In terms of equipment, I mean. Over the years, I have been fortunate enough to be able to use some of the finest camera gear ever available: Leica, Hasselblad, Olympus, Nikon and Canon. I've been spoiled by great ergonomics and incredible glass. These tools helped me do my job as well as I could.

But, at various times in my life, my cameras were not my primary source of income and so during those times, I lowered my investment and, at the same time, lowered my expectations from my "consumer" camera gear: Ricoh, Pentax, Minolta. Good cameras with decent glass which in no way handicapped my creativity but were also never put in situations where they had to make a living for me and my family.

At the end of 2011, we did our typical year-end review of the business and projections for 2012 and based our capital budget for camera gear on what was on tap or under contract for the year. And, based on that, the first quarter was looking a bit slow with volume picking up over the course of the year and a strong 4th Quarter under contract. Just recently, we signed up another big show for the 4th Quarter so those projections have actually gone up. But that slow first Quarter forced us to look at what additional business we could generate and what gear we absolutely needed for that work. My priority was a camera change from the 40Ds and so, in December, I sold the 40Ds and bought a 7D. It's a great camera and I'm delighted I made the decision when I did. I also analyzed what I needed vs. what I wanted in terms of lenses and ended up selling my primes and my 17-55 F2.8 zoom. With more event photography and weddings on the schedule, and less studio portrait work, the primes were a vanity that would not earn their keep in my camera bag. Maybe later. But not now. I needed two good zooms to cover semi-wide to semi-long. Basically, 24mm to 200mm.

January started putting some financial pressure on the household as we discovered that two of our dogs required surgery. We also decided that it was time to send Moxie away to pursue her AKC Championship. These un-planned-for expenses needed to be factored into our business plans and the end result was elimination of our First Quarter Capital funding. So, there went that big white zoom lens I lust after . But with a couple of Herding Trials on the calendar, some candid show requests, a christening and a wedding on the docket, I still needed lenses that would provide the basic coverage range described above. L lenses were out of our current budget range. So, what was a reasonable solution?

I had picked up an EF 28-135 F3.5-5.6IS lens when I got the 7D and it's a lens I've owned before that has decent IQ, very good color and contrast and covers a reasonable range. I'd like something wider but this is a reasonably decent lens. But I needed something longer. I researched all the Canon lenses going back into the 1980s and found that Canon manufactured a 70-210 F4.0 zoom in 1987. It was only manufactured for a few years and it had received some reasonably decent reviews. I looked online and found a sample at KEH that was rated EX+. If you've ever done business with KEH, you understand that EX+ means pristine and so I ordered it with the understanding that if it wasn't good enough, I could return it for my $160. I'm now in the process of testing it and, so far, it's not too bad. Here are a few samples from my first day with it -- cold, drizzly, windy.









These are basically "macro-type" shots and don't necessarily reflect the capabilities of the lens for what I normally shoot but, so far, I'm reasonably happy with it. It's a push/pull type zoom which I'm not overly thrilled with but it works and the lens is in amazing condition. Is it as sharp as that big white zoom I want? No, of course not. But is it sharp enough? That's the key question and I'll have an answer for that over the next few days. What it does do is give me the reach I need and it fits my current budget. By April, I'll be able to upgrade both lenses to the Ls I'll need for the rest of the year so this is just an effort to cover my equipment needs in the short term. If it doesn't work for me, I'll rent the glass I need but this lens costs approximately what I'd pay in rental fees and, when I replace it, I can sell it for what I paid. It makes tremendous rational sense. If it can do the job . And that is why I have to test to make sure this lens is "good enough" to create images that will never get blown up larger than 8X10.

A lot of folks on this forum don't make a living from their photography. For many, "good enough" means being able to create images that meet their creative goals. For me, that is one of my objectives as well but my equipment has to be "good enough" to meet my clients' expectations and the media uses for the images. And my budget. I'll let you know how this works out.

Jim