Sigma 18-50mm; Canon 135mm 2L at Rock Concert , Opinions please

[richard_hoover]

The galleries contain what I consider representative of the best

from both lens. Pics are between 250k and 550k and generally around

800 x 500 pixels. EXIF info. will also display with the full photo.

 

http://warangel.typepad.com/photos/canon_concert/ - Canon EF 135mm 2L

 

http://warangel.typepad.com/photos/sigma_concert/ - Sigma 18-50mm 2.8

 

Pics are straight out of the camera - no processing - and shot in

jpeg in auto mode at iso 1600 with some exceptions [have since

switched to shooting in .raw].

 

I just got a Canon XT and these are pretty much my first pics with

it and I'm not quite sure what to think about the quality. In fact,

I wonder if maybe I got bad copies of both as both get "out of the

world" reviews.

 

Could really use input from others whether these straight out of the

camera pics are representative of the quality of these lenses and

otherwise, what people think.

[Greg M]

I guess you're going to have to point out the problems with those images for me to know what your problem is with the results. My own opinion is I don't think straight JPEG's are the way to shoot DSLR's unless you're a photo journalist. I never have been satisfied with straight JPEG images, and I'm not sure why someone shooting with such nices lenses would either. JPEG files out of my Canon digital SLR's always have seemed to either need additional color correction or unsharp masking, so I just shoot RAW and get it right the first time when I process them. To me, relying on straight JPEGs will only disappoint you as much as relying on "red eye reduction" to fix flash shots.

[bens]

i shoot 98% jpg on a canon 10d, using a variety of canon primes, tamron zooms and one sigma lens; i don't have the two Richard brings up here. i don't have the patience nor time to convert many RAW photos at once. i see a difference in quality between RAW and jpg but not so great that its worth the effort most times for me as an amateur hobbyist with time limits. getting the color balance and exposure right, and playing in photoshop, can deal with a lot of it. there's a bit more detail and dynamic range to my eye in RAW.

 

as for Richard's question, i think your 135/2 photos outdoors show a superior lens. the sigma seems a little inconsistent outdoors, but as a zoom lens i'm not surprised that its quality is not quite up to the 135/2 in terms of optical clarity, contras and colors. the indoor shots are affected by slow shutter speeds and white balance issues.

 

virtually all Canon DSLR digital photos needs some sharpening in my experience, including RAW.

 

i would say from what you present that you may just be entering digital and experiencing a certain "softness" to the photos without processing that startles long time film users sometimes. your 135/2 is excellent. i can't tell about the sigma.

[dogbert]

I have always maintained that it is the photographer not the equipment that makes good photos. My rule of thumb is that knowledge and skill account for about 75 per cent of a shot, good light accounts for about 20 per cent and the equipment counts for about 5 per cent.

 

Some of the shots are too contrasty, some look misfocussed and some look ok. Some of the lighting looks difficult and you will need to work out how to deal with it - blown highlights on someone's face for example is generally not a good look.

 

With the misfocussing you need to be careful about shallow depth of field, with people moving around. Focussing in servo mode might help.

 

I generally shoot jpeg, but I mostly do landscape work where there it is enough time to get the shot right in the field. (I prefer being outdoors than behind a computer.) Generally to make you shots shine a little postprocessing will be required. Also thow away 80-90 per cent of what you shoot (or more) and just work on the keepers. Don't expect to go to an event and shoot 50 shots expecting 47 of them to be keepers.

 

I doubt you have bad copies of both lenses, a few simple tests should confirm this.

[richard_hoover]

"experiencing a certain "softness" to the photos without processing that startles long time film users sometimes. your 135/2 is excellent"

 

Yes, that is something I consistently read about the XT and Canon lens. Problem is, pretty much every posted pic has been processed / sharpened so it's difficult to find a soft pic / straight out of the camera pic for various lenses to compare, ie. to say, okay, the level of softness I am seeing straight out of the camera is normal.

[Greg M]

When you say "processed", you are referring to the in-camera sharpening perameters you assigned, correct? I only ask this as your first post says "no processing", meaning to me no work at all on the computer after you downloaded them.

