Preventing anomalies

Maybe I would have been better off using an auxiliary with the kit lens

 

Probably better having in the back of your head that the lens in question has two main (basic) design features:

 

1. it is a ZOOM Lens

2. it has a VARYING MAXIMUM APERTURE

 

As generalizations:

 

A. we can expect that zoom lenses perform at their worst at the extremes of their zoom range: CA typically at the long end, Vignetting at the wide end; (two examples only of lens's technical performance factors)

B. we can expect a lens to perform at its worst at the extremes of the Apertures: CA typically when wide open, Diffraction when fully stopped down; (two examples only of lens's technical performance factors)

 

Hence - with the gear you had - from a totally TECHNICAL CRITIQUE - probably better to have PLANNED to:

> bump the ISO

> stopped down to at least F/8, F/11 if you could manage

> shortened the shutter speed

> pulled the shot at FL = 200~240mm, even if doing so meant a small crop in PP

 

***

 

That is a really useful graph. Are there similar graphs for other lenses?

 

Have a look at imaging-resource.com other on line reviews have some too.

 

Personally I hardly ever look at graphs; I find making photos much more fun. That happened to be one of several graphs I reference when teaching Practical Basics of Lens's Use - it just happened to be the lens you have and it just happened to be the sample graph I have referenced for thinking about CA when using a short to mid telephoto zoom.

 

There's nothing 'wrong' with your lens. Sure, arguably a Canon 70 to 200 F/2.8L zoom would do better, but those three L Series lenses have limits, also.

 

One of my technical tasks has always been to understand those limits so I can best utilize each of my lenses and push the limits if I need to.

 

WW

The best way that a newbie can learn is by making mistakes

And we’re all newbies in this regard. The main advantage conferred by the accumulation of knowledge, skill, and experience over years is discovering how little we know.

 

Each of us is well served by the intellectual curiosity to figure out why what happened happened. On more than a few occasions, I’ve discovered how I erred during capture by discovering what made it better in post processing and/or by seeing the effects of various manipulations. Playing with suboptimal images is often enlightening, fun, and educational.

And we’re all newbies in this regard. The main advantage conferred by the accumulation of knowledge, skill, and experience over years is discovering how little we know.

 

Each of us is well served by the intellectual curiosity to figure out why what happened happened. On more than a few occasions, I’ve discovered how I erred during capture by discovering what made it better in post processing and/or by seeing the effects of various manipulations. Playing with suboptimal images is often enlightening, fun, and educational.

 

I agree, but ultimately it becomes a waste of time, except in rare circumstances. Some people never learn to make great images because they've gotten addicted to fixing crap. I think that I misunderstood our OP and didn't really understand until later that he was asking about the CA in the sample image. Even the very best software can't fix bad CA, which often results when using "kit" lenses. Canon, for example, includes some horrid lenses in some of their entry level kits, only fixed by buying a better lens.

Some people never learn to make great images because they've gotten addicted to fixing crap.

Otis wasn't talking about "some people." He was talking about himself, thus the use of "I've" in I’ve discovered how I erred during capture by discovering what made it better in post processing and/or by seeing the effects of various manipulations. Playing with suboptimal images is often enlightening, fun, and educational.

My own experience is this. I started out thinking I could fix crap and by doing that I really honed my post processing skills, even though I didn't get much lemonade from the lemons I worked on. More often, I was able to compensate not for utter crap but for some things that happened in capture that needed further work. I'm not much of a purist, so if I don't get a result I'm completely ok with out of the camera I'm quite fine seeing if I can achieve something suitable with some post processing work. That valuable experience resulted in 1) my learning, by my own experience, that post processing wasn't really a fixit tool for garbage, and 2) my refining post processing skills that I could now put toward expressive use on photos that allowed whatever post processing I deemed appropriate.

