Looking for maximum sharpness (lenses)

[julie_a.]

<p>I have been using mostly a kit lens (from a Canon 20D) on my new 7D body. I am happy with results other than sharpness of my images. How can I get maximum sharpness?<br>

I have a decent budget and am considering an L series lens. Is there a considerable difference in sharpness? Also, is it better not to buy a zoom?<br>

As an aside, I know little about shooting in RAW. Does shooting in RAW deliver better clarity? </p>

<p>Thanks for any input.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Consider trying to figure out why you don't have what you consider "sharpness", before thinking about switching gear. Most unsharpness is caused by user issues, not the gear. Are you properly focusing, are you moving the camera during exposure, are you looking for depth of field at large apertures, is your diopter eyepiece properly adjusted....as you can see, there are lots of user variables. Until you eliminate each one, you won't solve your problem. On the gear side...RAW stores the info captured in your shot, and you then must process it with software, whereas JPEG partially processes that info....what software are you using for your post processing? Perhaps you could show us a picture, cropped from a 100% view along with EXIF data so that we could offer meaningful rather than broad assistance.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It will help a great deal if you mention what sort of images are involved, shot under what sort of lighting conditions at what ISO, and at what focal length, shutter speed, and aperture.<br /><br />Why? Because while high-end lenses can indeed contribute to sharpness under some circumstances, what most people perceive as a lack of sharpness has far more to do with technique, lighting, and post-production strategies. Consider posting an example image here, with the EXIF data intact ... you'll get a lot of very specific pointers along those lines.</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>Attached is an image as an example. It is not that it is out-of-focus, I am just looking for that sharpness that I see in some images where it's almost as if each individual eyelash is crisp! Maybe that is in the post-processing?<br>

I am using only Photoshop, but not in full capacity as I am still learning the program.<br>

This was shot at f/5.6, shutter speed was 1/250. ISO was 1000. </p>

<p>Not sure why I can't get that image insertion right. Here is the link:<br>

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh90/pajamafeet/IMG_3320WEBedit.jpg<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[peter_e]

<p>RAW would not give you sharper images, and primes these days are not necessarily "sharper" than a good zoom either. I suggest you do a little test, shooting a flat surface (brick wall) head on (not from an angle, but looking perpendicular to the wall) on a sunny day, and using autofocus. Do you get what you consider a sharp image? Use aperture priority, and change the aperture in increments from full open to full closed. You should get the sharpest image at around f = 8 or so. If it is not as sharp as you desire, see if you can improve it by sharpening in some image software, e.g. the one that came with the camera. If you are still unsatisfied, you may consider stepping up to an L series zoom. Also, keep in mind that an image taken with a 20D looked at 100% may appear sharper than that of the 7D at 100%. The 7D will still have more resolution.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's impossible to tell, with that scaled-down image. Try cropping out a section (say, around the eyes) at 100% so we can see part of the image at its native resolution on screen. <br /><br />Yes, though, you're right that much of what people are seeing when they see super-duper sharpness - especially around the eyes - is from a variety of post-production sharpening and contrast enhancing techniques.<br /><br />Whether your particular lens is at its sweet spot when you're shooting at f/5, as you did in this example, is something you can discover with some careful testing on static subjects. If your lens only opens up to f/3.5, and you're at f/4, you're probably not getting the most out of the lens, if sharpness is your goal (closer to f/8 would be sharper ... but it would also put more of the background in focus, and require to either raise ISO, add more light, or lower the shutter speed ... all of which can introduce other problems.</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>Matt, thank you for your input. Here is the original file, just the eyes cropped out.</p><div></div>

[julie_a.]

<p>And I will try that, Peter. Thank you.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The EXIF states that the sample was taken with the 20D and (I assume the kit lens which came with it), FL = 40mm - F/5 @ 1/320s @ ISO1600. (Exp bias +1)</p>

<p>I am familiar with this equipment. The Kit Lens will be the NON IS, version? At 40mm the aperture is wide open at F/5. The lighting in that particular image is soft / diffused on her face.</p>

<p>Whilst RAW capture and sharpening would have assisted to get a sharper image: pulling the shot at: F/7.1 @ 1/160s @ ISO1600 would have been better to begin, (provided she and you were still/steady enough for 1/160s). That lens works MUCH better between F/7 and F/11 - especially at the edges at the telephoto end. <br>

Here it is: resized up; sharpened; mid tone contrast increased a little; eyes sharpened; re sized down.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<div></div>

[peter_e]

