Result of EF-S 17-85 with kemko extension tubes

[swapnali]

C & C welcome

with 12mm + 20mm ex tube
http://static.flickr.com/1/128739608_229ce1c120.jpg?v=0

with 12mm ex tube

http://static.flickr.com/56/128739609_79779fe8b9.jpg?v=0

[Mike Bell]

Nice compositions but a bit soft. I have that lens and it is usually pretty sharp but I have never tried my tubes on it. Did you use flash or natural light? What were the settings?

[swapnali]

Thanks Mike.
These are taken in natural light, very cloudy sky.
The softness is may be due to my handholding the lense. I have few more shots which I think may be sharper. I will try to post them tomorrow. I will give the settings too, currently I dont have my harddive connected. I will have to test using a tripod too

[Mick Emmett]

I have that lens also, I've tried it with tubes and found the results to be pretty poor even on a tripod using mirror lockup an I.S. turned off. I think you're paying for the I.S. 'cos I've found the glass that's in the lens to be pretty poor, I think you'll get better results with your L lens set to 100mm.

[dpastern]

Nice compositions, but the images look soft and lack contrast imho.

Dave

[Mike Bell]

I have that lens also, I've tried it with tubes and found the results to be pretty poor even on a tripod using mirror lockup an I.S. turned off. I think you're paying for the I.S. 'cos I've found the glass that's in the lens to be pretty poor, I think you'll get better results with your L lens set to 100mm.

It's not an L but I don't find it poor. Here is a comparison I did recently - two 100% crops from the same scene taken at the same distance and both at 70mm with very similar apertures and shutter speeds. No PP of any kind. The EF-S 17-85 on the left, my 70-200 L on the right. OK the L is better, but not much.

http://static.flickr.com/50/128843682_7d18660761_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/52/128843683_78187a69db_o.jpg

Sorry to hijack the post. :o

[Mick Emmett]

I can't really tell both images are really soft, if I paid all that money for a 70-200 L and it took pictures like that I'd be well disappointed.
What's with the new Avatar Mike? 'bit arty farty init?

[Mike Bell]

I can't really tell both images are really soft, if I paid all that money for a 70-200 L and it took pictures like that I'd be well disappointed.
What's with the new Avatar Mike? 'bit arty farty init?

Cheeky bu**er! :lol: I have had losts of praise for my posted shots with the new L. :p Check my recent posts if you don't believe me - one in Birds and one in Sports.

These two are unprocessed 100% crops taken handheld from 30 yards away. The truth is - they weren't taken to show off anything - it was just a series I took to show the FOV of all the focal lengths I now have (10 - 200). Wish I'd never posted them now! :cry:

As for the new avatar - s'better than a poxy motor bike any day! :p :p :p

Hehe! :lol:

[Mick Emmett]

:D :D :D :D