happy_chappy

Mark,

<P>

I had a similar dilemna. I wanted to know if spending money on good lenses was worth the rewards especially as my printer may let the final image down. See my previous <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Ozg">posting.</A>

<P>

I shoot mainly with the 28-105mm USM 3.5-4.5, which many say is almost, if not on, a par with the 28-135. Like you, I heard everyone say how good the 50mm 1.8 is; and when I was in my local camera shop during the week they had one in stock. I bought it on impulse and gave it a go. I am very surprised with the result. See the attached image. Look at the detail that was captured in the background tree. The contrast is better too. I also noticed a slight magenta cast to the zoom's image. Even though the pictures are taken on different days the location was the same as was the exposure.

<P>

My biggest concern is now 'what is sharpness'; what is out of focus and what is just pure poor quality optics? Again, refer to my <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Ozg">previous posting </A>for my ramblings.

<P>

The test shows that the prime 50mm is sharper, without a shadow of a doubt. However, what gets me is this... the depth of field for both pictures, shot at 50mm and at f8 should be the same. The 50mm prime <B>'appears'</B> to be sharper for a greater depth of field. The zoom, on the other hand, seems softer and out of focus. Now I never questioned my lenses before I saw this. But what are you happy with. Do you view the softness as out of focus, or softness because of poor optical quality. Personally, I think it is a matter of <B><I>perception</B></I>.

<P>

My summary, <br>

The 50mm is sharper for a greater depth. (Possibly only 'percieved' because of better quality optics).<br>

The zoom shows softer background detail. (Poor quality optics may be the cause but the perception is of an out of focus image).<br>

With the 50mm lens, to throw the background out of focus as much as the zoom I would need to open up the aperture a stop or so. In effect, to achieve the same amount of depth of focus the prime becomes 'faster'. (Think about it before flaming me on this one!)<BR>

In my test images, both lenses performed well but differently. Both seem to have captured a similar amount of foreground detail but with the prime showing better contrast. The prime gives good detail, the zoom shows a more de-focussed background.<br>

The background details are smaller which equates to a higher lpm in a lens test. The prime is able to resolve the finer details better than the zoom.

<P>

I don't know where you live Mark, the US price for the lens is $70, the UK price is £70. It is the cheapest lens Canon do. If you can afford to buy it then do so and give it a go. Make up your own mind. If you decide you don't like it then you should be able to sell it very easily on eBay for 60 of whatever you paid for it. (It must be the only lens to hold such a high residual value!)

<P>My only gripe about the lens is the close focus of 0.45m. I would have preffered something a bit closer. But then I should use a Macro..

<P>

Go figure..<div></div>

Is there an error in your post? Line one says 18-35, line three says 17-35.

 

I have a Sigma 17-35, f2.8-f4 which works fine on my 10D.

 

Buying Sigma lenses is okay. Just don't upgrade your camera body! :-p

I have an 85mm 1.8 but don't think I could use it as a walkabout lens, it is too restrictive. A lot depends on what you intend to shoot but I would say that the 28-135 is the more versatile lens. (Note I didn't say better lens!). I would suggest keeping the 28-135 on the camera and wear a jacket with a deep pocket!

 

Also, bear in mind that on a DSLR the 85mm becomes and effective 135mm. You didn't say what you shoot on.

 

I listened to what people have said about the 50mm 1.8II and gone out and bought one. Having been used to a 28-105USM (3.5-4.5 model) as my walkabout lens I am finding it difficult to get used to the 50mm (which is effective 80mm on my D10). The 50mm is SO much sharper though.

 

Go buy the 85mm anyway, if you can afford to. It is a cracking lens and you won't be disappointed.

Hi,

 

I have had an enquiry with regard to a D30 I am selling. The

potential buyer has an EOS RT and wants a camera that

doesn't 'blackout' when taking pictures, very much like his current

camera. I have explained that he has a camera with a pellicle

mirror, one of only three models Canon have ever made, and that any

camera he will buy will blackout as the mirror raises to take a

picture.

 

However, there is further confusion. Canon mention blackout when

describing use of long lenses. What does the use of the

term 'blackout' mean under these circumstances?

 

I hope that someone has an explanation...

 

Many Thanks

Okay, lets update...

