More sharpness in the lens, what to do (from these lenses)

A point I have repeatedly tried to make.
Digital SLRs only give of their best with good lenses on them.
If you can afford the body then why compromise by putting the bottom off a beer bottle on the front?

It's hard to explain to people with too much money.

Why would you buy an EOS 10D with an average lens?

Because your old G1:
* was too slow on autofocus
* wasn't able to shoot 9 pictures in a couple of seconds
* couldn't be fitted with a 400mm lens
* only had 3 million pixels and thats not enough for a large print

Even with an average lens you can create pictures you couldn't create with another camera.

But that doesn't say that us poor people don't want to buy the best lens for our money..

Rob

money versus lenses

I consider myself fairly well off (at this time).

When I bought my D60 (cost more the 10D) I bought two lenses with it, because my budget had hit its limit for the month (or three). I bought a 75-300 IS and a Tamron 28-85. My one concession to accessories was the battery grip and one spare battery. No flashs, no Angle finder C, no other lenses, no studio lights, etc.

I had one advantage, I knew that I would be getting another lens within a month as soon as I saw what I needed. I expected to get a wider or longer lens, but instead the Tamron was a piece of Cr%^, so I ended up getting the 28-135 IS at a local store. (savings drained by a $2000 by this point)

Playing with the lenses I had I took what I consider to be fantastic pictures in Jamaica. But I learned a lot from that also. First I found I needed a wider angle lens for some opportunities and most importantly I discovered I need a flash, so a month later I picked up the 16-35L and two 550EX flashes. It took three more months until my next lens purchase the 50/1.4, which I decided Ineeded for low light, since even the 16-35/2.8 was not always making it.

Then two months later the 10D and the 100-400. (Savings drained by another $1000).

Along the way I have also picked up some accessories and the Canon S9000 printer and supplies.

Now I am well off and can afford the $12,000 worth of camera equipment I have bought so far within a one year period. But I still need to save to buy the 24-70L/2.8, the 70-200/2.8 IS and the 85/1.8 that are on my list. This month's habit was satisfied by ordering some reflectors, filters and the 1.4x extender from B+H.

Given that I make over twice what the average person in my area makes (plus single never married) even I can't afford to get the best lenses all at once. The primes above 300 are not even on my consideration list due to cost.

So I have no problem with someone buying the 10D (an excellent camera and then getting the best lenses they can afford for the photography they like. The 10D is currently in a class by itself in terms of price versus quality and while yes it would be great if you can afford the "L" glass to go with it, even with lesser lenses it outshines anything else in my opinion. Those with less funds will eventually get the critical lenses they need. Those at my level will get the critical lenses and some fun lenses and those above will have the complete set.

[Trivia: in my debate with myself on which lens I get next and when, I am currently trying to decide if I want to hit savings again to get the 24-70/2.8L before going to Jamaica again this year. My debate consists of how much will I use it on the trip? Will it make a difference to the pictures I take? If I get it I may have to leave either my 28-135IS or my 75-300 IS at home since I am out of room in my camera bag. The 28-135 is my favorite lens, but I have a full filter set for the 75-300 (which also fits my 50/1.4 (it is 58mm, I am working on 77mm set)). Some of the images I want to take require the polarizer and I also want to play with the IR filter. So all I need is another $1400 for the lens]

To get the best set of lenses in my opinion would run about
50/1.4 $300
17-40L $800
24-70L $1350
70-200/2.8 ISL $1700
100-400L $1400
1.4x extender $290

Total $5840 plus $1400 for camera = $7240

Now add flashes, filters, camera tripod, case, flash cards, reader, storage, and misc other stuff.
(about $1500)
Don't forget the computer (about $1500 w/monitor)

Optionally add printer and supplies (about $1000 for the year)
Optionally add studio lighting and accessories (about $3000)
For a combined total of around $15000 for a full setup.

Alternate is a camera and a couple of lenses and otherwise existing stuff all for under $2500.

Huge difference, yes.

Sorry for the rambling, but I have little sympathy for people who think everyone is made of money. I am well off and I can't afford some of the stuff others have. We all do the best we can. And as someone else mentioned any digital camera beats no camera any day.

Just my opinion.

Another problem with the issue of lens quality on a 10D that Deiter and Paul are overlooking... is experience.

Many 10D owners are first time SLR owners as well. I am one of them.

Even IF someone tells you before hand,. (no one told me )

... it is very difficult to understand that the $1500.00 tag is only the tip of the iceberg in the DSLR investment. You can't actually be made aware of this fact ahead of time. It will not sink in.

Any other camera,. Digital or otherwise,. you buy the camera,. that is the only large investment,. then there are little doo dads you get. a 64 MB Smart media card for $30.00,.. a card reader for $20.00,.. some extra batteries...

This does not prepare you for the fact that that shiny new $1500.00 10D is really going to cost you 4 times that in lenses.

So,. those of us who decided it was worth it to go DSLR are not Idiots for being stunned by the additional cost in lenses. Nor are we foolish for being reluctant to reconsider the investment needed to join the DSLR club. We are just unprepared,. and in fact unwilling or unable to understand even when it is explained to us. We need to make the adjustment on our own terms at our own speed.

