28-135IS/10D combo - poor

I loved this lens on my 35mm body � extremely sharp. But 4x6 prints

are softer when the lens combined with 10D. Is it 10D�s problem? Or

just this combination? Will �L� lens give any better results? Or post

processing is the only help (or in-camera adjustments)?

 

I will welcome your help,

 

Alexandra

I have the same combo and it works nice. Not as nice as my 70-200/4 but still just as good as it ever was on my film body. I do use USM before printing however.

4x6 prints are far too small to evaluate anything

Canon dSLR's - by the design so I am told - require images to be "sharpened". Most find the "in camera" settings inadequate. Photoshop (or photoshop elements) unsharp mask of 250 / 0.3 / 0 works wonders on 10d screen sized images.

 

The amount of sharpening required varies with the final output.

 

Side note: the sensor crop does imply that the "circle of confusion" induced by the lens is magnified, since prints are naturally more highly enlarged realtive to a standard 35mm sensor.

10D files are digital negatives and need levels, color and USM tweaking in PS to look their best. With film you pay the lab to post process. With digital you must do it. Straight from the camera the images are flat looking. With that said, I use the same combo and 4 x 6 to 8 x 12 prints are sharp as a whip with a couple minutes of PS tweaks, at least the ones I had printed on a Fuji Digital Frontier.

A lot of this depends upon where you're getting them processed. Is the lab just running them through without any adjustment (my pro lab sharpens files)? You will get sharper prints from L series lenses, but you shouldn't get "soft" prints just b/c you're using the 28-135 IS. How sharp/soft are the prints made from Film with the 28-135?

Got that lens and that camera. The images definetely needs sharpening and tweaking in PS. Additionally, set the exposure to - 1/2 to -1 constantly for best results.

Alexandra

I have the lens and I use it both on my Elan and 10D. If you are getting soft digital images something isn't right. I suggest a focus test to confirm the 10D is about right. I would want to be sure you are seeing a lack of sharpness and not soft contrast. The 10D images definitely need tweaking to get the contrast, gamma, and color right. You should not generally need to adjust sharpness. Yes, using sharpening controls are useful but you should not need them to get a real sharp looking 4x6. If you put a different lens on your 10D and can see a significant sharpness difference in a 4X6 print I would be amazed. You definitely do not need an "L" lens to get a razor sharp 4x6

Thats the combo I shoot and LOVE the results. I use only 50-65 on the USM though. And I add between +4 to +8 on Saturation. I do question the need to underexpose though, if anything, and maybe it is just my taste, I like the results better when I OVEREXPOSE by 1/2 stop with my 550EX flash.

 

Just my .02

that combo should be very good. At 4x6 you should be able to produce good images even if there are some minor blur or high ISO level because you down sample so much.

 

Perhaps you should play with the lens in different setting (aperture, ISO, etc) to see if there is any human error or other issues (such as focusing problem, though much rarer than what people rumored over the Internet).

Sharpen image in PS using unsharp mask (90,2,1) and then recompare.

If anything, the 10D should be sharper as it only uses the central 60% of the lens...

I also use the 28-135 IS with a 300D. The pictures are very sharp even before sharpening, and are crystal clear after USM is applied. The quality is better than what I used to get from a Minolta Dimage 7, and approaches fine grain slide film. I shoot with camera parameters set to +1 sharpening and +1 saturation. I see not inherant incompatibility.

It is known that canon digital SLRs use a very conservative sharpening algorithm.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page16.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1d/page19.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/page16.asp

 

the idea is to leave the sharpening to you, to maintain as much detail as possible.

As a side note, I had first been disappointed with the performance of my 28-135 IS lens using film and then on my 10D: what I had in the beginning failed to understand is that the depth-of-field is, due to the 1.6x crop factor, also effectively (by perception) shorter (but not physically, let's not get those confused).<BR>

This lens is designed for film, and the advantage of L lenses over this one is that L lenses have less diffraction in their optics (to put it simply); commercial image sensors are not currently designed to take light at an angle, but rather perpendicular to its surface area plane.<BR>

Film resolves this well, digital image sensors don't, so these shortcomings are more evident on digital cameras than on film.<BR>

Sometimes you are bound to find a 28-135 IS dud here and there, but the lens is very good in general. I like mine, but it is being used more for film, and on my 10D I use my 50 f/1.4 and the 17-40 L a lot more. Heck, the 17-40 L is getting more use on either body, who am I kidding? Still, I do not foresee getting rid of my 28-135 in the near future.