Thursday March 6, 2008

Photography equipment rental: I stopped by Word Wide Foto this morning to ask about renting my signature lens (which is currently in the shop after suffering a nasty fall). They were out of stock, and I asked the dude if he knew of any other place I might try to rent it from. “No… not right now.” Whatever. The nice folks at Dale have it, let me reserve it over the phone, and are only charging me for one day ($25) for Friday to Monday. Anyone else know of good places to rent photo equipment? I’d like to borrow a 5D (fever’s weapon of choice) sometime to play around with.

Tags: ,

 

comments powered by Disqus
  1. Miguel Marcos    Thu Mar 6, 04:50 PM #  

    How odd. I’m heading to Miami to see my parents and also wanted to rent the Canon 35mm 1.4 for some family portraits with my 400D. I ended up renting from lensrentals.com. The rental price was decent and the shipping is fedex both ways. I’ll be arriving on Sat. I’ll have more to say when I get there and try it.



  2. Christina    Thu Mar 6, 05:06 PM #  

    Carousel Studios. It’s 5 minutes from World Wide. Talk to Gabe.

    3700 NE 1st Court



  3. Jonathan    Thu Mar 6, 07:47 PM #  

    Yeah I second Carousel Studios as well. The staff is also much nicer and not scumbags.



  4. that guy    Thu Mar 6, 10:51 PM #  

    Aperture Professional on the Beach – 18th and West.

    www.aperturepro.com.

    Ask for Sataro or Stephanie. They’ll sort you out. They have Canon bodies from the 40D up to the 1Ds Mark III.

    Lenses galore, too. I rent several times a month from them. My “signature” lens (EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS) is acting up so I’ve been renting the classic 16-35 L. I actually like it better.



  5. that guy    Thu Mar 6, 10:52 PM #  

    Oh and oddly enough, World Wide is just a re-renter for Carousel.



  6. alesh    Thu Mar 6, 11:34 PM #  

    that guy~

    L lenses are the shit. I’d be very interested in hearing more about your impression of the 17-55 and 16-35, especially as it pertains to barrel distortion at the wide end. If the 7D ever appears I’m ordering it instantly, and I’m going to be looking to drop some cash on wide-angle glass. Also considering the 14mm L II and the Sigma 10-20mm (i know it’s shit, but 10 fucking millimeters!). Also, btw, are you the same “that guy” that commented on Franklin’s blog?

    Also: Dude at WordlWide made a phone call when I asked about the 10-22 . . . maybe he was calling Carousel?? (In which case they’d have been no help, obviously, and would explain his weird “not right now” response!) Sounds like Carousel would be cheaper then Aperture, what with not being on South Beach and everything.



  7. fqua    Fri Mar 7, 08:55 AM #  

    splashlight studios on Meridian and 6th



  8. that guy    Fri Mar 7, 12:21 PM #  

    Alesh,

    Aperture has their pricing on the site. It’s about in line with Carousel from my experience. Last time I rented from Carousel was like 4 years ago, but I “moved” to Aperture, due to a friend working there.

    Barrel distortion at the wide end on those lenses. Not really severe as one would think. It’s only ever-so-slightly noticeable if there’s vertical lines near the edges of the frame. Even then, it could just be my paranoia. It’s like, not even there, really. Even on the 16.

    What I love about the 16 is the build quality. I shoot in some pretty crowded places, and I think that’s what made my 17 act up (stabilizer goes nuts at random…) so much…it got bumped quite a bit.

    I’m trying to ditch it “as is”, if you know anyone. It’ll be cheap, but they may have to send it to Canon.



  9. alesh    Sat Mar 8, 09:18 AM #  

    Yeah… Aperture is not fucking around. Their prices are very reasonable, and/but they don’t mess around with anything like the crop-frame 10-22mm — it’s professional gear only.

    I wasn’t being careful — the 17-55 is an EF-S, so of course it’s a completely different thing from the 16-35, which is for full frame. That’d be the one to splurge on to go with the 7D that is sitting somewhere in my future (the body will come first, and I’ll use it with my 28mm f/1.8 for the time being) (also, note to future self: there are two versions of this lens; the one to get has a “II” on it). Or maybe the 14mm…



  10. that guy    Sat Mar 8, 08:05 PM #  

    I have crop body (30D) so the EF-S made sense. However, I do want to step up to the rumoured 7D or 5D MKII (whatever they call it) when it comes out. So I figure I’ll go with the 16 since it’s gotten a proven workout from me, and has held up extremely well under fire. And my god, it’s just so damn sharp.

    The 17-55 was an experiment, willing to chalk it up to a learning experience. Though the stabilizer makes life a bit easier for big crowd shots in dark rooms.



  11. alesh    Sun Mar 9, 09:01 AM #  

    Here we see the 7D predicted at $1,900 — not bad.

    No argument on the usefulness of the IS, except to say that it’s less important for wide-angle. For big crowd shots in dark rooms on FF, I’d want one of these: 24mm f/1.4.



  12. lara    Sun Mar 9, 06:15 PM #  

    i usually rent from carousel studios. if you rent on friday afternoon, you may be able to pay for one day and keep it till monday morning.



