No �Wow!�

"Geoff, what part of this is nonsense: The 24-105 4L is not a "wow" lens. It's a slow, kit, catch-all, long throw

zoom lens. There are so many better lenses optically speaking in that range."

 

Subjectively speaking, I read this as a dismissal of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS as a non-descript, mediocre

lens. If that is your intent, I have to disagree strongly.

 

While there may be "better lenses optically" in that range (though I sure can't think of any other 24-XXmm

zooms that are demonstrably "better" in all ways) the 24-105 is a fine lens that can produce quite excellent

results.

 

As I'm certain you know, the term "kit" lens is used to describe the cheapest entry-level lenses, lenses that

may be OK optically but which are constructed somewhat cheaply and aimed at beginners.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your term "catch all." While I interpret this to mean sort of "jack of all trades, master

of none," perhaps you meant that it is a fine performer in a wider variety of circumstances than its

competitors?

 

By default, given my earlier post, I have to agree that it is not a "wow" lens - but that is because I don't think

there is such a thing as a "wow" lens. So, while I agree with you, it isn't because the 24-105 fails to meet the

"wowness level" of other competing lenses.

 

All of this is not to say that the 24-105 is the "best" lens for all users or all purposes. Depending on ones

intentions (and I don't mean standards of IQ) the "best" lens could be the 24-105, the 24-70, or even the EFS

17-55 f/2.8.

 

Dan

"It is a 3.5 star lens for optics. The Tamron 17-50 is great for the crop bodies."

 

I am not sure how photozone come up with their star rating but 3.5 stars is what the 17-40 L and the 24-70L get, while the Tamron which has much the same MTF perfromance, more CA and field curvature gets 4. Go figure?

 

The real question is whether Dave's photo would have changed dramatically if much at all if he had used a different lens?

Probably the best thing for "WOW" are the right filters. If you want the sky to pop more a polarizer is a big help. People rely on photoshop too much IMHO.

 

The Tamron lenses often have better MTFs than the Canon lenses, so they get better scores. Photozone does not measure lens contrast or flare resistance, which have a big influence on "WOW," however.

Howdy!

 

Dave, before I ramble on, I must compliment you on your attitude and willingness to learn. It's way cool.

 

I suspect that the "wow" you were looking for comes from the experience of capturing a scene well with a minimum of effort by using a state of the art toolset.

 

In response to that, I have two words:

 

Me too. ;^<)>

 

Every time I pick up a camera, I want the same experience. You are definitely not alone.

 

While state of the art tools do not guarantee a "wow" experience, they certainly help. But the more experience and knowledge you obtain, the easier it will be for you to obtain the "wow" experience. And this forum is an excellent resource.

 

As much as we argue the relative merits of this or that lens, I myself have experienced "wow" with three (and only three) lenses:

 

50mm f1.8 - This thing is less than a hundred bucks AND has excellent optical quality!

 

85mm f1.8 - Sharp as a tack, and focuses really fast in low light!

 

70-200mm f2.8L IS - This thing is really freaking heavy (and expensive), but for the image quality and versatility, I'll carry it all day!

 

Even though it has excellent image quality, I don't get a Wow! out of my 17-55mm f2.8 IS. As a portrait photographer, most of my "wow" comes from the ability to isolate a subject from the background. Wide angle is nice, but it doesn't necessarily "wow" me.

 

Of course, everybody has different tastes. Keep asking questions. Look for inexpensive ways to add "wow", such as filters. You'll get there.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

For Ken Papai, I'm interested in your comment about the 24-105/4L as I was planning to buy one of these in the near future. Everything I've heard about this lens is that's it's basically "as wow as a zoom can be". Maybe not quite on par with the 70-200L's and certainly not as good as a prime, but you make it sound rubbish? What would you suggest as an alternative?

first off, that looks like it isn't far from MY Front door, maybe 20 miles? Where is that roughly?

 

After reading all of the responses I think everyone has provided some good direction and I agree with them. I think Paul Thomas has the right of it though and its something I'm learning myself. I've been shooting digital for close to 7 years now and I rarely see 'wow' other than the subject. I caught a hockey player jumping over the goalie once, that was wow. But there were faults with it too.

 

As I begin to try out Medium format and Large format cameras, all I can afford are prime lenses, and the results do give me that 'wow' even if the composition is off a bit. My Mamiya has only an 80mm lens and I get sharper images from that than my dSLR with zoom lenses. Its enough to push me towards prime lenses for my digital gear and the 85mm is one I definitely want. If at all possible rent or borrow a prime lens and see if that helps your images 'pop' or 'wow' at all.

 

Just a suggestion and good luck!

The problem is the photographer, no hard feeling :). You're just too new for your DSLR...spend some time with it, read the manual, learn post processing technique, take a lot of pictures and make note of your mistake and eventually you'll have some WoW images. Don't expect to get WoW images right away just because you have a $1000 camera and an L-series lens. Good lucks

I could formulate my opinion, but it would cover a lot of things already said ...

