 |
 | 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 / August 2005The "kit" lens revisited, is it as bad as they say?
I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following lenses: Canon EFs 18-55 f4,5-5,6 ("kit" lens modified to fit on a 10D) Canon EF 50mm f1,8 Canon EF 24-85 f3,5-4,5 Canon EF 35-80 f4-5,6 Canon EF 24-70 f2,8 L So we have 4 zooms, 3 plastic cheapie lenses, one middle of the road zoom and a primo pro lens. The "kit" lens is one of the early ones which came with my Drebel, the newer ones are said to be better. I tried to put all lenses at 50mm and not move the tripod but there are still some slight changes from one lens to the other. The pictures are at http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/50mm_test Now which is which? Jean PS These are all TIFF files and at about 4Mb each so a broadband connection is better for download. There is no EXIF to make sure no one cheats (unless I missed something embedded in the files which is quite possible) >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > lenses: Lens 1 Canon EFs 18-55 f4,5-5,6 ("kit" lens modified to fit on a 10D) Lens 2 Canon EF 50mm f1,8 Lens 3 Canon EF 24-85 f3,5-4,5 Lens 4 Canon EF 35-80 f4-5,6 Lens 5 Canon EF 24-70 f2,8 L Lucky guess? 20% You got one right! Jean > >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > > lenses: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lucky guess? > 20% You got one right! This is the other problem with the test: since only you know the answers, you can (if you wish) simply make it up as you go along. Who can tell? You may wish to publish a hash of the results prior to revealing the 'answer', though this can't remove all doubt. You can doubt my honesty if you want, but why should I fudge the results? I have nothing to gain or to lose. Since I don't want to drag this on for months, I can tell you right off that the only person bold enough to venture a guess had lens 4 right. Jean > > 20% You got one right! > > This is the other problem with the test: since only you know the > answers, you can (if you wish) simply make it up as you go along. Who > can tell? You may wish to publish a hash of the results prior to > revealing the 'answer', though this can't remove all doubt. jean top-posts: >>This is the other problem with the test: since only you know the >>answers, you can (if you wish) simply make it up as you go along. Who >>can tell? You may wish to publish a hash of the results prior to >>revealing the 'answer', though this can't remove all doubt. > > You can doubt my honesty if you want, but why should I fudge the results? I have no idea; why should you? However, now that you are aware of the problem and a solution that can mitigate it, why not just post a hash of the document containing the correct answer? > I have nothing to gain or to lose. So you claim; and maybe truly, but there is no evidence one way or the other. > Since I don't want to drag this on for months, I can tell you right > off that the only person bold enough to venture a guess had lens 4 right. Or was it 3 or 1? Who can say? Recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagram - some 17th century astronomers anagrammed their discoveries to reduce the risk of others claiminng priority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof - the modern day equivalent, and one very apropos to your situation. > jean top-posts: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the problem and a solution that can mitigate it, why not just post a > hash of the document containing the correct answer? OK, I will post another series soon with 4 lenses (my daughter took her 24-85 with her to college) and include a small encoded zip file to which the key will be given after a few days. I wanted to post pictures with more colors but the day I took them was rather dull and being a last minute person, I waited until the last minute when I drove her to the bus station to take the series of pictures. Would that be OK? Jean > > I have nothing to gain or to lose. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Or was it 3 or 1? Who can say? I can, so far lenses identified are: lens 1 50mm f1,8 lens 2 lens 3 24-70mm f2,8 L lens 4 35-80mm f4-5,6 lens 5 So lens 2 and lens 4 are either the kit lens or a Canon 24-85 f4,5-5,6. Any guess? Can't go very wrong, 50% chance of being right without even looking. Jean > Recommended reading: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof - the modern day > equivalent, and one very apropos to your situation. >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > lenses: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > (unless > I missed something embedded in the files which is quite possible) Jean, Is this a good test? .JPG being the great web equalizer. Print might show stuff worth looking at. The quality of the Kit lens isn't tested (hardly) in this picture. Niether are any of the other lens. If you really want to test these lens, shoot my daughters basketball games. Low light action no flash. The only lens that has a chance is the 50mm f1.8, but its a prime so your composition choices will suck. The 24-70 f2.8 L might have a chance if it has IS and its on a tripod. I agree, the kit lens is sufficient for a lot of things, your test shows it. But it tests *web .jpg's* and this isn't a very demanding environment. It's like web jpg's are a static picture of a car, and you