 

Once again, Canon's in camera sharening perameters, even turned up to the max, never has been as good to me as applying unsharp mask either through Photoshop to a JPEG or to a RAW file through my RAW processor, which is Capture One by Phase One. It does vary by model though. Images out of my Digital Rebel seem to have more punchy colors than what comes out of my 10D, even in the RAW files, but I cannot think of an image I have processed that I did not apply unsharp masking to get the results I wanted.

 

Bottom line of all this is, if you accept JPEGS for what they are straight out of the camera, regardless of lens used, you are accepting to some degree less quality than is possible and that's not why I sold my EOS 3 and Elan 7 two years ago and started using these digital bodies.

[richard_hoover]

GREG: I wouldn't say that shooting in JPEG is worthless, but yes, I am finding that shooting in .RAW is much better. And it is good to hear that it is quite normal that jpeg shots will need level correction and sharpening.

 

GEOFF: Thanks Geoff. Though I think a number of the shots are better than okay, especially once processed [level correction and sharpening applied], I definitely want to work on all the areas you mentioned.

 

This was my first time shooting with a dslr and my first concert shooting - all nonflash. The blown highlights bother me the most . . . I think my XT has a tendency to overexpose.

 

I am shooting another concert this weekend and am going to shoot with auto bracketing - though I guess if I shoot in .RAW I don't need to bracket but just adjust in .raw software.

 

So I definitely am looking to learn and adjust my deficiencies. I'm just concerned that equipment wise - I am working off an excellent, non hindering foundation - and worried that as a "newbie" I won't be able to spot when it is the equipment vs. me.

[Greg M]

Obviously I meant "Sharpening" Perameters above, not shareing perameters. I do wish we had the option to make corrections to our posts.

[cliff_shone1]

I wouldn't be too critical of the results you obtained considering the fairly difficult lighting conditions which forced to shoot at iso 1600 and 1/125 for a lot of your shots with the 135mm lens. If your're still concerned do some tests under controlled lighting conditions. I'd be surprised if you have any problems, however.

[Greg M]

I've found using the preview system in Phase One greatly speeds up my culling through the many RAW files I'll take at a wedding. before I ever get around to actually "processing" a file I'll delete dozens and dozens of images where people didn't keep their eyes open or, for some other reason the image just isn't one I want to include in the final proof set. Used to process and save everything RAW would be a huge time and memory consumer. To me the process I use today is just as fast as when I used to have to view all my slides via a loop and throw away the non-keepers. The difference is today I don't have to take what slides were left after the culling process and scan them into my computer and then make corrections for printing.

[bens]

whether raw or jpeg (and this discussion is encouraging me to take another look at raw for certain projects, i must admit, especially after looking at greg's excellent portfolio), they say digital tends to blow out highlights similar to when film people shoot for slides.

I've dealt with this in two ways -- first, underexpose at times. second, learn to use photoshop to dull the highlights when you add contrast and brightness such that the highlights get too high. i use layer masks myself, which is relatively easy, but there are several ways to deal with it.

 

generally, the dynamic range of my 10d can be a little disappointing, both at upper and lower ranges. post processing is crucial. (and this is based on taking some mixed jpg and raw shots this past weekend.)

[bens]

. . . last point, richard, in case you haven't focused on it, using the in camera histogram is crucial to being able to push images up or down in exposure while retaining information on either end.

[dogbert]

Sorry Richard,

 

when I said "ok", I meant acceptable in that they were not ones which should be trashed due to some obvious technical problem (eg camera shake, misfocus, blown highlights or something else - issues which I assume affect all of us). I was not attemting to make any judgements as to their aesthetic merits, as I assumed you were more interested in technical judgments about the shots.

[bens]

i lied, more thoughts -- richard -- check out tutorials on ps at luminous-landscapes.com. that's what broke the ice for me.

 

i think you have to cut yourself some slack. this is a different medium with a different bag of tricks -- my educated guess is that your equipment is fine, your learning of the computer side of digital is just beginning, enjoy the ride. feel free to browse my portfolio and give a shout if you have any questions. i post process in ps a lot and have a bag of tricks i'm glad to share if it helps. my email is on my portfolio page.

