going in at 1:1 you're almost touching the subject sometimes.

Hope that helps a bit.

Cheers

Bevan

I don't know exactly where you are in New Zealand at present, but if you're in Auckland check out Auckland Camera centre www.aucklandcamera.com who are in Kingsland, and Progear who are in Parnell.

They are both a bit slow in updating their websites, but their prices do vary from item to item and in some cases (for lenses anyway) their prices can be as good as buying on EBAY or from B&H. For example, Progear are currently selling a new, non IS canon 70-200 for $2136 NZD which with the exchange rate & GST taken into account is about the same as buying from the US. It really does depend on the actual item.You're best going to the actual shops or phoning them up as the prices on the website aren't always the current ones.

As already mentioned, Photo & Video Intl in Christchurch ,www.photo.co.nz,are also cheap by NZ standards, and from memory I think their film prices may be slightly cheaper than the others I've mentioned..

Film is expensive in NZ, check out the websites as these prices vary as well.

Hope that helps,

Cheers

Bevan

Excuse me if this sounds a stupid question but what exactly does the pc link on the 1v allow you to do?

Cheers

Bevan

You've got to be realistic here Kevin.

Compatibility issues aside, there have been pretty major developements in the photography world in the last 10 years. From what I can gather the old 28mm is not one of Sigmas greatest lenses and they have definately come a hell of a long way from their early days. These days Sigma make many quality lenses IMHO.

You'll probably find most(if not all)Sigma lenses of that age cannot be rechipped for digital, Sigma don't attempt to hide this fact.

If I followed your train of thought I'd never touch Canon again because my old Canon 28-80 wore out and became a paper weight.For the record it was replaced by a very good Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX.

My 0.02 worth.

Cheers

Bevan

I traded my 80-200 f2.8 'L' for the 70-200 f4, mainly because of the 1/2 kg difference in weight (my main style is travel photography).

As Much as I really like the f4, which IMHO is as good as its reputation, I miss having the extra stop of the 80-200, much more than I thought I would.

Bottom line, if you need f2.8 then save for the f2.8 is otherwise you'll be very happy with the f4.

Cheers

Bevan

Check out this lens on www.photographtreview

They users who submitted reviews seem pretty happy with it

Hi Poolak

I was last in Egypt in 1997 so am going by (great)memories but here my two cents worth for you.

Firstly I would try and get hold of a lens hood for your 28-105. When it comes to travel my view better to have something like that and maybe not use it, than need it and not have it. Check out www.keh.com, they may have some second hand in stock. In a sunny place like Egypt, flare is a very real and ever present possibility which is what you mainly use a lens hood to try and prevent.

If I were you I would just take it as it comes as to which lens you use. I would imagine the 17-40 coming into its own inside temples and tombs (for the extra wide vista), as well as using the panoramic function on your Eos 55. The 28-105 is a good general use lens, while the 100-300 would allow you some great candid portraits if that's your thing, as well as those shots where you just can't "zoom with your feet". If you have the time at a place don't be afraid to explore a subject using all your lenses, or at the least the 17-40 & 100-300. Egypt has so many photo oppotunities you could easily use all three lenses.

I would also suggest having circular polarisers for all your lenses. Again because Egypt is so sunny, cutting reflections, flare etc are definately issues.

As far as film goes, why not try Fuji Superia 200? I think this is the best amateur film around, and in my opinions renders greens

(and more importantly for Egypt) browns very well. Try it before you go, I think it's a great film. I would also take some fast film (ISO 400, maybe even some 800) for those inside shots as well as the many shaded areas you'll come across.

That's my five cents worth. I hope it's helped, have an awesome trip.

Cheers

Bevan

As already mentioned a lot of people like Fuji Reala ISO 100 for it's saturation. I shoot both slide and colour negative and am a very big fan (and recent convert) to Kodak Supra 200, it has really great colour saturation and no grain whatsoever. The 400 is not bad either but the 200 really is amazing for a print film.

The AGFA pro films are worth checking out also. I can't remember the exact names but they're worth looking into also. AGFA films are very Much underrated IMHO.

If you're after a fast film as well then the Fujipress 800 is the one. It may be an ISO 800 but it is literally grainless which is quite an achivement for such a fast film. Very decent colour saturation too.

If you don't wish to go for a pro film, then IMHO you can't go past Fuji Superia 200 (and 400 for a fast film). The 200 is the best amateur film I've come across, and I've tried many over the years. I hate to sound like a broken record but it has really good colour saturation.

Just my 0.02 worth, hope it helps

cheers

Bevan

I'll disagree with you there Eic on 200 ISO print film.

Basically with the improved technology films like Kodak Supra have IMHO eliminated the need for 100 ISO print film. I've used the very popular Reala and consider Supra much better. It's punchier with the colours and doesn't have any issues with grain. Basically it does everything a vrey good 100 film use to do but is obviously a faster film.

I second Ian's praise of Fujipress 800. It is remarkably grainless for an 800 film and renders good colours.

My 0.02 worth

Cheers

Bevan

IMHO Fuji Superia 200 is the best amateur print film around.

Another option for print film is Kodak Supra 200. It's a pro film so costs a little more but is my favourite print film.

Is Agfa Ultra the pro film? If it's the one I think it is really good also, great colour saturation.

Have you used Velvia before?If not then maybe go for Sensia. I've found that if you're new to it, despite its lovely colour saturation, Velvia can be unforgiving in contrasting situations, particularly a scene with shadows.Great once you're used to it though.

Cheers

Bevan