What Lens Should I Buy?

[wild_moments]

I am going on a 3 week backpacking trip to Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming and

recently picked up the 5d and the 16-35L II. So far, I am really not that impressed

with the lens it is completely soft at 16mm in all four corners. In fact, I shoot most

of my shots at 16mm and it seems like I have to crop every single on because is

just not in focus at the corners. Certainly doesn't seem worth the money. (Unless I

am doing something wrong here) As a matter of fact I was shooting with a 350D

with a Sigma 18-200 3.5-6.3 and I cant tell the difference (other than size of pixels)

when comparing photographs at 400% on PS2 with my new equipment.

(Comments here would be appreciated)

 

Anyways, I've got a budget of $1400 max to spend on camera left. What should I

buy? I was strongly considering the 100-400 as I really like to shoot tops of

mountains...I also really like macro so I could go with a macro lens or even a tilt

lens at a fixed length or one of ther 70-200mm series - although I prefer to have a

little more zoom and none of Canons 300m zoom lenses seem worth buying?

 

I guess I am looking best optical quality, most useful (especially during the day),

and best value. I'd also prefer to get a lens that doesn't have many additional costs

associated with it for necessary extras.

 

Thanks!

[bobatkins]

The 100-400 is pretty heavy. Perhaps not the best choice for backpacking.

 

I'd consider the 70-300IS if you want a telephoto. Put a 500D closeup lens on it for macro work.

 

Are you stopping the 16-35 down? I'd expect it to be a bit soft in the corners wide open.

[marco_hidalgo]

Hi Michael:

You are considering quite a big range of lens types, and it would be useful to focus

on one thing only to pick the best lens choice. It looks like you need a replacement

for your 16-35L II, but it seems to me that there is nothing better in the Canon lens

line at the moment! As for the Tele lenses, none of the 300mm zoom lenses will be

up to your quality expectations. The macro lenses will certainly do, and the 100-400

might be a bit soft at the 400 end, apart from the IQ of the lens itself, atmospheric

conditions will affect the shot. You need very clear days to get crispy mountain

shots, with average atmospheric conditions and a long tele you get quite blurry and

dull photos. I find 200mm is plenty for me, when I go trekking and never find myself

short of power to photograph mountains. But using a tilt lens for landscape,

hmmmm. that is something that can achieve very interesting results.

[William Michael]

Alternatively . . . if you are shooting in mainly daylight:

 

70 to 200F4IS

 

x1.4MkII

 

a set of extension tubes.

 

Light weight, reach, good IQ, some macro capacity, within budget.

 

***

 

Yes: at what aperture are you finding the 16 to 35MkII soft?

 

WW

[wild_moments]

F/8 & F/10. One shot in particular using F/10 using a tripod to shoot vertically I have serious softness to the point where I am cropping like a 1/4 of the foreground. It is a gorgeous picture too. Should I just be shooting at F16 - F/22 at all times? I am shooting running water in low light conditions and am averaging exposure times between 3- 25 seconds.

 

Thank you very much for your responses on the lenses. If anyone has anymore suggestions I'd appreciate it.

[saskphotog]

I don't think you should buy any lenses until you show us some of your pictures. From your last post, I am concerned you may be seeing depth of field issues that are being confused with softness problems.

 

Don't spend any money until you find out if it is a lens problem or a technique issue, or simply a misunderstanding about how lenses and cameras work. Post some pictures somewhere.

[._._z]

"As a matter of fact I was shooting with a 350D with a Sigma 18-200 3.5-6.3 and I cant tell the difference"

 

Sounds like you found your travel cam.

[zml]

If you could post a sample of this softness of @ 16 mm (with EXIF), it'd be helpful. I'm also curious about comparing pictures at 400%. Tell ya what: at 400% enlargement, I can't tell the difference between a picture taken with the bottom of a coke bottle and one taken with a 300/2.8...

[wild_moments]

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it. I specifically posted the picture I was referring in my portfolio. If you look at the bottom left hand corner of the picture (the green moss) there is an extreme amount of softness. There is no possible way for me to focus lock - I had the camera suspended 6 inches above the water vertically on a tripod.

 

Sorry I posted the picture in jpeg - let me know if you need me to repost in EXIF as I am still getting acclimated here. As far as the other pictures goes...I am comparing different pictures mind you - same subject matter - and my favorites taken with each camera. I honestly can't tell the difference in quality at 25%,50%,100%,300%...etc. I guess its more a question - should I be able to tell the difference or only if I were going to have large prints made 20 X 30?