<p>Julie: Also use a tripod to eliminate the possibility that camera shake is the culprit (not that I see it in the image you sent us). A lower res camera has a higher tolerance for this than a higher res camera if the images are viewed at 100%. The brick-wall experiment is to give you an idea what sharpness to expect under ideal conditions. Also, Matt already pointed out, the correct mount of sharpening in your image software is important. It has to be done at the magnification the image will be viewed at. This is more important for a high-res camera than a low-res camera.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Also, it looks like the focus was on her upper lip, so the eyes were out of focus</p>

[William Michael]

<p>You posted the crop of the eyes whilst I was typing. I just had a look at the eyes.<br />I am convinced it is the lens that is just a little soft being wide open at F/5 and also the lighting is soft too.<br />You can get very sharp images with the kit lens on a 20D with good technique (i.e. shooting RAW, sharpening later) even if you need to use the lens at wide open aperture. Also the 20D performs better at ISO800 than at ISO1600 please view frames two and three here, view large (i.e. click on the image to make large) note both were at ISO800 the portrait of the man was at F/5.6 BUT the lens was at 21mm where it is a bit sharper at that Aperure / FL combination all the images were shot RAW and sharpend later in PP- <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=941500">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=941500</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[julie_a.]

<p>William, I am now shooting with a new 7D. Will this change things?</p>

[sfcole]

<p>In my experience, camera or subject motion is much more magnified with a crop sensor than with either 35mm or MF.</p>

[rene gm]

<p>I also think it is a focus problem. Try learning to focus on the eye with half press down, then compose the frame. And use a little higher F-stop, like F7.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>I am now shooting with a new 7D. Will this change things?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No. Your 7D is certainly more feature rich than a 20D, but a different camera isn't going to give you an inherently sharper image. In large prints, you may see more <em>detail</em> from a higher resolution camera. My concern there is if you are comparing images from fashion magazine add that where shot with medium format gear. At that point, even the highest resolution DSLRs will be hard pressed to compete with MF gear. In any event, will an "L" lens get you sharper images? Probably. I say that because a L series lens is likely to have a constant f/2.8 aperture. <em>Any</em> lens is going to be sharper stopped down. But stopping down a f/5.6 lens puts you in the neighborhood of f/8. Stopping down a f/2.8 lens puts you in the neighborhood of f/4. No matter how you slice it, it's a decent difference. Another way to say it: at f/5.6, an L lens <em>will</em> be stopped down whereas at f/5.6 your kit lens will be wide open or close to wide open and <em>every</em> lens is "softer" wide open. I do agree with a previous post: quality of light is going to effect sharpness. But that is a whole other discussion!</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>So then for a portrait, in order to have maximum sharpness, I would need more direct lighting? I really would prefer softer diffused lighting for portraits. I suppose this means I will sacrifice some of the sharpness then?</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>If your basic technique is good, then a 'better' lens will probably result in better sharpness. For example, the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 would have allowed you to shoot at f4, 1/250th second and ISO 800 or f5.6 at 1/250th and ISO 1600. However, as others have said, your basic technique needs to be right first. </p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>In the photo that you posted, useing ISO 1600 will prevent you from getting very sharp images no matter what you do. I use ISO 1600 often on a 5D and 40D and the sharpness is resonable and acceptable for smaller prints. But it will not come close if you use the native ISO 100. For "Max Sharpness", low ISO is a must. That is amoung the other factors listed, including find what focal length and aperture your lens is sharpest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So then for a portrait, in order to have maximum sharpness, I would need more direct lighting? I really would prefer softer diffused lighting for portraits. I suppose this means I will sacrifice some of the sharpness then?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly not. If soft light is what you like, there no reason you can not get plenty sharp images with it.</p>

[wogears]

<p>I did a couple of things here. I applied some noise reduction, then hit the sharpening really hard. I also fixed the white balance :) I agree that ISO 100-400 would have looked better, and that having the lens at f5 would not produce optimal sharpness (f7.1 would be a good starting point).</p><div></div>

[brucecahn]

<p>For maximum sharpness always use a tripod & make sure the (portrait) subject is not moving. If that is not enough, an L lens would help. But that won't even be necessary if you sharpen the pictures with Lightroom or some similar program. Also the aperture is important. For max sharpness shoot somewhere between f4 and f11, 5.6 to 8 being the sweet spot on most dslr lenses.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Ansel Adams himself, used to teach: never hand holding any camera slower than 1/250th of a second. The "old rule of thumb" about shutter speed should equal focal length, is just that, an old rule. Camera shake is a very real problem. There is an old adage that "your tripod, is your sharpest lens".</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>So then for a portrait, in order to have maximum sharpness, I would need more direct lighting? I really would prefer softer diffused lighting for portraits. I suppose this means I will sacrifice some of the sharpness then</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you prefer soft, diffused lighting? Can you define it? <em>Diffused</em> by it's very nature is <em>less </em>sharp! If you want to think of it in extremes: take a picture of a tree on a sunny, cloudless day. Then take one of the same tree on a very overcast, almost raining, grey day. Which is sharper? Lighting is an art unto itself. The more you study lighting, the better a photographer you will become. But it can't all be covered in a forum thread! To help you get started, there are generally four key characteristics of light:</p>

