 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 200520D Soft Focus
Is there an easy way to determine if all my "soft focus" issues are a result of the low quality kit lens? I plan to go to a camera store and see if they will let me shoot some test shots with Sigma or Tamron lenses. I doubt they will let me go outside with the lens, so what type of shots should I try to take in the store to test for sharpness. This is the best test I can come up with, but curious on how to test it. > Is there an easy way to determine if all my "soft focus" issues are a result > of the low quality kit lens? I plan to go to a camera store and see if they > will let me shoot some test shots with Sigma or Tamron lenses. I doubt they > will let me go outside with the lens, so what type of shots should I try to > take in the store to test for sharpness. This is the best test I can come up > with, but curious on how to test it. Try to use either the Canon 50mm 1.8 or the Canon 50mm 1.4, run them at f8 and you should get a great looking photo. The kit lens will give fairly good photos, if you use it at f8 or there abouts and if you are willing to do some sharpening, shooting raw is best. Here is a link that looks at the photos that I shot with the kit lens and the 50mm 1.8 lens. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/20tests I hope this helps. Scott > Here is a link that looks at the photos that I shot with the kit lens > and the 50mm 1.8 lens. > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/20tests Kit lens at f/8 looks pretty darned good. >> Here is a link that looks at the photos that I shot with the kit lens >> and the 50mm 1.8 lens. >> >> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/20tests > >Kit lens at f/8 looks pretty darned good. Most lenses look pretty darned good at f/8, even cheap junk lenses. It takes an exceptional lens to look good wide open. > >> Here is a link that looks at the photos that I shot with the kit lens > >> and the 50mm 1.8 lens. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It takes an exceptional lens to look good wide open. True, one would always want a lens that can be run fast and still give sharp photos, however there is a feeling out there that the kit lens can take a good photos, this is of course simply not true. Since the OP said he was having problem with the kit it seemed like it would be helpful to show what he should be able to get from it. Others here seem to want to just throw stone at it, which does little to help the OP. If the Kit lens a good lens, no. Will all photos from the kit lens look very soft, again no. The 50mm 1.8 is much sharper then the kit and even works well to about f 2.4 or there abouts. Scott >>> Here is a link that looks at the photos that I shot with the kit lens >>> and the 50mm 1.8 lens. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It takes an exceptional lens to look good wide open. None of these images are original pixels, so they can't tell a whole lot about lens sharpness.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >>> Here is a link that looks at the photos that I shot with the kit lens > >>> and the 50mm 1.8 lens. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > about lens sharpness. > -- I am note sure what you mean my original pixels, these are 100% crops. Original pixels is hard to pin down when using raw, since you can choose the sharpening level in the raw converter. Mainly the photos will show the OP what he should be able to get in term of a final image, if he can't get this level of sharpness then there may be something wrong with the camera or lens. Scott >I am note sure what you mean my original pixels, these are 100% crops. >Original pixels is hard to pin down when using raw, since you can >choose the sharpening level in the raw converter. Mainly the photos >will show the OP what he should be able to get in term of a final >image, if he can't get this level of sharpness then there may be >something wrong with the camera or lens. Original pixels is another way of saying "100% crop", which makes no sense, because it sounds like a crop with no cropping. You have serious aliasing, without haloing, which suggests downsizing with the nearest neighbor algorithm. If not, then some kind of ultra-sharpening has been applied, and is optically unattainable. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >I am note sure what you mean my original pixels, these are 100% crops. > >Original pixels is hard to pin down when using raw, since you can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > with the nearest neighbor algorithm. If not, then some kind of > ultra-sharpening has been applied, and is optically unattainable. The photo titled "kit lens crop" is a 100% crop, you can see where it is taken from in "kit lens resized" I put these up some time ago, they were converted from raw using Photoshop elements 3, I don't recall the settings but the sharpening was probably set pretty high. You can look at 20D with 50mm lens to see an entire photo at full size. There is aliasing, but whether it is serious is another issue, in a 8 x 12 print you would never see it. Scott > Is there an easy way to determine if all my "soft focus" issues are a result > of the low quality kit lens? I plan to go to a camera store and see if they > will let me shoot some test shots with Sigma or Tamron lenses. I doubt they > will let me go outside with the lens, so what type of shots should I try to > take in the store to test for sharpness. This is the best test