LATEST ADDITIONS

Like many photographers, when Nikon introduced their 20-35mm f/2.8 lens I just had to have one. Being a commercial photographer, the ability to carry a zoom that would cover this field of view was very handy, especially for assignments that involved shooting in buildings or offices for public relations clients. While the lens was exciting, the best images were captured at around f/5.6 to f/8 when the corners started to match the sharpness of dead center. Following that was the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8, which was more commonly known as the “beast” in photographic circles because it gave us more breathing room at the long end, complete with AF-S focusing. Although it weighed in at two pounds, it was a sharp lens!

If you’ve even visited the Caribbean island of St. Barts, you know that the landing approach to Gustaff III Airport is a bit hairy: Pilots have to negotiate a steep drop after a hilltop, as well as photographers looking for a dramatic shot. 

Sometimes you want to capture expansive vistas without resorting to post-capture tricks like stitching multiple frames together; like on my latest excursion to Antarctica when I wanted a wider perspective than I achieved on an earlier visit with a 24mm lens (which transformed into a 38mm on my crop-body camera). The question I asked myself was ”how wide is “wide enough?”

Many years ago, along with some fellow writers, I visited an Agfa—remember them?—facility in Brussels. During the tour one of the leaders asked, “What do you think of the idea of adding a phone to a digital camera?” We all laughed and thought it was the dumbest idea we’d ever heard. It turned out that he was asking the wrong question; it should have been, “What do you think of adding a camera to a phone?”