lenses and photo clarity

[availlant]

A questions for all those out there with multiple lenses and a D10.

I am using a canon 28-105mm EF USM II lens and I find that the images are not looking quite as "sharp" as with my G3. I have played with the custom settings for sharpmess and contrast but I cannot really noitce any improvement. After looking at the test images at DP review, I wonder if it is my lens which is causing the slight" hazyness" in my photos. WOuld switching to L glass improve this?

[Vegas Poboy]

I'm a very strong believer in high quality glass. I've always went to 3rd party lens until I purchased the 10D then shortly afterwards I bought my first L & that was the 17-40mmf/4 and I saw a major difference in my shots, so I put my other lens up for sale except the sigma compact its good for goofing off and purchased the 70-200 f/4L. If you're not sure take the camera to a local shop & try out one of the L lens and see what a difference it makes. Or even look @ lens reviews and see who makes a quality lens that you need. Popular Photography just printed some reviews on zooms (October issue)
The settings in the camera don't do much for me I rather use photoshop to make any adjustments.

[rodbunn]

I bought that lens with my 10D and after a few months I threw it the lens a lake at a wedding I was shooting.....

I would return it if you can. The 10D doesn't work well with anything that isn't "L". I really don't know why it's called an "interexchangable lens DSLR".

Just my opinion.

Rod

[availlant]

Thanks for the info guys.

Rod, I take it from your comments that you had the same problems that I was talking about (fuzzyness at focus). When you bought the "L" lens was this issue resolved?

To Vegas and/or Rod,

Can you suggest a alternate lens? (the 16-36L is out for now....) any thoughts on something more reasonable ($1000 CDN or less?)

Cheers,

[robertwgross]

availlant wrote:
A questions for all those out there with multiple lenses and a D10.
...


D10 is the designation for a Nikon camera. Are you sure that is what you meant here?

---Bob Gross---

[DaveG]

availlant wrote:
A questions for all those out there with multiple lenses and a D10.

I am using a canon 28-105mm EF USM II lens and I find that the images are not looking quite as "sharp" as with my G3. I have played with the custom settings for sharpmess and contrast but I cannot really noitce any improvement. After looking at the test images at DP review, I wonder if it is my lens which is causing the slight" hazyness" in my photos. WOuld switching to L glass improve this?

Put your camera on a tripod and shoot some frames at middle apertures like f8 and f11 and with fairly high shutterspeeds. Now look at the results. If the images are still soft then perhaps it is a bad lens. But I've heard too many stories about "bad lenses" that become good lenses when they are properly stabilized, have enough shutterspeed so that there's no subject movement, and use an aperture that is sharpest the lens offers.

I don't know much about the G3 but I do know that the 105 is effectively a 170 mm lens and that 1/250 of a second should be your minimum (NOT optimum) hand held shutterspeed. If you have been using 1/60 or some such then that's the root of your problem.

[who10]

The 24-85 f3.5-4.5 was my first D60 lens (and for most of a year my only lens). It has similar optical characteristics to your lens. I generally blamed image softness I often experienced on technique problems until I rented a 28-70L2.8 and a 70-200ISL2.8 one long weekend.

Here's a comparison I used in another post.

http://haskellct.com/EE_Galleries/Gallery1/webguests/GaveItUp.jpg

I evenually bought a 24-70L2.8 and a 16-35L2.8 - I have had no lens related softness issues on either the D60 or the 10D I replaced it with.

_____
who10

[availlant]

Sorry Bob I meant 10D of course......

Dave, thanks for the info. Just tried your suggestion by closing the aperture and increasing the shutter speed to 1/250. I still got the "fuzzy effect"

WHO10, your comparison shot with the 24-85f3.5-4.5 is exactly the problem I am having with my lens. While I am sure the peacock was in focus, you can see that there is a slight fuzzyness in the peacock, especially noticable at edges. The picture with the L lens looks superb.

This looks to me like almost like dirty glass or a coating which is not perfectally transparent. Could this be a manufacturing defect or should I have performed some cleaning procedure on this lens (it came straight from the store brand new....)