 

Thanks again!

[zml]

It is really hard to tell from that picture whether it is the lens or the left lower corner falls outside of the depth of field. Also, at 10 seconds exposure, anything can happen... Try a test on wall or a similar target at more reasonable shutter speeds, like 1/250s or so - just make sure that the camera is squared (on both axis) in relation to the wall and that all four corners of the picture cover a similar subject/texture. Try different f/stops - fully open and something around f/8, and shoot from a reasonable distance. If you get softness in all 4 corners, send it out to Canon. OTOH if you see it only in one corner, then your sensor alignment might be shot.

[rainer_t]

If your "handofgodoriginal.jpg" shows your problem with corner softness ... keep the following in mind ...

 

- the lower two edges are (very likely) victims of depth of field.

 

- the upper two edges (containing a lot of leaves and branches) might be victimes of long exposure time (10 seconds in this case ... leaves move).

[ken munn]

That's not softness, that's out-of-focus (and movement blur on the leaves). You're asking

more of the lens than physics will allow.

 

If you want shots like this that are sharp front to back you'll have to shoot at smaller apertures

and work out hyperfocal distances.

[wild_moments]

Thank you everybody. I really appreciate it. Ok - so I am taking primarily wide angle shots (16-23mm) and outside of the the crux of the photo I really would like to have everything in the foreground in focus. Many times I will I use a rock or leaves in the corners of photo for scale, composition, patterns, etc. If these are out of focus it pretty much messes up my picture...

 

My question is: is there a general rule of thumb I should follow regarding aperture and depth of focus. Whenever I shoot wide with water, should I just be shooting at F/22? (I don't care so much about corners in the background and length of exposure is never really an issue) Before, with my 350D I was shooting everything at F/22 and had no problems and then I started reading and hearing that actually shooting around F/10 - F/16 is the "sweet spot" for the camera lens. And I guess I got a little confused...

 

Unfortunately I took like 5 shots of that photo and bracketed the exposure, but never changed the aperture. I almost always shoot in manual. Do you think if I would have shot at a lower aperture I could have gotten a clearer picture in the foreground?

 

Thanks again!

[saskphotog]

You do not need a new lens, you need to learn about photography.

 

There are limits to the physics of what a lens can do. What you are asking to be done can only be done with careful use of a tilt/shift lens, aperture control, and proper shutter speeds.

[William Michael]

> is there a general rule of thumb I should follow regarding aperture and depth of focus. <

 

The EXIF data is attached to the JPEG file you posted above.

 

But I also looked at the very large image you posted in your portfolio, and base my comments upon that better quality image.

 

The EXIF states you shot it at 17mm, 10secs @ F10 @ 100ISO @ 10secs, a 5D, using manual mode and then used Adobe Photoshop CS3.

 

Firstly, Michael, if you will, please, it is DEPTH of FIELD, which you are attempting to increase, not depth of focus (they are two different things).

 

Secondly you will get the maximum Depth of Field when you focus at the HYPERFOCAL DISTANCE for any specific APERTURE and FOCAL LENGTH.

 

My guess is you focussed the shot at infinity, or you were not specifically choosing any spot upon which to focus?

 

Nonetheless, if you were shooting at F10, and if you focused at a point about 4 ft away, when the zoom was set to FL = 17mm; everything would have been in acceptable focus from 2 ft to infinity.

 

Get a Depth of Field calculator (try `f calc`) and research the words in capitals above.

 

It is not a good idea to shoot with the lens stopped down to F22 as a general rule of thumb: such will create its own problems, (with REFRACTION): I (politely) suggest you leave that for later, it is not the point of this thread.

 

Also, a tripod dopes not necessarily mean `stable`, especially at a 10sec shutter speed.

 

Upon critical analysis of the large image you posted in your portfolio, there appears to my eye to be some camera movement which creates an overall soft image.

 

Also, it looks to me that the leaves are moving with the wind.

 

I believe all the above are issues and none of these lead me to believe that the lens is faulty.

 

Michael Liczbanski explained succinctly a good field test procedure.

 

I also suggest you follow that.

 

Importantly you should be using Shutter Speeds of around 1./250, and also (he does not mention) do three or four tests at different FOCAL LENGTHS, perhaps 16, 24 and 35, and each at three different APERTURES.

 

WW

[William Michael]

> Also, a tripod dopes not necessarily mean `stable`, especially at a 10sec shutter speed. <

 

[unfortunate typo :)] it should read :

 

Also, a tripod does not necessarily mean `stable`, especially at a 10sec shutter speed.