I can come up > with, but curious on how to test it. The only thing sticking a Sigma lens on there is going to do is show you why you shouldn't buy one. >>Is there an easy way to determine if all my "soft focus" issues are a result >>of the low quality kit lens? I plan to go to a camera store and see if they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The only thing sticking a Sigma lens on there is going to do is show > you why you shouldn't buy one. The only 18-55 lens I have ever tried (on a 350d) was soft, had a nasty cheap feel to it, plastic mount, the front element rotated, and it had a teensy unusable focus ring. The only Sigma lens that I own beats the Canon 18-55 on all counts. > The only 18-55 lens I have ever tried (on a 350d) was soft, had a nasty > cheap feel to it, plastic mount, the front element rotated, and it had a > teensy unusable focus ring. > The only Sigma lens that I own beats the Canon 18-55 on all counts. One man's ceiling is another man's floor. > > The only 18-55 lens I have ever tried (on a 350d) was soft, had a nasty > > cheap feel to it, plastic mount, the front element rotated, and it had a > > teensy unusable focus ring. > > The only Sigma lens that I own beats the Canon 18-55 on all counts. > > One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Yes, nothing short of L can possibly provide anything but crap....*rolls eyes* >>The only 18-55 lens I have ever tried (on a 350d) was soft, had a nasty >>cheap feel to it, plastic mount, the front element rotated, and it had a >>teensy unusable focus ring. >>The only Sigma lens that I own beats the Canon 18-55 on all counts. > > One man's ceiling is another man's floor. And I am rolling on the floor laughing (at you). >>> The only 18-55 lens I have ever tried (on a 350d) was soft, had a >>> nasty cheap feel to it, plastic mount, the front element rotated, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And I am rolling on the floor laughing (at you). Randall Ainsworth is the anti-Christ of the group Frederick. Anything that doesn't produce massive barrel distortion and have an "L" to describe it is just pure junk to him. That's OK. We need people like him with money to burn on Canon lenses so they can continue to subsidise their cameras from the obscene profits they make selling the tale that there is no better than the fabled "L" series lenses. Forget the fact that their 24~70 f2.8 has so many errors in it that one RAW decoded has a module specifically to repair the faults it creates. Forget that the highly acclaimed 70~200 f2.8 can only just match the Sigma variant of this class for image quality and cost's twice as much and forget that I personally have a great deal of photographic evidence that fools all the experts who still today, hold the belief that only Canon lenses can make good pictures. Randall is right to have his beliefs. After all isn't believing a pre requisite to religion? Ha, ha. I can just see it now. Dear Canon in heaven, please bless my day with a halfway decent picture for I have sinned and held a Sigma lens to my mount and (shock horror) enjoyed the feel of forbidden glass. Ha,ha, ha. ROTFL! Go Randall! Douglas. > Randall Ainsworth is the anti-Christ of the group Frederick. Anything > that doesn't produce massive barrel distortion and have an "L" to > describe it is just pure junk to him. The two lenses that I own for my 10D are both consumer-grade Canons. I will consider "L" glass in the future but regardless, they will be made by Canon. > series lenses. > > Forget the fact that their 24~70 f2.8 has so many errors in it that one > RAW decoded has a module specifically to repair the faults it creates. Douglas, I've asked you several times, including in personal email, to tell me what those errors are. I'm planning on buying this lens, and would like to know what problems I may face with it, specifically. I currently have the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 ATX Pro II, and I'm not that thrilled with the images with my 20D. The 16-35 f2.8L I just bought outperforms it, as near as I can tell, considering the disparity of focal length. > Forget that the highly acclaimed 70~200 f2.8 can only just match the Sigma > variant of this class for image quality and cost's twice as much and > forget that I personally have a great deal of photographic evidence that > fools all the experts who still today, hold the belief that only Canon > lenses can make good pictures. Again, since this lens is on my shopping list, I'd like to have some specifics, here, too. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>series lenses. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Again, since this lens is on my shopping list, I'd like to have some > specifics, here, too. Yes I got your Emails Skip. I thought you were trolling me. Let me ask you a simple question: If both those lenses were all they're cracked up to be, why would DxO (www.dxo.com) so successfully sell a module to correct their optical flaws whilst decoding a 20D's RAW files and not offer any for the Sigma rivals when they do in fact offer Sigma modules for their lenses with optical errors? Get yourself a decent chart - God, just a box drawn on a card will do and go shoot some frames with the lenses you are interested in. Then make up your mind if you can live with the distortions and colour irregularities. Better still. Download the free demo of their program and the 24~70 module. Trot on down to the local camera store and shoot a few rounds off in the store with your