[rintintin]

One other reason to shoot RAW is that many of the converters (I use ACR in Photoshop CS2, but others offer this, too) offer "highlight recovery". They can pull information out of other channels to recover blown highlights in individual channels. This has saved me enough times on grab shots where I didn't have time to get the exposure right that I've switched to shooting mostly RAW. I just bought more CF cards. :-)

[grant g]

Looking at the exif data tells me that you have a bit to learn about low light situations.

 

For example there is a 135L shot where you are using Av set to f/3.2, ISO 1600 and 1/80. There is a little camera shake that is ruining the shot and looks to have blown highlights. f/2.8 and 1/160 would probably have been better or maybe even f/2 1/160 and ISO 800. The 135/2L is reputed to be sharp wide open. Learn how to use it.

 

While I also have a sigma 18-50/2.8, it is not for concerts. A 50/1.4 or 1.8 would have served you better for all of your 50mm shots.

 

Manual mode is your friend. : )

[richard_hoover]

Geoff: Nothing to be sorry about. All the areas you mentioned are areas I recognize need improvement, so In glad I am at least spotting many issues that you and others are spotting.

 

My main worry is being able to spot a bad or mediocre performing lens or camera [metering, focus. I just want at the start to eliminate equipment errors/ poor performance from the equation before I further proceed on my photographic journey.

 

P.S. Everyone. I loved it. I'm Hooked!

[fxdonny]

Richard, you are shooting ISO 1600, indoor, handheld, and asking opinion about lens sharpness, that is NOT the proper way to test whether a lens is sharp or not. I mean, I don't want to go into proper scientific test here, but if you really want to know how sharp your lens is, you've got to spend sometime shooting some boring stuff, may be like brickwall or something elses, but first of all, put the camera on tripod, then shoot at various different aperture, and speed, repeat the test, get the best image of each aperture, etc, and then, you can examine the picture properly. Here is why it is NOT proper: a)ISO 1600 >> too much noise/grain involved, b)indoor >> not enough light, contrast c)handheld >> handshake. YOU HAVE TO ELIMATE THOSE ELEMENTS, if you really want to know how sharp your lens is. Just my $0.02

[richard_hoover]

Grant: Agreed. And I tried to shoot at F2 most of the time but started stopping down because I was getting sharp guitars, mid stands and transits and thought that opening up the depth of field would counter that, ie. the mic and me face behind would both get in focus. At other times, I would stop down just to see what differences would result.

[bens]

i tend to find in situations like yours that from a distance, say 15 or more feet, shooting at f.2.8 provides good clarity for the subject's area, with a nice blur otherwise.

[richard_hoover]

FD: You're right. And your description of how to formally do it is very helpful - I've got a tripod and cable release on the way to set up such u process. Just for non, wanted to Know how sharpness and colors, contrast, tone for those conditions - handheld, available light, event concert shooting VS. what others are getting straight from the camera from those lenses and the XT's full scene metering/ exposing], in such circumstances.

 

I can see a difference in sharpness, detail and tone-feel between the Canon and Sigma, shooting under similar circumstances.

[bens]

don't forget the utility of a monopod in situations where you have to move around. i have found that a remote control switch in low light and relatively slow shutter speeds helps alot so you don't have to push down on the shutter button directly.

[richard_hoover]

BEn S: Pretty much all of those shots are from at least 15 feet and most from 30 to 40 feet or more away.

[gabrielma]

<i>My rule of thumb is that knowledge and skill account for about 75 per cent of a shot, good light accounts for about 20 per cent and the equipment counts for about 5 per cent.</i><BR><BR>

While I agree with you in principle, getting so "precise" with percentages, I must wonder then, does the formula apply with, say, cellphone cameras, or do you make certain assumptions about the equipment before thinking about assigning that 5%? Could he have taken those shots with a pinhole camera? He would get the same results, within a 5% margin of error, right?

[dogbert]

Hey its a rule of thumb and I said so! Next time I will provide an estimated range with confidence intervals if that will help you understand. My point is that in most cases if photos are not satisfying it is by far more likely to be an issue of the photographer's skill or difficult light than a problem with the equipment. How do I know? I see work that I really admire shot on digicams, P&Ss, manual SLRs, TLRs, and 50 year old box cameras. And I see plenty of junk (including much of my own work) which has been shot on the latest and greatest equipment. The biggest mistake in photography is to think that when your shots aren't working you need to go out and buy more expensive equipment.