<p>Quality of light. Usually defined as hard to soft. And by hard or soft I am referring to the shadow edge transition. A soft light has a gradual transition, a hard light has a hard line. And of course everything in-between. This is a very narrow definition to quality of light. As applied to sharpness, take a portrait of an elderly person using a softbox and split lighting. One half of the face will be "soft" lit and less defined, whereas the shadow side of the face will have more distinctive edges. As to what quality of light you would like for a portrait, only you can decide. Many fashion photographers use hard light. But they also <em>control the contrast.</em></p>

<p>Direction of Light. Simply put, direction gives you depth, color, and texture. Take a portrait using on camera flash straight on and another where you bounce the flash off a wall or reflector. Compare the two. Direction of light will determine you lighting pattern and essentially influence the overall "look" of your image.</p>

<p>Color of Light. Light not only gives us color, but has it's own color as well. To achieve a neutral white color of light, DSLR's have a white balance function. Nine times out of ten, if you image has a color cast to it, it is a white balance issue.</p>

<p>Intensity of Light. How strong is your light? Do you have light where you want it? Are you preventing light from falling where you don't? The old rule: if you want it lit, you have to light it.</p>

<p>Now those are just the characteristics of light. You use you knowledge of these characteristics to <em>control the contrast.</em> All photography is really about controlling the contrast to achieve the result you want. The best advice I was ever given was to ask myself: what am I taking a picture of and how do I want it to look? Case in point: you want to use hard light for a very crisp look. However, hard light can mean nasty shadow, high contrast. Using the split lighting pattern again as example, one half of the face is lit using hard light, this creates a lot of contrast. You can <em>control the contrast </em>by using a reflector or another light. This essentially lowers the contrast while maintaining a hard light source. The key is using your knowledge of lighting to create the image you want.</p>

<p>As to a better lens: yes, a better lens will tend to be sharper, have more contrast, better color rendition and so on. But here is the photography breakdown:</p>

<p>1- Your knowledge of photography. This trumps everything else. Would you want Ansel Adams with a Point and Shoot or your next door neighbor with a DSLR to take a great landscape shot?</p>

<p>2- The lighting. Whether natural or man made, your image will be all about the lighting.</p>

<p>3- The lens. The lens is the eye through which all the light must pass. The better the lens, the better the better the final image. I would rather have a great lens and a cheap camera than a cheap lens and a great camera.</p>

<p>4- The camera. All cameras essentially perform the same function: they record an exposure. But that recording of the exposure is the last thing in the equation. Don't get me wrong, a better camera may focus faster, may meter better, may make my life easier in a number of ways, but at the end of the day, it is still simply recording the exposure.</p>

<p>Short answer: a better lens is capable of better results, should the user know how to use the lens and create an exposure.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to think of it in extremes: take a picture of a tree on a sunny, cloudless day. Then take one of the same tree on a very overcast, almost raining, grey day. Which is sharper?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now we are getting into apparent sharpness with this. Using the photo posted by the OP, Lighting had nothing to do with that image not being sharp. It was rather soft (I really liked lighting) but it was not flat. Either way it would not prevent the lack of detail in the lashes or in the reflections of the eye.</p>

<p>I have never had the use of soft, very diffused light (even overcast day) prevent me from getting sharp portraits.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I have a 7D also, great camera and a good choice. I also have a 20D. I suggest using spot AF for portraits, and make sure you select an AF point specifically...don't let the camera choose for you, and make sure that point is right over the eye.</p>

<p>As far as lenses, I have the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS lens as my primary lens. I love it. It doesn't open super wide, and it doesn't go down to f/2.8, but I find that f/2.8 is less desirable than IS, which this lens has. I'd rather use IS at f/4 than gain a stop by shooting at f/2.8. I complement it with a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 and a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I have a few fast primes as well that I use when I need a wide aperture, but the 24-105 is on my camera 95% of the time. I tend to shoot at 50mm+, and I have the 10-20mm lens when I need a wide lens, so I don't feel constrained by the lack of width at the wide end of the zoom. If you're mostly shooting portraits, you won't miss the lack of width, either.</p>

<p>With good noise reduction software, your 7D will far outperform your old 20D at ISO 1600, but you'll still lose sharpness. Sticking to ISO 400 or below will certainly go a long way toward more sharpness. A tripod will definitely help, too. Consider using a bounced flash to help get your ISO down without losing shadows that give definition to features like you would get with direct, on-camera flash.</p>