took a picture of 64 Bronco, 69 Mach One, 2005 Boss and a Ferrari (any year) and said "see, which one is faster" You can't tell from the static picture. The Bronco would kick on the off road, the Ferrari would kick on back roads, the Boss on... well lots of things and the Mach One would kick at an old timers 1/4 mile retreat and car show circuit scene. DA. >>I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following >>lenses: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > DA. It's also shot at f8 & f16. The former at an aperture where a lens made of recycled coke bottles might be expected to perform well, the latter at the level on a 10d where diffraction would be a great leveller of results. > >>I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > >>lenses: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > at the level on a 10d where diffraction would be a great leveller of > results. f8 was to equalize the slow lenses which would probably be at 5,6 nearing full zoom (the kit lens). f16 I thought would help the bad lenses. I was really surprised at the 35-80, for a plastic cheapie it's better than the kit lens (another plastic cheapie). Jean > It's also shot at f8 & f16. The former at an aperture where a lens made > of recycled coke bottles might be expected to perform well, the latter > at the level on a 10d where diffraction would be a great leveller of > results. It's easy enough to put the sharpest and softest images at each end. The interior is borderline undecidable -- a machine can probably rank them though. But who cares? f/8 or f/16, the above differences (with perhaps the exception of image #5) can be ascribed to simple lack of focus in the absence of other data. >>I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following >>lenses: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > DA. If you don't see the faults in full size JPEG, you won't see it in print. If you compare the print to the screen, you'd notice that the screen has more vibrant color. This is _not_ a test of the printer, so on screen JPEG in original size is fine for comparison. And why do you want to test how fast a lens can capture your daughter's basket game? This is a lens quality test, not a test of how wide or expensive the lens is. There is indeed one problem with the test, why choose f/8 and f/16? It should be at the lens widest aperture and also one taken at the common aperture of all the lenses, possibly f/5.6. > >>I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > >>lenses: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > should be at the lens widest aperture and also one taken at the common > aperture of all the lenses, possibly f/5.6. The slow lenses are wide open at f5,6, in order to give them half a chance, I closed them down a bit and closed all the others to the same aperture to have the same depth of field on all lenses so that would not be a factor. Jean > >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > > lenses: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I agree, the kit lens is sufficient for a lot of things, your test shows it. I guess so, for travelling by bicycle it would be just the thing, wide and light. Jean > But it tests *web .jpg's* and this isn't a very demanding environment. It's > like web jpg's are a static picture of a car, and you took a picture of 64 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DA. >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following >lenses: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Now which is which? This only proves one thing: that if the comparator is dumbed-down shots for web use, it doesn't matter which lens you use. They are all bad enough. ;-) "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:gqgsg11l923apnh3t7gef84q685an7qv5n@4ax.com... > >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > >lenses: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > ;-) ? I should have shot raw? I can try it again with 4 lenses this time and more colors in the picture. Jean > "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de > news:gqgsg11l923apnh3t7gef84q685an7qv5n@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Jean You could also show a 100% crop of the same area in each image. Something with some backlighting in places would be a good way to see vingetting/ color fringing. > > "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de > > news:gqgsg11l923apnh3t7gef84q685an7qv5n@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > with some backlighting in places would be a good way to see vingetting/ > color fringing. Noted. Jean >"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de >news:gqgsg11l923apnh3t7gef84q685an7qv5n@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Jean It won't matter what you do, if the results don't agree with the Canon cranks preconceived opinions, they won't buy it. It's just outragious to suggest that you have to shoot RAW to make a comparision when dealing with full sized images. Unless Canon's JPEG conversion is so terrible, and there is some evidence it is. The sad fact is, apart from maybe 2 or 3 lenses, Canon products do not measure up to the best from Nikon or Olympus. Canon does not produce lenses to be ultimate image makers, because the main users of their high quality products are people like sports photogs and they definitely do not need top quality. They need speed (f-ratios and focusing) and a good range of focal lengths. And THAT is who Canon produces equipment for. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > >"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de > >news:gqgsg11l923apnh3t7gef84q685an7qv5n@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > And THAT is who Canon produces equipment for. > -Rich And to me too, I like my Canon stuff. I don't have a Nikon so I can't say which is better or if it is better. Jean > "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood > never gave us refunds for in the past" > And to me too, I like my Canon stuff. I don't have a Nikon so I can't say > which is better or if it is better. Most of the "canonites" have never used anything but a canon so have NO idea what else is out there. Many of them started with a Canon autofocus 35mm and have never used anything else.  SignatureStacey > > And to me too, I like my Canon stuff. I don't have a Nikon so I can't say > > which is better or if it is better. > > Most of the "canonites" have never used anything but a canon so have NO idea > what else is out there. Many of them started with a Canon autofocus 35mm > and have never used anything else. I started out with a Canon TL, and then moved to an FTb. My first digital SLR was a Drebel and I was dissapointed with it's manual focusing abilities just as I am with my current DSLR (10D) so I rely on the autofocus. I works most of the time especially if only one focus point is selected. With action shots, there is no way I could do better manually, AI servo mode is a shot saver. Jean > Most of the "canonites" have never used anything but a canon so have NO idea > what else is out there. Many of them started with a Canon autofocus 35mm > and have never used anything else. Not me. I wouldn't consider myself a Canonite, but I do own one. But I come from the film world of medium format - Hasselblad, RB, & Pentax. > I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > lenses: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > is better for download. There is no EXIF to make sure no one cheats (unless > I missed something embedded in the files which is quite possible) Autofocus, or manually focused, with good eyesight? If autofocus, forget comparisons. Colin D. >> I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following >> lenses: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Colin D. Does that mean autofocus is erratic or never accurate? -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > >> I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > >> lenses: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Does that mean autofocus is erratic or never accurate? > -Rich neither. autofocus is accurate - at least on Canons {:-), but with a subject containing some depth, like these test shots, with large bushes in the foreground, an oblique angle on the buildings, and a seven-point focus system, who knows where the focus was. I wager most people looked at the roof skyline or chimney, and I bet that wasn't the point of focus. All this means the shots were demonstrating dof and not much else. Colin D. > > I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > > lenses: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Autofocus, or manually focused, with good eyesight? If autofocus, > forget comparisons. Autofocus, good eyesight, 3 shots took the one that looked the best to my good eyes with reading glasses. At that distance, I would think autofocus would not be an issue. Jean > At that distance, I would think autofocus > would not be an issue. You're assuming none of the lenses front or back focus. SignatureStacey >> Jean >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Autofocus, or manually focused, with good eyesight? If autofocus, > forget comparisons. Why? Maybe he should make 5 Shots, and select the worst, but if I buy an autofocus lense, i want the autofocus to work properly. > >> Jean > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why? Maybe he should make 5 Shots, and select the worst, but if I buy an > autofocus lense, i want the autofocus to work properly. See my answer to Rich about four posts back. Colin D. >> Autofocus, or manually focused, with good eyesight? If autofocus, >> forget comparisons. > > Why? Maybe he should make 5 Shots, and select the worst, but if I buy an > autofocus lense, i want the autofocus to work properly. He should take N shots (N >= 7 or so), each one manually and _independently_ focused (ie, you completely defocus the image and bring it back to focus) on the _same target_, and then select the _best_ one of the set. Repeat for all M lenses. Better would be to present all NxM images, as they contain valuable information about the performance of the test (was the tripod any good? subject motion blur? etc), and lens quality. Thomas Müller wrote: >> Autofocus, or manually focused, with good eyesight? If autofocus, >> forget comparisons. > > Why? Maybe he should make 5 Shots, and select the worst, but if I buy an > autofocus lense, i want the autofocus to work properly. He should take N shots (N >= 7 or so), each one manually and _independently_ focused (ie, you completely defocus the image and bring it back to focus) on the _same target_, and then select the _best_ one of the set. Repeat for all M lenses. Better would be to present all NxM images, as they contain valuable information