Hard to understand in any case, I will shell out the $$$ for a L lens if I have to but I would settle right now for something that just did not have the fuzzyness issue. Any suggestions would be appreciated (Tamron etc?)

[Vegas Poboy]

I have not purchased one yet but from all of the info I've read on this forum I would say go after the 28 -135mm IS. I personally use a 28-200 Sigma that I already had for everyday and the lens was great for film but very soft on the 10D. Again I would go to a local camera shop and take a tripod and do a lens test. Once you get home blow them all up to @ least a 8x10 & see what gives you the best results. If cost is a problem Sigma do have some nice lens but again test carefully. I really don't care for my 28-70 f/2.8 its to soft and the reviews are pretty mixed. But it was a great lens on film.

[availlant]

Vegas,

Do you have any ideas why a lens would be "sharp" on a film body but "soft" on the 10D?

Do you think that the mirror has anything to do with this?

When you refer to the 28-135IS are you referring to the "L" lens?

When you are referring to your 28-70 f2.8 are you referring to the "L" version?

Cheers,

[ron chappel]

The 28-135 is is not an L lens.It is only slightly better than your 28-105.
The 28-70 that vegas mentioned is a sigma lens not canon.Some of the sigmas can be very good for much less than the prices of canon's L lenses.

If you do indeed need better lenses i suggest trying some at a shop (take pics with your 28-105 as well to compare)The shop shouldn't mind you clicking off a couple of shots as you'll be spending lots of $ there when you decide which lenses you want!
Do try some better lenses before spending huge $-try to rent some if that's your only option.

Also you need to know which canon lenses are the 'peaches'
All L lenses are great but there are great non L lenses too.
Ones such as 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8 macro,etc etc.
Notice none of these are zooms-if you want great zooms you will have to get canon L's (or the best of sigma perhaps).

[Vegas Poboy]

availlant wrote:
Vegas,

Do you have any ideas why a lens would be "sharp" on a film body but "soft" on the 10D?

Do you think that the mirror has anything to do with this?

When you refer to the 28-135IS are you referring to the "L" lens?

When you are referring to your 28-70 f2.8 are you referring to the "L" version?

Cheers,

Film has a lot more latitude when being process, it can be tweaked a lot of different ways, mainly when I shoot B&W film and process it myself.

Not sure about the mirror I never use the mirror lockup.

The 28-135 is not a L lens but I've read a great deal about on this forum and most states it's a good all around lens.

L lens are only made by Canon the 28-70mm I have is a Sigma, can't afford the Canon now & when I do it will be the 24-70mm f/2.8L

[caldgrp]

Vegas Poboy wrote:
I'm a very strong believer in high quality glass. I've always went to 3rd party lens until I purchased the 10D then shortly afterwards I bought my first L & that was the 17-40mmf/4 and I saw a major difference in my shots, so I put my other lens up for sale except the sigma compact its good for goofing off and purchased the 70-200 f/4L. ... Popular Photography just printed some reviews on zooms (October issue)


The Poplular Photography article you refer to (not published on its web site yet) contradicts your advice for purchasing L quality lenses. The Magazine compared the Canon 80-120mm f4.5-5.6 II AF at $120 to the 70-200mm f/2.8L at $1,130. It concluded that both lenses were equally sharp although the L lens had less linear distortion.

I, too, thought my 17-40 f/4 L produced brilliantly sharp images, but maybe I saw a non-existent additional acuity so as to justify laying out $800

[Webster]

I recently purchased a 17-40mm L lens, and while the right-off-the-camera images seem slightly better than those taken with the 28-135mm IS the difference is not all that great. If Canon had a non-L 17-40 (or anything near this range) I would have purchased that, and been happy. And the 17-40 images still need USM, and they are still blurry when shot with too-low shutter speed, and the areas outside the DOF are still out of focus. I have not yet done a side-by-side comparison of the two lenses, but from what I've seen, two identical pictures, one from each lens, would have to be side by side to notice any difference between them - if then. L glass is, without a doubt, better than non-L glass. But don't expect miracles from it.