<P>

Jim L. - The 400mm Sigma won't play when on the 10D but is fine on the 100 and 5. I know what the problem is, it is error 99. Sigma UK want £34 for me to send the lens in for re-chipping. Lens has to go back to Japan. I could part exchange for a current model if I want. Haven't decided yet, but I can't see me doing much emulsion in the future so no point in keeping it for the film bodies. Might stick it on eBay.

<P>

Jim L. and Keith V.H. - Between the pair of you, you have cost me £80. I have took your advice and bought a 50mm f1.8 The 85mm was used purely as a portrait lens but with a 1.6 crop now making it an effective 135mm I thought a 50mm (80mm effective) might have some use. I just wish that when I bought the Macro I had gone for the 50mm instead of the 105mm though :-(

<P>

(You Yanks just don't know how lucky you are. $70 !! My 50mm has cost me $133. Nearly twice the price!!!!)

<P>

Yakim P. - Sell ALL my lenses save the 85mm? I wish I had your money! But I do think that the 200mm 2.8L is the way to go. It is very light and manageable, and I could always add a 1.4x convertor later I guess.

<P>

Kenneth et al - I re-visited the scene with the canal boat today, (see previous jpeg), armed with the 10D and 50mm 1.8. It is kind of a test scene, with red, blue, green, black and white and fine detail in the background.<br>

I didn't have much time so I was unable to think about taking a second lens and doing a direct comparison so I have used the previously shot picture as my benchmark.

<P>

Result...

<P>

OUCH! That is sharp!

<P>

Now then, somebody mentioned perception. Looking at my two pictures side by side the first thing that strikes me is this. In the past, what I now see as being 'soft' I have just taken as being out of the depth-of-field, that is, out-of-focus. The two images I have are both shot at f8, from the same position, the zoom was at 53mm (!?) and the other, the 50mm prime. Theoretically, the depth of field should be fairly identical but it is plainly obvious that the prime is far sharper for a <u>greater depth.</u>

<P>

This has gotten my mind boggling... Perception remember...

<P>

If I should wish to (ahem!) 'emulate' the softness of the zoom using the prime then I could use a wider aperture and create a shallower DoF.

<P>

Therefore...(perception remember..) (now be ready to think about this...) the (perceived) depth of field is 'relative' to the quality of the lens. I know that statement is physically wrong, but it is all down to perception. On a cheap 'consumer' zoom (my 28-105mm 3.5-4.5) sharp focus is attainable within a depth of x, outside of this depth it looks soft and out of focus. With a better quality lens (the 50mm f1.8) the attained depth of sharp focus is (lets say) 2x.

<P>

Now then. Given that I would need to open up the aperture to shallow the DoF, I am increasing the speed of the exposure to attain the same result. Consequently, I have a faster lens for a given DoF. (Is this making sense to you?) All driven by Quality vs Perception.

<P>

Interesting.... but why would I want an out-of-focus image comparable with a cheap 'consumer zoom'? Well, is (part of) the image given by the cheaper zoom 'perceived' to be of poor quality or is it just out of focus?

<P><i>

(No doubt somebody is going to raise all the 'other' issues of optical distortion and contrast/color ets. associated with cheap zooms. I do appreciate all that, I was not making those comparisons though.)</I>

<P>

With regard to the lens vs printer issue which started this, well yes, the better glass has certainly improved the detail in the final image alright. Consequently, I conclude that spending an inordinate sum of money on quality 'L' grade lenses is going to achieve a better image on my Canon i950 printer.

<P>

I can still see the 'dots' that build up the image mind you. Only because I am trying to, being overly critical, but we photographers are like that aren't we. Now if anyone can suggest some settings for the printer...

<P>

Thanks for all you comments so far, and I hope that this isn't the end...

<P>

H. C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope I am not asking something that has been asked before - but I

kept getting an aol query error from the server when searching.

 

I have recently gone digital, starting with a D30 in February and

upgrading to a 10D in the past couple of weeks. The lenses that form

my kit consist of Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM, 35-135 USM, 100-300 4.5-

5.6 USM, 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0, Sigma 105 2.8, Sigma 400

5.6 (Error 99). Generally speaking, the lenses are what I

see 'graded' as 'consumer'. I do intend to upgrade and will openly

accept any suggestions. Currently on my considerations list are the

following: Canon 28-135IS (to replace my 28-105), Canon 200 2.8L and

Sigma 100-300EX f4. (The last two to replace the failed 400mm)

 

(I still have an EOS 5 and 100 but don't think they will get much

use in future).