 

I liken it to practicing scales on the piano, though in select ways. If I practiced too much finger technique and technical "chores" on actual pieces of music, those pieces could sometimes lose their luster for me and the musicality could be muted by all the exercising I'd done on them. If I did the exercising with scales, however, then I could put all my aesthetic and expressive effort into the musical compositions when I got to them, the finger technique having become more second nature via the scale work. And, sometimes, I did just the reverse, which was to try and give scales as much as expressiveness as I could muster so the exercising wasn't as sterile a place to be as it might otherwise have been. So, learning and practicing post processing on non-keeper photographs, for me, helped keep some of the drudgery (though often a pleasant kind of drudgery) or practice and exercise from the more expressive and personal uses of those very same skills that I put to use on more worthwhile photos.

It may have been overlooked but the opening post did ask for pre-processing fixes. The first edits occur before the camera is turned on, including tasks such as framing the shot, and cropping or other post-production edit is covering-up imperfections. I do crop etc., but it is not an intention to go there.

 

When a 6MP camera produces more pixels than most new monitors can display, why are camera makers pushing > 30MPs? o_O

When a 6MP camera produces more pixels than most new monitors can display, why are camera makers pushing > 30MPs? o_O

Photographers also make prints, where a lot of things are more apparent.

Photographers also make prints, where a lot of things are more apparent.

Granted, I am a luddite. I did not consider the feasibility of billboard pixel peeping.

 

In my view of the world most photographers will remain amateurs who share images electronically. I wonder how many pixels are in contemporary digital billboards..

The snark is unnecessary. I’m not talking about digital billboards or pixel peeping. I make 8 x 12 and 16 x 20 prints and am glad I have a camera with more than 6 mp.

Otis wasn't talking about "some people." He was talking about himself, thus the use of "I've" in I’ve discovered how I erred during capture by discovering what made it better in post processing and/or by seeing the effects of various manipulations. Playing with suboptimal images is often enlightening, fun, and educational.

My own experience is this. I started out thinking I could fix crap and by doing that I really honed my post processing skills, even though I didn't get much lemonade from the lemons I worked on. More often, I was able to compensate not for utter crap but for some things that happened in capture that needed further work. I'm not much of a purist, so if I don't get a result I'm completely ok with out of the camera I'm quite fine seeing if I can achieve something suitable with some post processing work. That valuable experience resulted in 1) my learning, by my own experience, that post processing wasn't really a fixit tool for garbage, and 2) my refining post processing skills that I could now put toward expressive use on photos that allowed whatever post processing I deemed appropriate.

 

I liken it to practicing scales on the piano, though in select ways. If I practiced too much finger technique and technical "chores" on actual pieces of music, those pieces could sometimes lose their luster for me and the musicality could be muted by all the exercising I'd done on them. If I did the exercising with scales, however, then I could put all my aesthetic and expressive effort into the musical compositions when I got to them, the finger technique having become more second nature via the scale work. And, sometimes, I did just the reverse, which was to try and give scales as much as expressiveness as I could muster so the exercising wasn't as sterile a place to be as it might otherwise have been. So, learning and practicing post processing on non-keeper photographs, for me, helped keep some of the drudgery (though often a pleasant kind of drudgery) or practice and exercise from the more expressive and personal uses of those very same skills that I put to use on more worthwhile photos.

 

So there's all kinds of traps that people fall into between taking an image and "completing" it. For example, I have one wildlife photographer friends that has tens of thousands of unconverted RAW files because he can't spare the time to cull and select the first level of keeper (in wildlife, we may take 1,000 and process 10). Another friend waivers between "realistic" and "artistic" because she literally can't make up her mind. I suggest that she do both initially and if really drawn to the "artistic" interpretation to go back and invest more time to explore fully.

 

I've been deep into digital photography since 2007 and I've only tried "recovering" less than a handful of shots and only one of those was worth it because a capture a once in a lifetime image with too low a shutter speed:

 

Reprocessed Blackbird On Owl Shot (Explored) by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

The OP has come back and let us know that he was interested in pre-processing thoughts. I gave those in my initial posts on this thread.