 

Sorry.

 

WW

[KenPapai]

"Importantly you should be using Shutter Speeds of around 1./250"

 

 

1/250 a bad suugestion for this type of shot, everything else you say is spot on.

 

...Except for running water/flow of falls in creeks, you want exposure times of 1/8 to 2 secs. AT MOST.

[William Michael]

Ken:

 

I think you misinterpreted the meaning and missed the continuity of my comments.

 

The reference to Shutter Speed 1/250 was to FIELD TEST the lens in respect of aberrations, especially at the corners, which Michael was first concerned about.

 

To get the water `flowing` I agree: 1/8 to 2 secs.

 

And I also agree with the `AT MOST` you added: to lessen the likelihood of camera shake affecting

the image.

 

regards

 

WW

[zml]

Yeah, 1/250s for testing (to minimize ev. camera shake.) <br>I usually donﾒt talk aesthetics here, but IMO a bubbling brook (of water) is OK at 1/15s or so: anything longer makes it a bubbling brook of milk, and this is not my cup of a beverage (pun intendedﾅ)

[William Michael]

Talking Aesthetics:

 

I reckon with moving water even 1/60 through to 1 or 2 seconds could be applicable and `correct` in various situations to get a specific desired effect.

 

I also contend (and agree with Michael L.) that anything longer than 2 seconds, would usually require another reason, other than to give the feel of the water `flowing`: I do not really like the milky effect either.

 

As an example I might choose 30 seconds to make a slightly rippled lake more like a glass mill pond: or to hide the movement of people in a darker part of the scene.

 

It could be that the `milky` flow here was intended: or it could be that as part of the five frame bracket, it was the image that appealed to the photographer the most, after the fact.

 

***

 

Second Guessing the reasons:

 

I think that the bracket of five shots might have been about getting an accurate exposure?

 

I say that not in a nasty way, but as a point of consideration for Michael G.

 

I think for this type of shot, if the exposure is nailed precisely and then we experiment with the bracketing and note the effect of five shutter speeds on the brook; we are only changing one parameter and have more control over the image and have a more precise reason for bracketing the shots.

 

In that regard (referring to another part of the question): if I were bracketing the shutter speeds, across a 5 frame spread, then I also would be adjusting the ISO and / or the Aperture to equate to the same exposure parameters.

 

The result of that procedure will be five images exposed the same * but with differentiation only in the speed of the brook, so we can just choose the best image on one factor, the `speed` of the brook..

 

* NB Technical note: Not all five will be exposed `exactly` the same, granted.

 

Changing the ISO will affect the noise: if we change the Aperture, we need to be cognisant of that affecting the Depth of Field.

 

WW

[wild_moments]

Thank you Michael and William for your input. I really appreciate it. I'll definitely look into the hyperfocal distance calculator. Thank you for that William. The milky look is always the look I go after if possible when it comes to streams, brooks, creeks, and rivers. It is what I like. I think a very focused foreground, properly framed and lighted combined with a milky flow of water - creates a very surreal image that stands in stark contrast to the rest of the picture outside the water. Then again, maybe its just personal taste. I do get a lot of compliments on it though...

 

I bracketed the exposures for nothing more than to experiment with HDR, which I didn't even bother with for this shot. As far as camera movement goes William - I the think the moss in the middle of the picture looks completely crisp - I have read that some people feel the 5D takes softer looking images in general. There was no processing whatsoever done on that picture I just used it as an example for corner softness. I am planning on purchasing that Photokit Sharpner by PIxel Genius to sharpen my images, especially for web viewing.

 

It is getting a little late tonight, but I would like to post another image to get your feedback on that one as well. Once again, I really appreciate your time and communication in this matter. It is very helpful. Thanks to all!

 

BTW - I am leaning towards the Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM as my next purchase. I am still not 100% sold on Canon lenses...

[William Michael]

> The milky look is always the look I go after if possible (. . . ) maybe its just personal taste. I do get a lot of compliments on it though... <

 

Absolutely: entirely personal opinions.

 

> As far as camera movement goes William - I the think the moss in the middle of the picture looks completely crisp . . . There was no processing whatsoever done. <

 

Do you mean a JPEG direct out of the camera or a RAW converted to JPEG, without any post production?

 

Are you looking at a full res JPEG image? Or the image posted in your gallery: note that I can only comment on the 1000 x 1500, 370Kb image posted in your gallery.

 

WW