 

I have read many posts regarding the lens quality vs 10D CMOS

resolution (and have read the article by BA DSLR's, Lenses and

Film). I appreciate the comments made by Bob and others but one

issue that I do not see raised is how lens quality impacts upon

printed quality where the printer is likely to be the weakest link.

 

Yesterday, I bought a Canon i950, which seems to be getting

favourable reviews. I only intend to print (at) A4 size. If I ever

want anything larger than this I dare say I would go off to a

minilab. However, it is very likely that I will crop images to

achieve an 'effective' overall size greater than A4 but printed to

the i950.

 

The big question is - will I see a significant return on investment

if I upgrade lenses, or will the choice of printer limit any gain.

 

As it stands, I have only printed one picture off from the i950 and

everything was set as AUTO but on Photo Paper Plus Glossy, printed

to Kodak Ultima Ultra Glossy 270g/m2. Looking VERY carefully I can

see area's of dithering and almost (but not quite) banding. But I am

being quite harsh. Perhaps I haven't got the printer set up to

optimum output yet, perhaps I am expecting miracles - I don't know.

 

The quality of the image was perfectly 'acceptable' but I can't tell

if the limiting factor is the printer or the lens I used for the

shot (28-105 USM). The shot I printed was taken as a RAW image,

sharpened in Canons File Viewer Utility converted to TIFF and

printed from Paintshop Pro. I'll admit now - my workflow is far from

sorted but I am still going through a steep learning curve.

 

In the attached image there is a wire fence running behind the boat.

In the RAW image you can just make out that the bottom part of the

fence is silver square mesh with dark diagonal wire above - the lens

has resolved this detail. The print however, does not show the

silver square meshing detail. So if my 'consumer' grade lens

resolves and captures more detail than my printer prints why go

for 'pro' lenses?

 

The ideal would be to see a 'real life test' of a PRINTED image

taken with a 'consumer grade' lens against a similar image taken

with a better quality or 'pro' grade lens. Then I would be able to

judge the difference. The only chance I have of conducting such a

test is by visiting my local camera shop and crossing their palms

with silver, by which time it is too late if there isn't an

improvement.

 

I am sure there are plenty of people out there who have crossed this

bridge and I would appreciate your comments and contributions.

 

Thanks.<div></div>

Firstly, my credentials.. I am an ex wedding photographer.

 

My comments (FWIW)..

<P>

A lot of people have suggested bracketing, multiple shots etc. etc. but everyone missed the point! YOUR SUBJECT MATTER!!

<P>

<B>

Rule no. 1 - Get to know your camera before you <U><I>ever point</U></i> it anyone.

<P></B>

I would suggest before you go to your reunion you shoot as much as possible and UNDERSTAND the camera. On the day you don't want to be messing around with the camera or settings. If you can borrow a light meter all the better. People will appreciate a photographer taking a light reading - check this against your camera or go manual. DON'T try and take 15 bracketed shots - all that say's to people is you don't know what you are doing. Would you be happy as a subject being asked to bear a cheesy grin fifteen times? I'll rest my case..! If you can't borrow a light meter then take a reading from the grass a few minutes before lining people up. Be aware of any changes in light levels.

<P>

<B>Rule no. 2 - Shoot in RAW. </B><p>

If anything goes wrong then you will have plenty of opportunity to fix things. If there is any doubt in your exposure err on the side of underexposure. You can pull detail out of a dark image but if you blow highlights you are finished. Remember - Shoot in RAW!!

<P>

So, you have worked out all you need to know on how to take the photo before you call people over. GREAT! That is how a photographer should be. I didn't mention lens choice, but I'll come to that in a moment.

<P><B>Rule no. 3 - Know your subject.</b>

<P>Okay, so you are looking at a big group shot.<B> BIG GROUP SHOT=LITTLE PEOPLE!</B> Lots of people placed central in the frame looses detail, and interest. <i>Ideally,</i> you would have the image split in four parts at the most. The top and bottom quarters at MOST should be sky/ground with the middle half full of your subject. Read again and you will see I am saying <b><i> ideally</i></b>. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but I have taken enough large group shots to know what works and what doesn't. So how do you do that with 60-90 people? ---

<B><li>Arrange people so that the tallest are at the back and the shortest at the front.</li>

<li>DO NOT EXCEED TWO ROWS OF STANDING PEOPLE.</li>

<li>If you need to go three rows, get the gents to kneel at the front (football pose).