 

My point of view is colored by my wildlife photographer perspective, but it's bled over into my Street and Travel photography. I still go for an "accurate" interpretation, starting in-camera, trying to tell a story, but doing very little post-processing. I mainly adjust color temp, or occasionally convert to B&W, adjust Shadows, adjust Highlights and Crop. I'll Clone out distracting objects, but that's more so a wildlife thing than with Street or Travel, where I try to crop in-camera, but I'll allow some room around subjects sometimes, in anticipation of a later crop.

 

I'm processing almost every day and have a full-time job (financial risk consultant), and my goal is usually to be "realistic", so I'm not looking to roll around in an image and try to make it into something that it's not; however, I understand that point of view and know some people that really enjoy that. I thought that our OP was coming from my more "realistic" POV from his first post.

so I'm not looking to roll around in an image and try to make it into something that it's not

That's not what post processing has to be about. Post processing, for me, is about making the photo what it IS. I don't consider a photo to start out as something and then get transformed into something that it was not. My "process" starts at the moment of capture (or before if I've done some planning) and ends when the print is hanging on the wall or shared via the Internet. What it IS is a process that seems to end when I share the picture, which is what people see when they look at what's there in front of them.

 

My goal may be to be realistic sometimes, to be expressive sometimes, to be creative sometimes, and there's plenty of overlap. Ultimately, I'd say my goal is to be photographic. This means, for me, to take what the camera gets pointed at through all the stages and manipulations that cameras, lenses, perspective, lighting, focus, and post processing may include and come up with a picture, a picture which may closely represent reality or not, depending on the case. If I want to meander from accuracy, there are many ways to do that, via perspective, framing, lighting, exposure settings, aperture openings, and post processing. But, for me, it's all what it IS.

Sigma 70-300 DG macro

So the main culprit here is a crappy lens with high CA. Also, 1/180s shutter speed is too slow for (a) 300mm focal length on a crop sensor body (sans IBIS) and (b) for small birds that are constantly moving.

 

Don't know whether the image as posted has been cropped from the original - if so, then 10MP isn't much to begin with.

 

Do you think using a flash would have helped?

Yes. And No. Flash might help freezing the motion and bring some desired catchlight into the bird's eye (as well as some more light onto the subject as well). Trouble with using flash is that it either requires setting the camera to the usually rather slow sync speed (rarely faster than 1/320s and often only 1/250 or even 1/125) - now one totally relies on flash freezing subject motion and blur induced by camera motion. Or one needs HSS (high-speed sync) which significantly reduces flash distance (despite the fresnel-lens flash extender in front of the flash). I had my period of using flash in bird photography but have long since given up carrying one as in most cases it isn't more than a rather insufficient fill-flash. In addition, with many birds, using flash gives you a one-shot opportunity as most birds take off the instant the flash goes off. Whether or not the flash actually hurts the bird is subject of intense debate; personally, I don't like to have a flash go off into my eyes and simply assume that the bird feels likewise. One goal of any wildlife photographer IMHO should be not to disturb the subject to get the shot - another reason not to use flash as it certainly gets you noticed.

So the main culprit here is a crappy lens with high CA.

 

Disagree with the (implied) emphasis/nuance - I think this is an important point -

 

As I believe I have pointed out, and reiterate now for clarity - the lens is quite capable and it actually presents with CA which, for the most part, is unremarkable.

 

Apropos the presentation of CA in the sample image: the (two) main culprits where the Aperture chosen and the Focal Length chosen - both these combined rendered the lens at its worst CA.

 

WW

Disagree with the (implied) emphasis/nuance ... the lens is quite capable

OK, so to clarify: crappy for the intended application "bird photography" - which likely forces the use of the longest focal length and fastest aperture in most cases - just the scenario that brings out the worse in this particular lens. In my experience, 300mm - even on a crop sensor camera - is quite limiting. And at 300mm, the lens does not perform well (not only for CA but resolution as well) - both in the test you linked to above and in others I've seen. The lens is indeed quite capable between 70 and 200mm, especially given its price point.