 

So i'll keep it to this: It's not the gear that you use, but what you do with it that causes "wow". With almost all the cameras i bought i was disappointed at first, but i just had to learn to use it, and discover its strong points. The difference between SLR and digicam become more obvious the harder the circumstances; low light, sports, macro ...

 

And this, my "lens wows" ;)

 

EF-S 17-55: Incredible image quality (matched by none of my other lenses), and by far the fastest focusing lens i have (especially in low light). I hear a lot about the low-light focus speed of the EF 85/1.8, but it's way slower than the 17-55.

 

EF 85/1.8: Something about the pictures it takes really appeals to me. I think it's the combination of shallow DOF, great contrast, and great colors ...

In digital is essential learning well the post process technique.and always to know well your camera.

You have got a lot of good comments about post processing which are useful. I want to add, actually ask, what time of day was this photo taken? Looks like around noon if I read the shadows correctly. That is a bad time of day to take landscapes - no amount of excellent equipment is going to get you a wow picture if the light is bad... <p>

Given the equipment you have, compared to a point and shoot, you should get more "wow" when you make bigger prints. Also when you take photos that depend on detail - this setup should be sharper than a point and shoot (that was the case for me when I switched to L lenses...). The other "wow" you may get is when shooting at higher ISOs - the new camera should have a lot less noise. That was a major "wow" for me after ditching film for the 20D.

<p>

The bottom line is that wow starts mainly with the photographer - equipment only ads the icing (or allows the wow in the first place).<p>

Cheers and keep shooting (especially during the golden hours...)

That shot seems to have been taken around mid-day. IMO this is the worst time for

contrast and color. Try shooting around the "magic hours" and using a graduated ND

filter for even contrast between sky and land as well.

Never do an early judgment on anything. I bought a Nikon D40 in January, with the kit lens;

18-55 and I dropped my jaw when I get the first 50-100 images. I carrying all the time with

me, beside the D300 and the film FM3a. I have images on the PN, shoot with this camera,

and you would not tell witch is from my D300 or the D40. This little plastic lens, 18-55 ( 2 ED

glass inside) is a miracle. Better the the new VR versions. And I bought a 16-70 VR for it, just because, I like wide angles. I can say only one world. The camera is a little marvel.

And I bought an after-market battery holder/grip to it, (eBay; $36.00 holding two batteries.) because for my hand, the camera was to small. I can say a lot of "WOW" now.

 

Cheers; Bela Laszlo Molnar

It's all about the light. Tough to get a decent shot at that time of day.

First, I have to say that I feel like I'm sneaking into an area I normally don't venture as I use Nikon equipment. However, I think in principle, the camera is not the issue. The last few comments about the lighting and time of day are right on the mark I believe--the sun at "high noon" makes it only more difficult to produce an image that truly inspires. Composition is also a component of the 'wow' factor to which you refer--this goes a long way to make or break a successful image. I also don't get a sense of what *you* are looking for when you speak about this wow factor---what do you feel is lacking in the image? With what you know about photography and your equipment, what do you think you could do/or could have done to make this image better?

 

I do find it interesting that the lenses some of you have mentioned for Canon for your great shots are the same ones I use on my Nikon: the 50mm f/1.8, the 85mm f/1.8 and 17-55mm f/2.8 are capable of llowing me to make some very good images.

 

Please forgive me for straying into foreign waters! I'll work my way out now. take care.

Going from a point and shoot producing a jpeg, to a DSLR shooting raw can be a shock. You'll get more useful resolution and lower noise at higher ISOs, but the picture will look more drab depending on the settings of your camera and the program you use to "develop" the raw image. You can use Canon's Picture styles to set your initial settings (I use Landscape) and that will do some similar things to the point and shoot like boost saturation, sharpening, etc. Then you can experiment to where you like the settings.

 

Even then, in RAW the settings are only "advice" that the camera is giving the developing program. If that program heeds them, what you see on screen will match your expectations. If not, then you'll have to set the settings to what you want.

 

What I'm saying is that RAW gives you a lot more control, but also requires more involvement on your part than the point and shoot did.

Amen to all of the above. A priority list to achieve WOW would look something like this. Subject. Lighting. Composition. Camera settings. (filter?). Media (RAW, or JPEG). Post production. Lens. Camera.

 

Also, David's point is well taken. RAW images out of the camera usually look like shit, but give you the best possibility opportunity to end up with a WOW finished image if you're willing to spend the time to learn how to use the tools. And be forewarned, the learning curve will require a substantial investment in time including trial and error.

Your lens did fine. Point-and-shoot cameras usually have the levels set so that you do not usually have to do any further post-processing. They are made mostly for persons who want snapshots and who expect the camera to do it all.

