Another Lens Question/recomendation.!!!!!

[Saber]

Currently I have the EF 28-90mm F/4-5.6 II, EF 90-300mm F/4.5-5.6 I only got the 300d last week.

I took some pics on the weekend and found that either my camera skills need a lot of work or these lens arent' very good.
the image quality I got seemed a little ordinary for what I have read about this camera.

I was thinking of selling at least the 28-90 and replacing it with the 28-105 USM (can't afford L lenses yet). Other then the USM is the quality of the lens any better???????. Or should I consider somthing else. AS you can see I am just looking for a good all rounder.

While the 300 isn't great there is nothing else with that sort of zoom at a good price. OR IS THERE?????

Dare I ask, is there sigma option I should consider.

Thanks guys

[Radtech1]

Take a look at the three post that I made today and then give a good long thought about getting a 28-135 with the image stabilization.

[Saber]

I'll go check them out.

I would love to get the 135mm but it is like nearly 3 times the price

[defordphoto]

Saber: The lenses you speak of above will not offer anything significant in the way of sharpness. Try and shoot at higher aperture to increase sharpness. Learn USM, and levels in Photoshop. Increasign brightness, contrast and whiteness also gives the appearance of greater sharpness. The lower the contrast in your photos, the less perceived sharpness your eyes will see. Post some samples here.

[Saber]

Saber: The lenses you speak of above will not offer anything significant in the way of sharpness.

Are you refering to the lesnes I have or the ones i am wanting to get.

thanks

P.S.

I will try to find some pics.

[Guillermo Freige]

Go for the 28-105 (the good one, f/3.5-4.5 II USM). You will be not dissapointed. Much better optically (less ghosting and purple fringe, and more contrast and sharpness).

[Saber]

Here is are some pics form the weekend. I know they are a little underexposed. But that's a whole nother problem.

The first one is using the 28-90mm lens at 90mm
Focus point was the dog's head. Bad AF BAD!!!!

http://www.puretouch.com.au/pictures/pebbels%20001.jpg

Another example

http://www.puretouch.com.au/pictures/pebbels%20002.jpg

This one is a little better focused. but still not a great image.

http://www.puretouch.com.au/pictures/pebbels%20003.jpg


Is this just me or the lens.

Thanks

[drisley]

I've seen quite a few people here say they are unimpressed with their new 10D, 300D because the images are soft.
Then a few weeks later, they try a different, better quality lens, and they are blown away. The reason was because they were using relatively poor consumer grade lenses.
I'm not that familiar with that lens, but I know there are MUCH better lenses out there.
The Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 is supposed to be AWESOME, and is a consumer grade lens when it comes to price only.
Also, there are many rave reviews for the Canon 28-135 IS lens.

Probably the absolute favourite lens here is the 50mm F1.8 II lens because it's as sharp as L glass, is very fast, and costs under $100US.

Also, remember to add some sort of sharpening to the image in post processing, as DSLR's always leave the images slighty undersharpened (purposely).

I've seen some great pictures from your lens, and other lower priced consumer zooms, but in order to do that you have to increase the f stop number. The pricier lenses let you get sharp pictures at almost all apertures, and like Guillermo said, you get less ghosting, and better contrast.

Check out http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon for a great list of canon lenses, and sample images too.

As far as your under exposure problem goes, that is normal too.
The reason? Well, because your subject is white (and very cute)!
You will see many similar threads here of people with similar problems (including a recent one about underexposed white glider plane pictures).
When your main subject is white, you have to compensate for it.

Sorry for the long reply, but I hope you find some of it useful.
:)

[Saber]

Thanks for your reply.

I will check out the site.

I would agree that these are not the best lenses in the world.
I just would have expected a little bit more out of them.

I can't aford the 28-135mm lens but am eying off the 28-105mm one instead.
I am told that this is pretty good.


Thanks

[slin100]

The first one is using the 28-90mm lens at 90mm
Focus point was the dog's head. Bad AF BAD!!!!

It's a bit hard to judge a downsized image, but the grass around the dog is in focus. The dog appears blurred because the shutter speed was probably too slow.

The Tamron 28-75 XR Di is indeed a well-regarded lens but it's not much cheaper than the 28-135 IS. The 28-105 is a fine choice, too. You should also consider the 24-85. You give up a bit on the telephoto side but you gain precious FOV at the wide end.

[defordphoto]

Saber: The lenses you speak of above will not offer anything significant in the way of sharpness.

Are you refering to the lesnes I have or the ones i am wanting to get.

thanks

P.S.

I will try to find some pics.

Any of them. However, the 28-105 II is not too bad. However, the lenses you have are not horrible either. You need to learn post-processing. Digital SLR's are not point-shoot-print cameras. You need to develop some dry-darkroom skills to get the most out of your camera and its lenses. Even with L-glass you will need to post-process.

[drisley]

I would agree that these are not the best lenses in the world.
I just would have expected a little bit more out of them.


If you have a look at that link, you will see some really nice shots with that lens. It just has to be used "properly".

These two images are stunning(imho), and both are taken with the same lens:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29270345

http://www.pbase.com/image/29219034

[Saber]

WOW

Those shots are stunning.

I assume that the isn't the shot that came straight out of the camera.
There would have been a little post processing done on them.

Or at least I sure hope so because if no then I have sooooooo much to learn about how a DSLR works.

Thanks

[ron chappel]

The second version 28-90 is quite dodgey from all examples i've seen from it! Dark ,low res pics with ok contrast and colour...just like those ones above :x
The first version 28-90 was at least good at the wide end.....

The 90-300 i've had direct experience with (allong with a heap of other models of consumer zooms).I didn't like it much at all :? contrast was strong but everything else quite bad

Honestly you CAN get occasional very good images from those lenses...but damn they make it hard
Bare minimum lenses i'd recommend are:

Ef 50/1.8 awsome lens at a bargain basement price.No zoom though.....
EFs 18-55 allmost crap but it's better than no wide angle at all
EF 28-80 -any models except the latest style (like your type II 28-90)
EF 28-90 1st version .Alot of purple fringing at the long end but ok'ish
EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 now we're talking! a good all round consumer lens
EF 24-85 never used one myself but everyone says it's also a good'ish one
EF 28-135 most digital owners that have this one rave on abit! must be nice :wink:

And for longer lenses-
EF 75-300 (except very first non usm version) Good but by no means great telezoom.Still abit hard to get good pics but nowhere as bad as the 90-300 in my opinion
EF 100-300 very nice,decent telezoom.Good allrounder that just makes it easy to get good pics compared to cheaper ones

All recommendations above can be USM or non USM -it they are the same optically

[drisley]

Sabre, I just wanted to show you that all is not lost.
With only a few minutes in Photoshop, I came up with a pretty decent final picture of that cute dog.
Do you own Photoshop, or something similar?
I can give you some tips if you like. I'm no expert, but I've gained alot of knowledge from others in this forum, and elsewhere on the net.

http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/doggie.jpg

http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/doggie2.jpg

http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/rebel/doggie3.jpg

[ron chappel]

And in case i'm pushing the new lens option-
You will allmost definitely have to manipulate EVERY photo to get the best out of them....
It's not manditory of course,but once you learn how much you can do you won't want to do it any other way

[Olegis]

I second the Tamron 28-75 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=226325#226325) reccomendation - it's very nice lens for the price.

[roanjohn]

Check out drisley's solution. I agree with him totally......Those images are underexposed and just need some USM in photoshop.

Ro1

[quickben]

what about Tamron's 28-300 ?

I like the price, but is it sharper than the EF 75-300 IS ?

Gary.