 

The lens' performance actually reminds me a lot of the Nikon AF 75-300mm lens I started bird photography with - quite capable up to 200mm, and not so much beyond. Though CA never got as bad as with the Sigma. Yet the lens proved quite unsuitable to produce satisfactory images at or near its longest focal length (unless stopped down to f11, which is not an aperture one can use often in bird photography).

Yes, Dieter, I agree entirely with your clarification and expansion of the all the point and the comparison you make to a 70~300 Nikon (could easily be Canon also). Thank you for replying.

 

Not the best lens choice, for this particular job: and, the factor of price point is usually relevant in mostly all circumstances.

 

WW

What is annoying about the Sigma's limitations at 300mm is that the Sigma's macro focus only works at 300mm. It is also a heavy lens and a lot of bulk to carry, so if its not all usable then it might as well never be used. Many of my other lenses can reach 200mm and I now feel obliged to work through them diligently to identify which lens has the longest usable focal length.

What is annoying about the Sigma's limitations at 300mm is that the Sigma's macro focus only works at 300mm. It is also a heavy lens and a lot of bulk to carry, so if its not all usable then it might as well never be used. Many of my other lenses can reach 200mm and I now feel obliged to work through them diligently to identify which lens has the longest usable focal length.

 

Unfortunately, everyone that I know that's tried Sigma/Tamron for nature/wildlife has ended up moving to a high end Canon/Nikon/Sony lens to match their cameras, as soon as they can afford it. Unfortunately again, that can be very expensive. For example, a high quality 100-400mm from Sony/Nikon/Canon will set you back well over $2,000, new. To save money, I generally recommend to friends and students that they look for high quality used equipment instead of new third-party brands. Highest quality used lenses tend to hold their value, so if you by a high quality used, name brand lens for $900 and use it for two-years before moving up to something even better, you likely can sell it for $800. That's not true of bodies, but highest quality lenses tend to hold their values.

 

When I shoot my Sony 100-400mm G Master lens, I'm not thinking about what focal length is weak at what aperture. I shoot without worry at whatever FL and f-stop that I need.

In certain jungles, I would consider flash, but, in general, bird photography is best without flash. The OP needs to raise ISO and shutter speed and get a better lens.

...When I shoot my Sony 100-400mm G Master lens, I'm not thinking about what focal length is weak at what aperture. I shoot without worry at whatever FL and f-stop that I need.

 

David, for bird photography, do you know how often you use the zoom on that lens as opposed to using it at 400mm?

 

I ask because (my background being predominately Wedding and Portraiture), the general mantra amongst those who gave advice re what lenses were 'beginner's must have' for Weddings, almost always included the 70 to 200 F/2.8 zoom: that is not and was not my view - when most W&P photographers analysed how often they used that lens and then at what FL it appeared it was essentially used as a 200 Prime.

 

Understand, I am not questioning your choices for lens purchase, rather asking your view on the value for money aspect of buying an excellent quality 300mm or 400mm Prime, (rather than a zoom) for someone starting out in bird photography.

 

WW

for bird photography, do you know how often you use the zoom on that lens as opposed to using it at 400mm

For me, it's almost 100% at the maximum focal length of the zoom. There might be 5-10% where I could have zoomed out - but there was either no time or I simply wasn't fast enough or forgot. A bit different for airshow photography - a good deal is shot towards the lower end of the zoom range - but it is often more convenient to shoot with two bodies and two lenses then instead.

buying an excellent quality 300mm or 400mm Prime

For bird photography, 300mm is often too short (even on a DX crop sensor camera). And high-quality 400mm primes that don't cost an arm and a leg are rare (Canon's 400/5.6 being one exception; their 400/4DO is almost $7k). In Nikon-land, I am unaware of any reasonably priced 400mm prime lens; the only option there is to use the 300/4PF with a TC-14 teleconverter - and that rig sets you back $2.5k! The best budget option here is the Nikon 200-500/5.6 - or any of the third party zooms that go up to 600mm. For Sony, I'd rather buy their 200-600 lens than a third-party alternative - even if the lens cost a few hundred dollars more. To me about the only advantage of using a 80/100-400 instead of one of the longer zooms is that the size and weight of the narrower-range zooms are smaller. Nikon's 500PF lens, even though at almost $4K not exactly cheap, can nonetheless be considered a bargain - there simply is no competition.