 

DSLRs, on the other hand, give "conservative" files in most cases (in terms of levels and other variables) so that you can decide what to do with them. This seems like trouble, but it is one big reason most photographers prefer DSLRs: they give more creative control.

 

That said, you have to do the "creating," that is, take a fairly flat file and make it into the picture you want. If this is too much trouble, then going back to a point-and-shoot is always an option--at least for many shots that might not justify getting out the DSLR.

 

Not really that bad for a snap out the door. . . .

 

--Lannie

See Ian's comment about the light (also noted by others).<p>

 

Then have a look at <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=184430>a few of Ian's many excellent photos</a>.<p>

That photo literally was "out my front door." I'm on the board of directors for my homeowners association and I was walking up the street with my new camera at mid-day to document a poor job of concrete pouring at one of the homes. I saw the mountains hanging above me, flipped the camera over to RAW from JPEG, and fired away. My intent was to send the RAW to a buddy and ask him if he thought the camera was working okay (technically, not artistically), but then I remembered the PhotoNet forum and posted it here too.

 

And am I glad I did! I really appreciate the comments and discussion and I don't mind being told the problem is the photographer. I prefer that to hearing it's the equipment (although the jury is still out on my choice of lens. (grin)) After all, I was testing the camera, not shooting for National Geographic. That's also why there was no post-processing.

 

Chris � that's a photo of the Wasatch Front of the Rocky Mountains. My job brought me to Utah in 1991 and I live in Cottonwood Heights.

 

Paulsky � does your 50mm f/1.8 "hunt" when it tries to autofocus and eventually fail? I bought one too and in low light conditions the autofocus motors back and forth until I give up and turn it off. Under the exact same conditions, my 24-105 will snap to focus, although at a much slower shutter speed. Testing that lens is my next project.

When i bought my DSLR, i too had high expectations that the camera would perform miracles. That the images would be amazing, but after my first trip i was left dissapointed wondering why they were pretty abismal. It is in the editing side that i could make the images alot better. Keep shooting and messing with the editing side of things!

"I didn't worry about composition, lighting or metering and I didn't do any levels, curves or sharpening in Photoshop"

You can't shoot like that AND expect a wow,right? (8-)

Howdy!

 

Dave, you can solve the 50mm f1.8 focus hunting problem (or any lens focus hunting problem) with either a Canon ST-E2 or a Speedlight.

 

The ST-E2 is a controller for external Speedlights, but it also does a very nice job of painting the subject with a pattern of red lines that work great for autofocus.

 

Granted, it's Two Hundred Bucks, so unless you do a lot of work in really low light or work with external flashes, it's probably not worth it for you.

 

On the other paw, if you have a Speedlight and a 40D, you can turn off the flash functionality and use the autofocus assist functionality on the Speedlight to achieve low light photography without flash, in the same manner that you would use an ST-E2.

 

And of course, there's always the "pop-up flash autofocus assist" but that's really gross, and if you're going to use it, you might as well shoot flash.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

"I guess I expected to be more impressed with the quality of the lens and camera sensor than I was. Does that make sense?"

 

It makes sense that you'd want to see some real difference having spent a lot of money on gear. However, despite what you might read on the web and despite what the camera and lens makers will tell you, the difference between a $1000 system and a $2000 in terms of technical quality is a lot closer to 10% than 100%. Sure you get more when you pay more, but it's a matter of diminishing returns. If you'd bought an $8000 1Ds MkIII you'd have been even more surprised that you didn't get an instant "WOW" factor.

 

It's like cars. A $400,000 Ferrari doesn't really have that much more "WOW" than a $200,000 Ferrari (at least not $200,000 worth more WOW). Of course if you compare it to a $20,000 Toyota Camry, then the WOW factor comes into play!

"The 24-105 4L is not a "wow" lens. It's a slow, kit, catch-all, long throw zoom lens. There are so many better lenses optically speaking in that range."

 

As with all posts on an Internet forum you will get correct information and you will get incorrect information. A couple of points. There is no such thing as a professional camera or lens. If an expensive camera is used by a novice it is just an average camera. If a cheap camera is used by a skilled pro, it is a professional tool. Simple logic. A good carpenter can use a $5 hammer or a $50 hammer and still drive the nail perfectly.

 

The real issue here is the way you are using the camera. You have a fine camera and a very incredible lens. Asking the camera to decide how best to capture the image is like having someone else take the picture "they" see and not "you". Learn to use your creative modes on the camera and how to process your results and you may have a much better chance at "WOW".

 

Most of the Canon Masters of Light photographers will most likely tell you they all use the 24-105 at times, and I know one who says it's his favorite portrait lens. Kit lens? NOT.

 

Take your time to learn your gear and you will be happy with the investment you have made.

 

Lou

WOW!

Bob knows all about Ferrari's too! :)

(ducking for cover)

 

You're on the other side of the rockies to me!