Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Apr 2015 (Sunday) 22:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why do I see a huge difference between 2 shots taken with a 135 and 70-200, same settings?

 
itsallart
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,717 posts
Gallery: 914 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10559
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:08 |  #1

Hey guys, I need some input on this subject. I posted 2 shots with identical settings: one taken by a Canon 135mm f2 and another one taken with a 70-200mm f4. Both shots were set at the same focal length, same aperture, ISO and SS, yet the results are really different. One shot has some whites blown out and the quality of the bokeh is not as pleasing as I thought it would be. Why is that? I understand that the optics in both lenses are different, one being a prime lens and the other being a zoom lens, yest the images are more pleasing to the eye, at least in my view from the zoom lens. How come? I don't want a hi-fi scientific explanation because I may not be able to understand that Gibberish but just an honest and simple explanation in layman terms. Thank you :)
I have attache 2 images taken with the above-mentioned lenses, same settings as stated in the exif data.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
500px (external link)
Etsy Store (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,275 posts
Gallery: 1692 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10638
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:13 |  #2

Heya,

I'm guessing a problem with your control.

I'm thinking you were closer with the 70-200, even if you were thinking you had it at 135mm. Or it was really closer to 200mm when you shot it. The settings here are not the difference. Distance to subject, and/or actual focal length here were the difference.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,863 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2514
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:14 |  #3

I'm thinking that you didn't use a tripod. Could the distance to the subject have changed when you changed lenses?


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macroimage
Goldmember
2,169 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2007
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:19 |  #4

Both pictures show 135mm focal length in the EXIF, but either you moved closer with the zoom lens, or at that focus distance, the zoom has a narrower angle of view. That is the main difference between the pictures.


Photo Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itsallart
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,717 posts
Gallery: 914 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10559
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:25 |  #5

MalVeauX wrote in post #17505946 (external link)
Heya,

I'm guessing a problem with your control.

I'm thinking you were closer with the 70-200, even if you were thinking you had it at 135mm. Or it was really closer to 200mm when you shot it. The settings here are not the difference. Distance to subject, and/or actual focal length here were the difference.

Very best,

I may have been just a tad closer but the focal length as indicated in the exif data is the same. So, just that one extra foot closer makes such a big difference?


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
500px (external link)
Etsy Store (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itsallart
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,717 posts
Gallery: 914 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10559
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:26 |  #6

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17505948 (external link)
I'm thinking that you didn't use a tripod. Could the distance to the subject have changed when you changed lenses?

I didn't use a tripod, that's true so a small difference in the distance from the subject make this impact?


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
500px (external link)
Etsy Store (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itsallart
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,717 posts
Gallery: 914 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10559
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:27 |  #7

macroimage wrote in post #17505951 (external link)
Both pictures show 135mm focal length in the EXIF, but either you moved closer with the zoom lens, or at that focus distance, the zoom has a narrower angle of view. That is the main difference between the pictures.

OK, thank you all. I will re-shoot on a tripod and see what the difference really is.
I appreciate your help, guys :)


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
500px (external link)
Etsy Store (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,275 posts
Gallery: 1692 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10638
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:33 |  #8

itsallart wrote in post #17505961 (external link)
I didn't use a tripod, that's true so a small difference in the distance from the subject make this impact?

Yes,

Distance to subject effects depth of field. You were clearly closer in the first image, so depth of field was more shallow, which increases blur of out of focus areas.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,574 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 348
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:35 |  #9

I believe that two lenses with different optical design, they can have different focal length in distances less than infinity.

I know for a fact that my 18-200 @ 200 is shorter than my 70-200 @ 200.

Try to put he camera on a tripod and shoot two photos of a subject at a distance of 10 ft and try the same with a subject on the horizon.


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tat3406
Senior Member
Avatar
275 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2013
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:51 |  #10

I also see motion blur on 135L picture, 70-200 IS was shaper. At near MDF distance, little distance make a lot different.


6D, 100L,24-70 F4L, 40mm pancake, 70-300L
Carl Zeiss MP 50
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tat3406/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itsallart
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,717 posts
Gallery: 914 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10559
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:58 |  #11

MalVeauX wrote in post #17505976 (external link)
Yes,

Distance to subject effects depth of field. You were clearly closer in the first image, so depth of field was more shallow, which increases blur of out of focus areas.

Very best,

thank you; I now clearly see that I was closer and yes the DOF is different :)


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
500px (external link)
Etsy Store (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itsallart
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,717 posts
Gallery: 914 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10559
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Apr 05, 2015 22:59 |  #12

MakisM1 wrote in post #17505980 (external link)
I believe that two lenses with different optical design, they can have different focal length in distances less than infinity.

I know for a fact that my 18-200 @ 200 is shorter than my 70-200 @ 200.

Try to put he camera on a tripod and shoot two photos of a subject at a distance of 10 ft and try the same with a subject on the horizon.

thank you. I will; that's tomorrow's assignment for me :)


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
500px (external link)
Etsy Store (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itsallart
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,717 posts
Gallery: 914 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10559
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Apr 05, 2015 23:02 |  #13

tat3406 wrote in post #17505995 (external link)
I also see motion blur on 135L picture, 70-200 IS was shaper. At near MDF distance, little distance make a lot different.

Oh, I see the motion blur too. What's MDF?


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
500px (external link)
Etsy Store (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mickeyb105
Goldmember
Avatar
2,537 posts
Gallery: 397 photos
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Vero Beach, FL
     
Apr 06, 2015 00:24 |  #14

The 135L really needs to be shot at 1/200 ss minimum to avoid blur hand-held.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f1.8 ZA, Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA, 24mm f/2 SSM Distagon T*, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,622 posts
Likes: 352
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Apr 06, 2015 03:50 |  #15

MFD = Minimum Focusing Distance




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,678 views & 2 likes for this thread
Why do I see a huge difference between 2 shots taken with a 135 and 70-200, same settings?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is skoczekan
688 guests, 293 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.