If the pictures taken with the 10D look soft, they probably need a bit of unsharp mask. Most point-and-shoot cameras apply too much sharpening as the default. The 10D (and D60) expect you to apply a bit of post-processing, and even the highest sharpness setting results in pictures than can use at least a little more USM.

[availlant]

WEll I just spent my lunch hour at the local photoshop and I tried out all kind of Canon EF lenses:

50 1.8
50 1.4
16-35 2.8L
17-40 2.8L
28-135 3.5

and compared them to my 28-105 3.5

The test conditions were tripod, 1/60sec shutter speed, aperature set to 4.0 for all lenses.

THe subject was (appropriately!) the canon warantee return card from my lens placed two feet away from the front of the lens. ALl the lenses were allowed to focus automatically on the same region with the focus point forced to be the center region.

I could not discern (at full mag on the LCD which for me is a good indicator of the quality) any real difference between any of these lenses.

My conclusion from this experiment is that the "softness" is inherent to the CMOS of the 10D.

In my mind the real question is this: I dont mind performing a bit of post processing to generate what my eye percieves as a sharp image but I am concerned that the 10D is not capturing the clearest focused image possible. I also tried a Nikon D100 while at the shop with a few different lenses as well (forgive me!! ;) ) but it seemed exhibit the same phenomena. Would it be safe to assume that this is one of the few if any limitations of using a digital SLR as opposed to a film SLR?

[Mark Kemp]

We have said it before and we will probably have to say it again.

Pics on all Canon DSLRs are relatively under sharpened in camera (compared to digital compacts etc.)

This is intentional, so that experienced photographers can sharpen the picture themselves using their favourite software. Different photographers like different amounts of sharpening and also change the amount of sharpening based upon the print size.

Its done this way because it is harder to adjust something that is already heavily sharpened in camera.

This why a film camera seems sharper than a digital - nothing to do with the lenses - its the camera and its meant to happen.

Sorry but if your pics are not sharp enough for your taste you need to learn to adjust them on your PC.

[sjprg]

The clue is to process all 10D images. Elements 2 came on the CD with your 10D. Play with it. This is with the "cheap" 75-300 ($160.00).
http://www.pbase.com/image/19299336

This is with the even "cheaper" EF 35-80 ($79.00).
http://www.pbase.com/image/21730671

[availlant]

MArk,

THanks for your comments it seems like this is the way of the Universe for Canon DSLRS. I am still unbelievably happy with my D10 and I will def learn some additional post processing techniques. I have also learned that the only real reason to spend $$$ for lenses is either for IS or a larger aperature.

[Webster]

I have also learned that the only real reason to spend $$$ for lenses is either for IS or a larger aperature.



Right! Unless, of course, you also count distortion, chromatic aberation, bokeh, autofocus speed, environmental sealing, shock resistance and - oh yeah - sharpness. The apparent softness seen with the CMOS sensor is actually low accutance. The lens still has an effect on actual sharpness.

[zebron]

My 2 cents worth:

I have found at least on my Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye that the maximum aperture size is misleading. This lens (at least on my Rebel) cannot take a sharp picture at maximum aperture size. Shooting at an aperture of 4.0 or smaller makes a world of difference, way too much to be a simple depth of field issue.

Z

[ron chappel]

Sorry to say this sjprg,but those pics are obviously cheap lenses-it's easy to tell.
The 75-300 pic is nice but the subject hides the fact that it is very soft..moral of the story-alot of pics will look good with allmost any lens.Fair enough,use 'em if you can.

The 35-80 pic is pure crap plain and simple.It's the same as the 35-80 i had-too much contrast and way too little resolution(and this all shows in tiny 3x5 prints too ) so basically i've found that lens to be absolutally useless.

The ONLY reasonable cheap zoom i've found so far is the 80-200.It is quite sharp but abit too contrasty.Generally it looks way better on the print than the 75-300