about the performance of the test (was the tripod any good? subject motion blur? etc), and lens quality. Now consider the way most people take pictures while on vacation, hand held, no tripod single or double shots at the most with amny of the grunt taken over by the camera (autofocus, in AV or TV mode) and ponder how will any lens shine above the other. Granted I am happy to own a good one (24-70 f2,8 L) and many of it's features come in handy most of the time, it is a fast lens, the autofocus is very fast, but it has it's drawbacks the main ones being the weight and size. Most people are traumatized by the size, thinking I may be taking pictures of their nostrils. Jean >> He should take N shots (N >= 7 or so), each one manually and >> _independently_ focused (ie, you completely defocus the image and bring [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > over by the camera (autofocus, in AV or TV mode) and ponder how will any > lens shine above the other. Well, in that case, you'll have to tell us what you were up to re: this test, as according to your OP, you mounted your camera on a tripod. > Granted I am happy to own a good one (24-70 f2,8 L) and many of it's > features come in handy most of the time, it is a fast lens, the autofocus is > very fast, but it has it's drawbacks the main ones being the weight and > size. Most people are traumatized by the size, thinking I may be taking > pictures of their nostrils. As a subgenius, I can only offer the following advice: "f.ck 'em if they can't take a joke." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgenius) You may also wish to consider the #2 of the Holy Canon Lens Triumvirate, the 17-35/2.8 or whatever it is these days (the sacred third is the EF 70-200/2.8L, IS at your option). With the 17-35, most pinks^H^H^H, normal people think you are taking pictures of open sky... > >> He should take N shots (N >= 7 or so), each one manually and > >> _independently_ focused (ie, you completely defocus the image and bring [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well, in that case, you'll have to tell us what you were up to re: this > test, as according to your OP, you mounted your camera on a tripod. That's to give all the shots the same framing which I could not do handholding the camera. Do you honestly think handholding the camera would change the results? that the better lenses would show a greater difference? > > Granted I am happy to own a good one (24-70 f2,8 L) and many of it's > > features come in handy most of the time, it is a fast lens, the autofocus is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > third is the EF 70-200/2.8L, IS at your option). With the 17-35, most > pinks^H^H^H, normal people think you are taking pictures of open sky... No, I think if I had to take one "normal" lens it would be a 50mm equivalent in APS size sensored camera, to put it another way, a 28mm or 24mm prime or fixed focus lens. When travelling with my 24-70, it would be most often used at 24mm or it was at 70mm wishing it could go further (at which point I would use a 70-300 zoom). Jean > I have taken 2 pictures, And could you have blown the highlights out any more? Even the roof of the house is blown to oblivion! > The pictures are at http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/50mm_test If you want to post a "lens test", post some full rez crops of each one. SignatureStacey >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > lenses: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > (unless > I missed something embedded in the files which is quite possible) How about ? 1- 50mm 2-18-55 3- 24-70 4- 24-85 5- 35-80 > >I have taken 2 pictures, one at f8 and the other at f16 with the following > > lenses: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 4- 24-85 > 5- 35-80 40% you got two right. 1 and 3. Now if anyone cares about picking the two remaining choices (#4 was given in a previous post). Jean >> How about ? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jean Not too bad then I could spot a good one or two, the others probably depend on the individual lens. I compared 18-55 to a 24-85 and it depended very much on focal length and conditions. Regards your comments about the 10D AF, one thing to be aware of is the actual coverage of the AF sensors relative to the viewfinder markings. If you haven't seen the inof before take a look at http://www.knighttrain.freeserve.co.uk/400.htm . I find the camera will tend to focus on the extremes of the AF sensor first ! Cheers Why not shoot 1) all lenses at f/5.6 and with shutter speed set M so that you can show the lens wide open (or very close to wide open)and 2) shoot somewhat into the sun so that we can judge flare in the lens, and 3) focus on a sign with different sizes of text, so that we can judge the relative resolution, and 4) have signs in the center and at the edges of the frame so that we can judge center vs. edge performance, and 5) shoot a brick wall so that we can judge the lens for pincushion and barrel distortion. The photos you provided at f/8 and f/16 does little to help anyone do anything but GUESS! It's like going to a party, and playing a game where you put nylons on the legs of the husbands and have the wives guess which leg is their own husbands based on the below-the-knee nylon-clad leg! Few clues to make a reasonable guess. |
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.