stefanie_leuker

<p>Sarah, I have looked at tons of pictures at pixel-peepers the last days and I have come to the same conclusion as you - I'm simply expecting too much from the gear I have.<br> The only sample pictures that I found (in the Canon department) that I found satisfying at 100% regarding sharpness were shot with a 5D + 14 mm prime lens.<br> Upgrading to gear this expensive is at this moment out of the question, so I guess I'll just get something cheaper and learn to not expect *that* kind of image quality.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The picture samples that you gave are of scenes where the lighting is flat and they are slightly underexposed contributing more to the overall appearance of unsharpness along with the unskilled post processing.</p> </blockquote> <p>Just to clarify, those pictures were not post-processed at all, I simply exported them as JPG. I am perfectly aware those aren't photographic masterpieces and don't "pop". I just picked a couple of shots to demonstrate the perceived lack of sharpness. Of course I would normally post-process them but the point of samples is to show how the pictures look before post-processing, isn't it? </p> <p>You got me curious though, would it actually help the sharpness (of the unedited images) to manually correct the exposure more frequently? I have to admit that I have been pretty lazy when shooting landscapes so far, I usually just used the preset landscape mode and let the camera do its work, I only manually correct exposure if the preview image / histogram looks completely wrong (blown out parts or something). Otherwise I usually just correct it in post-processing (since I'm shooting RAW).</p> <p>In any case, thanks for your input Gil, I guess it would certainly help if I go and learn a bit more about landscape photography - so far this field has been more "snapshots" for me rather than anything serious. I've only just gotten curious about pursuing it further ;-)</p> <p>I wonder if the EF-S 10-18 mm is gonna come out in June in Germany (my home country) too.. on Amazon it says 1-2 months delivery time (but it does seem to be out already?! weird).</p>

<p>Thanks for your input! I know the 15-85 isn't terrible, I think it's ok - but I kind of expected more than just "ok" or "not awful". I wanted a lens to replace the 17-50 and I thought if it was newer and that much more expensive it must be a lot better. But somehow, it isn't - at least not at wide angles. At 85 mm it's actually pretty amazing.<br> I've decided already that I don't really want either the Sigma or the Canon because you guys got me thinking and perhaps the Tamron really isn't that awful to justify the expense. I'll rather look further into getting a real wide angle lens I think.</p>

<p>You know, I've actually been thinking along the same lines... that I'm either doing something wrong OR that I'm perhaps simply expecting too much..?<br> I'm aware of course that I can't possibly expect the same sharpness in an image shot with a zoom lens at a wide angle as in an image shot with my beloved 100 mm. But still, I kinda find myself looking at my images thinking "ok, this was shot with a 660 EUR lens.. shouldn't it be tack sharp?"<br> As a sidenote, I do think I can tell the difference between lack of sharpness and camera shake - but of course, my subjective feeling that a lens doesn't deliver (for me) is very likely influenced by the fact that I screw up more pics due to camera shake if the lens doesn't have IS (sadly, I do have kind of shaky hands). <br> I'd actually be extremely happy if you guys do find out what I'm doing wrong though! Here are some samples (the images were saved as CR2, I imported them in Photoshop with the standard settings, e.g. amount of sharpening = 25, then saved as JPG):</p> <p><a href="http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_0430.jpg">http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_0430.jpg</a><br> <a href="http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_8345.jpg">http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_8345.jpg</a><br> (15-85, handheld, with IS)</p> <p><a href="http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_8530.jpg">http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_8530.jpg</a><br> <a href="http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_9158.jpg">http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_9158.jpg</a><br> (15-85, with tripod and without IS)</p> <p><a href="http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_5660.jpg">http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_5660.jpg</a><br> <a href="http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_5752.jpg">http://scyza.dnaut.com/IMG_5752.jpg</a><br> (17-50, handheld)</p> <p>I can't find any of the 17-50 shot with tripod right now (or rather, I can't really remember which were shot with tripod), might need to take some new shots to be sure.<br> Anyway, I appreciate your help and would love to know what I'm doing wrong (or if I'm just being a major pixel Nazi).<br> Stefanie</p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies! :-)</p> <blockquote> <p>you don't say why you do not use the Tamron lens much</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't use it a lot because I feel it's severely lacking in sharpness and image quality and because it has no IS. Maybe the newer one with IS is better but the one I have really leaves me frustrated every time I take pictures with it. But I think you may also be right that the range just doesn't appeal all that much to me, whenever I use it I'm usually at 17 mm. </p> <blockquote> <p>You can't mount the EF-M lenses on the 60D.</p> </blockquote> <p>I may not have phrased that very well - what I meant was that I'm considering buying the Canon EOS M camera and the 11-22 EF-M lens to go with it. Would that be a viable option for landscape photography? Or will a decent wide angle lens on my 60D perform significantly better? I like the idea of not needing to screw on a different lens for landscape but instead just take out the small camera and start shooting.</p> <p>Since you all seem to be in agreement that the 10-22 might be good for me, I'll go and see if I can test that one!</p> <p>Thanks a lot so far<br> Stefanie</p>

<p>Hello,<br> I'm new to these forums and I was hoping to get some advise on camera equipment as I'm only getting more and more confused the more I'm googling an reading and looking at sample pictures.<br> I mainly shoot nature, closeups of insects, plants and stuff... and birds. I currently own: Canon EOS 60D, Canon 100 mm, Canon 100-400 mm.<br> My "walkaround" lens is an old Tamron 17-50 without IS that I barely use at all. Now I've been thinking that I should really upgrade this lens, so I tested the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 15-85 during my last vacation. I've come to realize that I don't really need the reach these lenses have (although it can be nice to have) but that I totally do want the wide angle, I really enjoyed shooting landscapes at 15 mm.</p> <p>Now, I have several questions, I hope you guys bear with me :-)<br> 1. The Canon didn't really convince me in terms of sharpness in the wide angle department, and since I'm kind of a newbie to this field I'm wondering if maybe I'm just expecting too much sharpness from wide angle shots (or from this lens in particular)? Can the same sharpness that can be seen at 50-85 mm be expected at 15? Also, the Sigma surprisingly seemed sharper than the Canon.<br> 2. I'm interested in the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L, might it be worth to wait for that one to come out? Surely that lens must do better on the lower end than the 15-85? Or should I go even wider since I enjoyed shooting at 15 mm? Any suggestions?<br> 3. A co-worker advised me against buying any EF-S at all, he said only buy L lenses or I'd regret it. Any truth to this at all?<br> 4. Does anyone have experience with the EOS-M + 11-22 mm? I've read that the image quality should be pretty much the same as my 60D and judging from pixel-peeper the pictures really don't look bad. I find it intriguing that I could get camera + lens for about the same price as a good wide angle lens alone for my DSLR would cost. Also, it's surely nice to not have to switch lenses every time you want to take a landscape shot or to just take a small camera sometimes. I'm just afraid that it would be too much of a quality tradeoff - would a good wideangle lens on my 60D perform significantly better?<br> 5. Pretty general question but... how important is full format at the end of the day? I've always played with the thought of getting a full format camera and I have friends who claim it's a must. But I've ultimately come to the conclusion that for my purposes (birding, macro) it would be a waste of money and I always kinda figured a good lens was more important.</p> <p>Sorry for the long post, I'd appreciate if anybody could share their experience :-)<br> Cheers,<br> Stefanie</p>