  13. Scott    Mon Mar 10, 10:31 AM #  

    I had no idea you could rent lenses!! I swear I love coming to this site.



  14. srcohiba    Mon Mar 10, 12:48 PM #  

    Dale is good and one of the best places to deal with.

    I have the 17-40L which is my main W/A for my 5d.

    on my 40d I stick with the 17-85 IS.

    for straight horizons you are going to get distortion with nearly any canon lens. But otherwise, the 17-40L was my main lens in Arizona and I couldn’t be happier.

    I was going to opt for the 16-35L II, but the weight was a turn off as was the 86mm lens diameter. I don’t really need 2.8 on the superwide since I shoot at f/8-f/22 depending on the scene.

    I wish Canon would make an equivalent of the Nikon 14-24. now that’s a wide angle lens. sweet.



  15. alesh    Mon Mar 10, 02:35 PM #  

    srcohiba~

    Canon makes a 14mm fixed (as I’m sure you know). Although not being able to zoom in to 24 makes it less versatile, it makes up for that with extremely minimal distortion.

    The canon 10-22 on my rebel also has very little distortion, even at the widest. Uncanny, and worth checking out if you’ve never seen it. That lens is the bomb.

    For real freaks, Sigma makes a 10-22 that covers full frame. Crappier quality, but what a FoV!



  16. srcohiba    Mon Mar 10, 03:12 PM #  

    if the 10-22 worked on the mark I or ff cameras I’d have bought it. But now that I think about it, now that I sent in my old 20d for IR conversation, the 10-22 might not be a bad idea as a full time lens on the 20d …. (I typically have the 17-85 or a 500mm on my 40d so one may not be a bad idea esp. if I can find a good used one0.

    the 14mm 2.8L is a great lens but not as sharp as the nikon ultrawide zoom though. for people photography I can see how you want the fast lens. it’s just very expensive when the benefits from it aren’t that much superior to the other wides.

    in fact I have the 24-105L which is great but it pisses me off that it vignettes really bad even at f/16 on my 5d. I have to end up shooting it 28mm.

    lately I’ve been simply setting up the camera in vertical with my l-mount on a balanced pod and simply take pano shots and stitch them.

    that Sigma you mention is good. My friend Mike Jones swears by it for interior shots; it’s simply not that sharp which is what I mainly look for.

    as soon as my 20d comes back from the IR conversion place (lifepixel), I may look at the 10-22 since I will use the IR camera only for landscapes,

    I have a sigma 15-30 full frame. yes you will get barrel distortion at 15mm on a full frame, but it’s a great lens on a 1.6x camera. don’t use it much since it won’t accept filters.

    but I do wish Canon would butch up and make us a great full frame w/a lens. I’m tired of correcting bowed horizons :-O



  17. Carlos Miller    Tue Mar 11, 09:46 AM #  

    Cohiba,

    Has Nikon finally come out with a full-frame camera? If not, then that 14-24 will not be as wide as you think.



  18. alesh    Tue Mar 11, 11:12 AM #  

    Hey Carlos, where have you been? And yes, it really is that wide, and it’s spectacular.



  19. srcohiba    Tue Mar 11, 11:31 AM #  

    Carlos, the Nikon D3 is full frame and so amazing if I wasn’t so deep into Canon, I’d switch.

    In fact for the work you and Alesh do, I’d be shooting Nikon. The images on the D3 at ISO 6400 are as good as ISO 400 on a Canon EOS 1ds Mark II.

    At ISO 13K and higher on the D3, it is still good enough for photo journalism; and if you convert to B&W then it looks like TriX Pan pushed one stop.

    so….the D3 and 14-24 combo does not get any better in my opinion. You can’t use filters on the 14-24 but it is the sharpest superwide out there. sharper than any wide prime including the zeiss.

    check out the lens tests on luminous landscapes.



  20. alesh    Tue Mar 11, 12:56 PM #  

    srcohiba~

    Because it’s completely out of my price range, and weighs almost 3 pounds even before you’ve added a lens. Also, I’ve become enamored with the color rendition of Canon. Something about not having auto-contrast, which I resolve by setting it for low-contrast. Along with the custom-white balance functionality, I get these dreamy semi-surreal colors that I just love. Nikon has nothing equivalent.

    Jump to ff when the 5D replacement comes out, and that’s where I’m staying.

    IMO lenses and ISO performance are not as relevant, because Canon and Nikon will continue to leapfrog each other and bring out interesting stuff. (And note that you can mount Nikon lenses to a Canon!)



  21. srcohiba    Tue Mar 11, 04:06 PM #  

    I’ve read that the canon folks are using the 14-24 on their canon’s and it works great albeit in manual.

    the EOS 1d Mark III and 1ds Mark III have excellent ISO performance but not quite as good as the D3.

    the whole fiasco with the 1d Mark III has me turned off to Canon right now. they dropped the ball on the product and refused to admit the problem. If I buy a $4500 camera, I expect it to work. Hence why I kept the Mark II and opted for big glass (500 4.0L lens). My dear friends Al and Fabiola Forns sold everything and switched to Nikon.

    I take it you shoot jpg? I shoot raw so those functions are not something i look for. I reckoned since you and Fever do all those people shots with existing light that the high ISO capability would be a godsend. yeah it’s pricy though.