 

The rule of thumb with superteles (zooms or primes) - once the diameter of the front element is 100mm or more - expect prices in the $5k+ - $12k range for new lenses.

 

As David points out - some money can be saved by purchasing used - and not because high-quality optics holds its original value but because in many cases, if old enough, does not and can be purchased for a fraction of its original price tag. So a Nikon 200-400 VR1 that cost almost $5K some 10 or so years ago, can now be had for around the price of a new 80-400/4.5-5.6. Or a 300/2.8 that was in the same price range some time ago, is now available for $2k (and works quite well with a 1.4x TC). Even older (and often heavier or lacking VR) 500/4 and 600/4 lenses can be had for 1/3 of their original price. Once they are in that price category, they can be used for a couple of years and resold for almost as much as one has paid for them (which is what David already stated above).

 

Please note that I did not include m4/3 in my discussion above - I don't know those systems well enough to comment. Certainly, a 300/4 on a m4/3 will be a formidable lens for bird photography - I am just not sure I would want to deal with the small m4/3 sensor here.

David, for bird photography, do you know how often you use the zoom on that lens as opposed to using it at 400mm?

 

I ask because (my background being predominately Wedding and Portraiture), the general mantra amongst those who gave advice re what lenses were 'beginner's must have' for Weddings, almost always included the 70 to 200 F/2.8 zoom: that is not and was not my view - when most W&P photographers analysed how often they used that lens and then at what FL it appeared it was essentially used as a 200 Prime.

 

Understand, I am not questioning your choices for lens purchase, rather asking your view on the value for money aspect of buying an excellent quality 300mm or 400mm Prime, (rather than a zoom) for someone starting out in bird photography.

 

WW

 

WW, I almost never shoot my 100-400mm at shorter than 400mm, when shooting birds. My main rig for birds is a 600/f4 plus a 1.4x teleconverter, yielding 840mm on a full-frame body. The 100-400mm is around my neck in case a coyote or deer shows up. I use the 100-400mm quite often to shoot sunsets and landscapes, yet, the first one of those I snatched from my archive was at 400mm:

 

Bison In Front Of Rocky Mountains by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

THE lens that I started with for birding was the EF 400mm f/5.6L Canon. It was a super sharp lens, but I craved more reach and moved up to the EF 500mm f/4L in a matter of months.

 

Oh, for mirrorless Canon shooters, the R-mount f/11 (fixed aperture) 600mm and 800mm are EXCELLENT values, at $600 and $800 respectively. They're light, fast-focusing and they have excellent IQ, comparable to the $13,000 lenses, IN GOOD LIGHT.

Thank you, Dieter and David for replying.

 

... coincidentally, for entirely different reasons, I was looking at those two R Mount Telephoto Prime Lenses yesterday - I concur 'excellent' value for money.

 

WW

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experience.

 

I rummaged through my "bits box" and found a vintage HOYA 200mm and x2 teleconverter. This setup produced some CA on branches at 400mm f5.6 ISO200 1m-2m distance, but not as much. I saw no animals today except for a bee that is perhaps not an ideal subject for long distance zooms.

Edited February 27, 2021 by G&R

As an aside, that old lens combo produced a fantastic portrait of my unsuspecting wife with no CA at 400mm. The focus would have been to infinity, so I wonder if focus is more impactful than zoom?

As an aside, that old lens combo produced a fantastic portrait of my unsuspecting wife with no CA at 400mm. The focus would have been to infinity, so I wonder if focus is more impactful than zoom?

 

A good zoom can be a wonderful portrait lens. I've now got a Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM, which is exceptional, but, in my Canon days, I loved my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS for portraits. That was a very versatile lens.