camera and their lens. Go home and decode the RAW (or JPG) file with DxO and whatever else you use and you will see just how much difference the correction makes. I didn't believe it myself until I shot a family where one guy had a small symbol on his shirt that was so distorted, I couldn't make out if it was just some lines or a drawing. DxO showed it was a drawing. The single sharpest lens I ever owned was a Sigma 28~70 f2.8 APO HSM. Ask me and I'll dig up some examples. Plenty of Pro wedding photographers come through my shop every week and none of 'em believe the 24"x36" picture of a steam powered traction engine on my wall was shot with a 10D. Tell 'em it was a Sigma lens and the general attitude is "yeah, right, now tell us the truth". But I already had. Eyes open. Mind clear. Test the gear. Douglas > > series lenses. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > -- you can see a lot of photos taken with this lens here http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_2470_28u People seem to want to trash those lenses that they don't use, from what I can see this lens does a pretty good job, but I don't have one so I can only judge by what other are getting. Scott >>-- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Scott I gather your inference is that I don't use or own the lenses I pass comment on? This is my camera and my lens : http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/FZ20-Pics/P1010002 The picture below and about 25,000 others were taken with a Sigma 28~70, f2.8 and a Canon 10D. I still sell 24"x36" posters of this and others trucks at every vintage truck show in my state. http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/old-trucks/red_truck_show_88 Like Skip intends to do, I use my DSLR and 24~70 f2.8 lenses primarily for weddings and general portraiture. http://www.ryadia.com/child-studies.htm was shot with the Canon lens. I also own a 70~200 f2.8 Sigma and a Canon 70~200 f2.8 "L" series Canon lens. http://www.ryadia.com/pets.htm was shot hand held at 1/60th, f2.8 with the Canon lens - no image stabliser. I've had several Sigma and Canon lenses over the past 3 years. http://www.tecphoto.com.au/pelican.htm is an example of the resolution of Sigma's better quality lenses. Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had with the 10D, I recently re purchased one and I prefer to use it than the three times more expensive Canon 24~70 for no other reason than it is sharper, does not produce as much barrel distortion and it gets up Randall Ainsworth's nose that I make a living using Sigma gear. (Not really but he pisses me off with his uninformed bullshit about Sigma being crap). Douglas > >>-- > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > really but he pisses me off with his uninformed bullshit about Sigma > being crap). It was not my intent to single you out as many others before you were trashing lenses. I find it rare that a lens is as bad as what some people are willing to say about it, although I have found a few exceptions. Not having the Canon 24-70 my next best thing is to see what people are getting with it, which was were the pbase link comes in. From what I have seen I think you might have been a bit hard on the lens, it does not look all that bad to me. I have a hard time believing that the image was so distorted that it made it hard to make out drawing on a shirt, I just don't see that level of distortion in the photos from that lens. I use both Canon and Sigma lenses and don't have a problem with either and I believe you get great photos from the Sigma lens, but I also don't believe that the Canon lens is crap. When there are so many photographs with just about any given lens to look at it would seem that, perhaps, people should look at those and in part judge for themselves what works. Scott > Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your > livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > really but he pisses me off with his uninformed bullshit about Sigma > being crap). You are free to spend your money on whatever gear you choose. I've seen enough of Sigma through the years...seen enough of their gear...seen enough of their digital stuff to know what the company is about. >>Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your >>livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > enough of Sigma through the years...seen enough of their gear...seen > enough of their digital stuff to know what the company is about. Never is not actually forever, Randall. > > You are free to spend your money on whatever gear you choose. I've seen > > enough of Sigma through the years...seen enough of their gear...seen > > enough of their digital stuff to know what the company is about. > > Never is not actually forever, Randall. Sigma has produced mediocre equipment for as long as I've been in photography...which is since 1966. They appeal to amateurs that are too cheap to buy OEM lenses and think they're getting just as good. >Sigma has produced mediocre equipment for as long as I've been in >photography...which is since 1966. They appeal to amateurs that are too >cheap to buy OEM lenses and think they're getting just as good. And the $2K - $5K Sigma lenses? Your "cheap" explanation doesn't fly. Sigma's better lenses are just as expensive as similar Canons. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >Sigma has produced mediocre equipment for as long as I've been in > >photography...which is since 1966. They appeal to amateurs that are too [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Your "cheap" explanation doesn't fly. Sigma's better lenses are just as > expensive as similar Canons. It's all made together to work together. If you want to give them a few thousand dollars, be my guest. But don't bitch to me when that lens doesn't work on your new non-Sigma camera. >Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your >livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >really but he pisses me off with his uninformed bullshit about Sigma >being crap). Randall doesn't like any complexity in his thought. Good/bad. Black/white. Great/crap, etc. Once I listened to two people sitting near me go on for a half-hour, each giving a list of movie titles, and the other commenting on the movie. "Sucked", and "that was a great movie" were the only thing either person said, except for the occasional, "I haven't seen it, but I heard that it" "was great" or "sucked". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Unfortunately a "pretty good job" is simply not good enough when your >>livelihood depends on it. Although I sold the original 28~70 Sigma I had [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > either person said, except for the occasional, "I haven't seen it, but I > heard that it" "was great" or "sucked". Interesting... It was people like Randall who convinced me to dump my Sigma 28~70 f2.8 and buy a three times more expensive Canon "L" series. It is no better and in many way worse than the Sigma lens... I bought another Sigma lens last month and I prefer it to the Canon. Wouldn't it be nice if jerks like Randall spoke from experience and not resentment? Douglas > It was people like Randall who convinced me to dump my Sigma 28~70 f2.8 > and buy a three times more expensive Canon "L" series. It is no better > and in many way worse than the Sigma lens... I bought another Sigma lens > last month and I prefer it to the Canon. Wouldn't it be nice if jerks > like Randall spoke from experience and not resentment? What would be the chance of you getting it right? I do speak from experience and have no resentment toward Sigma. I've never wasted my money on their products. And if you'll pay attention, you'll see a lot more people than me bashing their products. I'm just one of the more vocal ones. > > It was people like Randall who convinced me to dump my Sigma 28~70 f2.8 > > and buy a three times more expensive Canon "L" series. It is no better [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > more people than me bashing their products. I'm just one of the more > vocal ones. Ok you have really lost me on this one, if you have never wasted you money on a Sigma lens how is it that you can tell the world how crappy they are? But then you say you speak from experience but don't offer what that is. If you are just repeating what you have heard others say you are not really adding much information. It might help if you could say just what Sigma lens you used and on what camera. Scott > Ok you have really lost me on this one, if you have never wasted you > money on a Sigma lens how is it that you can tell the world how crappy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott Hey Scott... Duck as that pig flys past. More chance of seeing it that getting facts from Randall. Douglas << Snipped bits out >> Douglas- could you and Randall *both* ignore each other for a few weeks? I have a bet on as to who caves first. SignatureJohn McWilliams > << Snipped bits out >> > > Douglas- could you and Randall *both* ignore each other for a few weeks? > I have a bet on as to who caves first. Who have you got money on John? Bribe me and you'll win! >> << Snipped bits out >> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Who have you got money on John? > Bribe me and you'll win! Ah, the fix! Well, let's just say the check's in the mail to the both of you..... iVaya Con Dios! -- jpmcw > Ok you have really lost me on this one, if you have never wasted you > money on a Sigma lens how is it that you can tell the world how crappy > they are? But then you say you speak from experience but don't offer > what that is. I don't have to step in a pile of dog crap to know that it's something I don't want to do. I've been doing photography for many years and have seen Sigmas products...and seen the results of their use. >> Ok you have really lost me on this one, if you have never wasted you >> money on a Sigma lens how is it that you can tell the world how crappy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I don't want to do. I've been doing photography for many years and have >seen Sigmas products...and seen the results of their use. Do you know a guy named George Preddy by any chance ? > Do you know a guy named George Preddy by any chance ? I certainly know *of* him under his various aliases...we have locked horns frequently in another newsgroup. He's an idiot. >>I don't have to step in a pile of dog crap to know that it's something >>I don't want to do. I've been doing photography for many years and have >>seen Sigmas products...and seen the results of their use. > > Do you know a guy named George Preddy by any chance ? Randall Ainsworth is George Preddy. They post in opposits so they can talk to each other! It's the only communication they can all relate to. Douglas > Randall Ainsworth is George Preddy. They post in opposits so they can > talk to each other! It's the only communication they can all relate to. I don't think so. Nice try. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.