<li>MOST IMPORTANT - ABOVE ALL ELSE>>> MAKE EVERYONE STAND SHOULDER ON TO THE CAMERA.</B> This reduces your width by at least a half. SHOULDER ON HEAD TURNED. This is also a better looking pose too.</li><BR>

 

<li>Try if possible to get man/women/man/women.. What I used to do was to ask everyone to <B>find their partner and join the group</b>. Works much better than trying to jumble people around. Especially when such and such says that her husband is over the other side of the photo!! <B>Keep People Together.</B> And remember - KEEP PEOPLE TURNED SHOULDER ON!

<li> You should be with your subjects arranging them. Turn them in - they move back. You turn them back. You will be busy. Kids are better at staying still than adults. Starting at the middle get the people to stand SHOULDER ON but facing in towards the middle. You should find that arranging people will be the most difficult part of the photo. Spend no more than 2-3 minutes. Even if they are not quite right run back to the camera, take a snap (note a 'snap') and go back to do some more arranging. Jokingly say it is because Aunt Bess has moved and Uncle Bob has walked off. Get people involved but not bored. Once you are happy get back to the camera QUICK. Final check on focus and in 1/125 second all your hard work will be captured. At this point shoot two or three, no more. Don't be long. You have worked out the exposure beforehand. All you are doing now is ensuring focus. (Refocus each shot separately too, just in-case the focus is out). Make people aware that you are shooting too. Peoples attention WILL drift, people WILL look away and people WILL blink. You are looking to capture a moment (1/125 second) and when you get your pictures printed there WILL be something wrong with each of them. You are looking for one with the least amount going wrong. The fewest hidden heads, the heads looking the wrong way etc. 60-90 people is a lot to control.

<P>

<U>Lens Choice</u> Before I go onto lenses as such let me say that the ideal aperture is going to f5.6 or f8. You don't want distracting foreground backgound in focus. I would err on the side of f5.6 possibly even f4. Depends on the distance from the subject, depth of the group and background. BUT make your decision BEFORE you get your group together.

<P>Now that we have got the most important bits into place you wil be able to consider how large a lens to use. <P>

The first problem that you have will be the 1.6 'crop' of the D10. You will possibly need a wide angle lens and so an ultra wide lens (15 or 17-35mm) would be in order for the D10. You might be able to manage with a 'standard' wide angle (28/35mm). A standard 50mm will probably be a bit of a tight sqeeze. Any more than this and you will be in the next county taking the picture! <P>

Imagine, 30 or so people standing back to back (remember this is how we are arranging people). Each one is going to take up 18"-2" of space at least. (Usually more). That is up to 60" of width. Before you get anywhere near the group of people judge how many and how wide, then choose the location and where you will shoot from. <B><I>Now</b></i> you can choose a lens that is <U>suitable for your subject matter</u>.

<P>

<B>Rule no. 4 - Use a tripod!</b> Nuff said!

<P>

Now, that hill. Must you use it? What about a different location? If you <i>have</i> to use the hill us it to your advantage. Instead of standing everyone on the crest of the hill bring them around the side of the hill. Might sound wrong but believe me it WILL work. If this is the case, err on the side of the smaller aperture (f8).

Alternatively, try to arrange the taller people at the bottom and the smaller at the top.

<P>

Now, I'm sorry if you feel that I am trying to teach you to suck eggs, but let me say this much. 10D or Box Brownie, it is not the camera that takes a picture it is you. The 10D is only a tool. Pay more attention to the subject and less on the camera and go enjoy yourself. Hopefully you will be able to put a picture on that wall that will put all the previous ones to shame.

<P>

 

Best of Luck!!

Luke said...

<I>You will definetly need to get a longer USP cable though. The one that comes with the camera is barely long enough to pulg it into my computer on the floor and set the camera on the desk.</i>

<p>

Will you leave your computer on the ground Chuck? That <i>will</i> require a long USB cable! ;-)

I have had the same problem with a Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO. The lens worked fine on my D30 but on the 10D the lens won't stop-down from f5.6. I rang Sigma who said I could return the lens for re-chipping but it would have to go back to Japan. They offered me an opportunity to return my lens and choose a new lens from their current line-up at discount (is this a defeatist attitude?). I think mine will end up on eBay before the weekend is out!