Friday, August 26, 2011

WWCTD?

What's with communication these days? 
Used to, people took the time to write letters. They picked out the right stationary, sharpened a few pencils, sat back and thought about what they were going to say, wrote it down carefully, folded it, put it in an envelope, sometimes maybe put a little perfume or underarm sweat on it, licked the flap and then the stamp, walked down to the box and sent it off...then the receive-ee would get it in the mail, excitedly rip it open right there or maybe put it in a pocket and walk around with it all day waiting with anticipation for just the right quiet moment to open and read it. Might read it fast the first time and then once again slowly, taking the time to analyze every word and phrase. Studied the quality of the handwriting, sometimes you could get a sense of the writer's mood from the way the letters were formed. Then put it back in the envelope and save it to read again later. 
Then we had e-mail. 
People wrote and wrote each other. It's easy to type and there's not much prep time involved so anything went. People wrote the first things that came to mind and then whatever they thought of next. Writing became more impersonal, the reader didn't have a physical connection with the writer any more, no pretty paper or a postmarked from home envelope. No perfume or whiffs of grandma's musty old house to smell. Reader and writer connected only by bits of digital data, ones and zeros in endless combinations, decoded by some unfathomable process of computerized wizardry. 
Then email died. Text messaging mugged it an alley, stole what little soul it had and stuck a knife in it. Left it lying in a drab hospital room on life support, to be used only for spam ads for Viagra and porn invites, mindless chain letters and impersonal forwards making outlandish claims and assertions that would cause a National Enquirer editor to turn green with envy, most of which can be proven false with a little effort and Snopes. Text messaging, with it's LOL's and ROTFLMAO's and BTW's and NOYDB's and purposely misspelled words to save time.
But there are some of us who have almost stood up from our soft comfortable office chairs in front of our extra large flat screen monitors and we have said "No more!" We refuse to let the art of the written word die a silent and ignoble death! And while we are generally too lazy to actually write a letter with pen and paper and too cheap to pop for a 50 cent stamp we still have the keyboard! As long as there are people in our address books we will reply to every three word e-mail with long heartfelt dissertations on anything and everything whether we are qualified to speak on the subject or not! We are the self appointed saviors of words, ensuring that humans as a species do not lose the ability to write and read and understand! Join us! Lift up your voice! Write! Don't hide your candle under a bush, let your thoughts and feelings and opinions be heard all across this great land, from the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans white with foam! God bless America!
(There should be some inspirational music playing here but the closest I had was Walk This Way by Aerosmith. Insert your own.)

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Canon EFS IS 55-250 Lens

    

     The economy sucks. The real estate industry, which has provided for my living for the past 15 or so years is pretty much dead and lately I've found myself grubbing for whatever work I can get just to get by. I've also been eating a lot of oatmeal and looking forward to deer season so I can restock the freezer. So what do you do when you're cash strapped but find yourself really needing some new glass with a little reach? Since anything in Canon's L series was a pipe dream, I decided to take a chance on the budget 55-250, and I haven't been disappointed.

     I'd been using the 28-135 lens that came with my Canon 50D but it was becoming increasingly frustrating, being not really wide enough on the wide end and not long enough on the other. It worked fine for portraits and casual people shots, but since I've already got the 18-55 lens, and a 1.8 nifty fifty, and most of my picture taking is landscapes and critters in the woods, something with more reach was necessary.  

     Luckily right at the time I decided to check one out they went on sale. Wandering around the local Wal-Mart one day I noticed the price had dropped from $299 to $199. Unfortunately they had just sold the last one. When I got back to the computer I checked around and found that Target had them in stock for $150. Even better. A couple of days later I was slapping it on the 50D and I headed out to see what it could do.

     The first thing I noticed was that the 55-250 is definitely not made like the proverbial tank. The glass is housed in a plastic shell and it felt a whole lot flimsier than the 28-135. Of course that wasn't a surprise...it is a budget lens. The second thing I noticed was the image stabilization motor makes a little noise when engaged. It's barely audible and nothing to be concerned with, but it was noticeable. On the other hand, the IS works. Frame your shot, half press the shutter, and you can see the screen settle down quickly. I pulled off some acceptably sharp shots at 3 and sometimes 4 stops slower than without it. Nice.



     The longer zoom range came in handy on some bird shots. Sure, the 70-300 would give you a tad more reach but at a slightly higher price. I can live with 250mm for now. I didn't have a problem with flare even though I was shooting without a hood, which Canon rarely feels the need to supply with their lenses, preferring instead to make you buy it separately, apparently so they can charge you an outrageous sum of money for a cheap piece of freaking plastic. I went ahead a bought an aftermarket hood off of Amazon for 6 bucks ($25 for the Canon...geez!), more for protection of the glass than anything. It works just as well.

     Upon getting the RAW files downloaded into DPP (Canon's RAW converter) I immediately noticed how good the colors and contrast looked. In fact, I found myself using a whole lot less across the board adjustment, including sharpness, than I was used to with the 28-135. The difference seemed so noticeable that I pulled up some similar shots taken with the 28-135 and compared them side by side. I was slightly surprised at the difference but figured it might just be a fluke. Over the next couple of months of shooting however, I've become fairly convinced that this particular 55-250 copy is flat out smoking the 28-135. I'm not going to go so far as to say that will be true in every case...I may just have a sub-par 28-135. Based on some reading it seems Canon has had a problem with quality control on the 28-135; some folks love them, others don't. Some who weren't satisfied say that exchanging the lens for a new one fixed the problem, so I may just have a bad copy.



     Ultimately I'm satisfied with the 55-250. It's not great, and I doubt I'd plunk down $300 for one, but if you can find one for $150 I'd recommend it to anybody.