We live and learn. Sometimes experience is the ONLY way.

Truth be told,. I was going to by two Phoenix lenses when I first started dreaming of the D30....

I came from the G1 to the D10 with a 28-90mm 4-5,6 II.
Like many other I was a little worried about the picture, but running the pictures trough a batch in

PS with:
Auto contrast
Auto Colour
Unsharp Mask, 150%, 1 pixel, Threshold 2

I got pictures better than the G1 could make.
If anybody has other things to put in the batch for improvement, I would like to hear about it.

Right now I have played around with my “cheep� objective and are looking for something a little better to about 1/3 of the camera prize.

John

Hi,

It's very easy to explain.
I owned a HP850 and loved AND hated it.
Loved it for the quality of the pictures hated it for darker scenes and shutterlag.

I wanted my next body to be the best I could afford, I knew I wanted to start with normal lenses.

To be honest I can spend the money you're talking about but I won't, our company is dealer for Sigma, Tokina and Canon.

For one:
First I want to master the camera with the budget lenses.

For two:
I want to have some fun in upgrading, the best way to keep yourself intressted in the object is by upgrading it everytime, there is no fun in splashing out big bucks like a millionair and not knowing how to use it.

For three:
When you can take pictures with the cheap lenses you can DEFINITALY can do it with the expensive ones.

For four:
I have a business and a family, both are not for free and cost money, in the summer business is slow so I have to be a bit carefull and I like to have a buffer if something goes wrong, after the summer I will buy.

For five:
What's more fun than buying the cheapest possible and getting amazing results, I for one don't care if a lens is 3 years old, in a year I will buy a newer one.

For six:
Nothings more fun than summing up all the things why I don't buy new straight away .

Greetings,
Frank
(not so wealthy but happy)

John,

I would not use batch processing, every picture needs something else.

Greetings,
Frank

Truer words were never said.

But don't go too far. The statement can equally apply to zoom range as to quality and cost. It would be entirely within the principles you laid out to get a 28mm fixed normal lens and perhaps a 50mm/1.8, and spend less than any of your other options. If you can take good pictures with a $2000 telephoto lens, then you can take good pictures with a $65 50/1.8 (you already have the 75-300). They won't be the same pictures, of course, but the principles that make them good will be the same.

Don't make the mistake I've made too many times. When you pick budget lenses, choose lenses that are cheap for their limited features or unusual source rather than their low quality. The 50/1.8 is a good example. It is good where it counts: in the optics. You won't regret having one of those lenses even in a whole bag full of L-series zooms.

I own a Phoenix 100-400, and I have used it with film. But it is utterly unsatisfying for most images, and consequently I rarely use it and with one or two exceptions I'm not satisfied by the resulting images. Consequently, even though it was cheap it has not been a good value. I can't tolerate it on the 10D.

I have learned the hard way that it is cheaper in the long run to buy quality items, though I may wait until later to get the lens with the zoom range I want.

Rick "who suggests an approach that will not produce unused lenses" Denney

Rick,

I totally agree with you.
In my daily use of the camera, animals and sport I primary use a zoom lens, and 300 is sometimes even a bit to short.
So first I will buy a 19-25 lens (to complement the whole range) and than I will start saving for a GOOD telephoto lens, I'm still doubting between forking out big money on a 100-400 lens or a bit less on a 100-300 with a 2x convertor (I think it will become the last one).

Canon lensen will be out of my league unless it's used, it will become a Tamron, Sigma or Tokina in the range of $ 1000,00 - $ 1500,00 (ex convertor) and at least 2.8f.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but 2.8f will make the sharpness (next to the lightoutput).

Someone today told me that when I stay with the 4.5-5.6 series I will never get much more sharpness than I have now.

Greetings,
Frank

A cheap wide-angle zoom is a little easier to tolerate than a cheap telephoto as long as you don't try to make big enlargements. With those lenses, you may lose some sharpness but you usually maintain good color and contrast, which is a failing of cheap telephoto lenses. The Cosina (also sold under other brands, including Phoenix and Vivitar) 19-35 isn't actually all that bad, rating about as well as your 75-300 at Photodo, and only a little ways behind the Canon 20-35. For $140, you can't really go wrong with that one. Is it as good as the Canon 20-35? Not quite, and it also isn't as easy to use. But you probably won't come to hate the images it produces.

If you added the 50/1.8 to the 19-35, you'd have a reasonable enough range including your current 75-300, and your investment would be small enough not to worry about.

Rick "now understanding the problem at hand" Denney

Thanks,
I will look into that lens.

Greetings,
Frank

An aperture of 2.8 has nothing to do with sharpness. It only indicates the maximun size of the lens opening that allows light. Most lens perform at their worst (sharpness) at their maximum aperture.

Of course, since it costs more and requires better glass to achieve f/2.8 as a general rule you may find that these lens are sharper.

I bought a used Sigma 70-210mm APO f2.8 lens.
This should be a very good lens, so I will test if that will satisfy my need for sharpness. .

If that won't do it I will start saving for Canon.

Greetings,
Frank