 Jeanne M. Brown |
Image sharpness-choosing the right lens I, like many photographers, have chosen less expensive camera equipment to save money and have found it sometimes to be a waste of money. The right lenses are vital to a great photo, so how do you make the decision between one lens and another? I have a Canon Rebel and use Tamron lenses. Most of them are great! My 28-300 F3.5-6.3 has some explaining to do though. My images lack the sharpness to even pass as acceptable when enlarged slightly- mostly when shooting at long focal lenghts. How do you find out which lenses will serve you best when cost is a factor? HELP!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
I have the same lense but shoot a Nikon d70s and have no problems being enlarged at any focal length!! Maybe it's something else?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jon Close |
Technique is as much a part of the solution as the lens. Super zooms like the 28-300 have a reputation for being "softer" at the long end of the zoom range, but should be acceptibly sharp if used at smaller apertures like f/8-11 rather than wide open. Additionally, the longer focal lengths amplify camera shake when shooting hand-held. Use a tripod for the longer focal lengths, and/or set higher ISO to get faster shutter speeds.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark Feldstein |
You know Jeanne, and maybe this is what you're referring to, but most of the shots in your gallery here appear to be a bit on the soft side whether they're taken in daylight, evening, close-ups or at various distances. So my first question is whether you've had the camera and lens combo checked to make sure everything is working properly. My second question, if you're using manual focus, is whether you've had your eyes checked recently. Sometimes that particular problem just creeps up on us although most, including me, would hate to acknowledge it. Analyzing your shooting technique of course comes next, including your shutter speeds. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't try shooting a heavy telephoto at a shutter speed much less than its focal length without using some kind of camera support, eg. tripod, monopod, seat back or someones shoulder or head. ;>) So, unless you're somewhat practiced at it, you shouldn't try to hand hold a max focal length lens of 300mm at less than 1/250 of a second or so. As to your primary question, if you really think it's the quality of glass you're using, then find a local camera store that will let you rent or borrow a higher quality lens to shoot with for a day or two, try it and see what you think of the results. Maybe even shoot the same subject with your lens and the new one to see if you really notice a difference. BTW, to elaborate a bit on what Jon mentioned; every lens is kind of like a golf ball in that it has its own "sweet spot", f 11.0 is a common one not necessarily at it's minimum f stop like F 16.0 or f 22 which is where you might think it is. Sooner or later most professional photographers learn that buying inexpensive (cheap) equipment, including, [especially] lenses and camera bodies, costs them more money in the long run. I'm still using Nikkor lenses that were made 30 years ago with only infrequent maintenance. I couldn't afford them when I bought them, and now I couldn't afford to work without them. LOL !!! I'm sure you know what I mean. ;>) Take it light.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Pete H |
Hello Jeanne, I too looked at your gallery. Often times, many new photographers have heard the term "soft" and really don't understand it. Secondly; large excursion zoom lenses such as your 28-300 have a difficult time producing sharp images, especially at the longer focal lengths. Finally, if you will allow me to be bold, the old saying is true.."Good lenses aren't cheap and cheap lenses aren't good!" I would first strive for better contrast in your photos. All the best, Pete
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
get a 1.4 50 mm and see the difference. Its not that expensive for the quality you get. I use it with my cheaper 20d camera and its way better. Great for candids because of the weight.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
I'll have to pipe in again: I have the EXACT same lens, different camera body, and have never gotten any soft images at any focal length.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I used a Sigma 28-300mm zoom like this for a couple years and was usually satisfied with the images that I got from it. I didn't realize its limitations until I started adding other lenses to my bag, like the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 primes. Then, when the 28-300mm zoom broke down, I replaced it with Sigma's 24-70mm & 70-200mm f/2.8 EX zooms. While I thought my images were "sharp enough" with the old lens, I could easily see the increase in sharpness and overall image quality with the new lenses. I agree with the above comments, that you can maximize your results with this lens by shooting at mid-range apertures and higher shutter speeds when zoomed. This means you will usually get better results when using this lens in bright light outdoors or with a flash. But there's no denying that better glass is just "better". Chris A. Vedros
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Shawn Wilson |
Well my personal experience is that 'soft' is a VERY relative term when it comes to photographers. We all have our own idea of soft and sharp and that's ok. But when one is trying to find their own sweet spot of what they call sharp, only real world tests with you behind the lens will help you figure it out. I had this exact same issue when I was looking to buy a new lens because I had a Canon 75-300 and often times I felt like I could not get sharp photos at 100% crop. I could resize the photos down by 50% or so, do an unsharp mask, and eventually get to an acceptable result, albeit with some detail loss. So I read for weeks and found several review sites that I used to push me to biting the bullet and buying a Canon pro lens. I now have Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L and I can't stress how much I love it over the previous lens and how much practical long shots have improved. I've started doing weddings and needed a 2.8 lens so I could shoot indoors from the back and zoom in. The day I got the lens I did some tests in my house to show the practical examples of the difference between a $200 lens and a $1200 lens. Every non-photographer I know was giving me crap for droping the cash on it, but the results speak for themselves. http://www.dvigroup.net/etc/share/pic/0-camera2/ Even at f/8, the old lens is significantly softer when you put it next to the new lens. I only shot at the two extremes of each lens, because that's the worst it will get. With real shots, the problem isn't as noticable all the time, but the timer face did a good job for a frame of reference. My old lens did not get acceptably sharp until f/11 at it's max zoom. That basically limits you to direct sunlight only. At it's min zoom of 75, f/4 and f/5 were ok after an unsharp mask, but it took an f/8 to make a decent shot to start with. That doesn't leave you with any room at all for bokah(background blur) or fading light or indoor shots. With the new lens at min and max zoom both, it is soft at f/2.8 but fixable with an unsharp mask. f/3.5 is good, and by f/4 it's perfectly fine. After all of that, it just goes to reinforce Pete H. above when he said the standard line... "good isn't cheap and cheap isn't good". We all have a hard time letting go of a thousand dollars though, and it took a leap of faith for me to do it. If I would have seen the kind of side by side test I did before the purchase, I would have made the purchase in a heartbeat. As a last footnote. The site that helped the most is this one: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
I'll going to do an experiment and post the results on Monday. I'll take a photo with my Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 Lens and then take the same shot with my Tamron 60mm 28-300mm lens (at an aperture of f/3.5 up to f/16) and I'll compare and see what happens. The Tamron telephoto is the first non-Nikkor I've had and I've been very happy with the results, but I've never actually compared photos side by side. Til Monday.....
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
Sorry for two posts and that should've said "I'm going..." Now - til Monday....
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jeanne M. Brown |
Thanks for the great responses everyone! I appreciate all the input. I too did a series of tests with my other lenses after this discovery regarding the Tamron zoom. There IS a difference at the same apertures and subjects and lighting, etc. No changes to the camera settings, left on AF and shot in manual for specific combinations. What good is a zoom if it limits you so much? I have to quit being lazy and carry the other lenses. I no longer use the zoom for important shots, I use a 90mm 2.8 Tamron for some outdoor portraits and for other work the Canon 18-55 that came with the Rebel. Thanks again, hope to see some of you at the summit.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Shawn Wilson |
Your sentiment is echoed the world round to be sure. Can't someone make a zoom lens that is just as good as a fixed lens? Well Personally, I think the Canon pro lenses do just that, albeit not till f/4 though. The 70-200 f/4 IS is one of THE sharpest lenses Canon has even compared to their fixed lenses. The bigger problem is the aperture involved. Even some fixed lenses are 'soft' at their largest aperture (2.8 for example). And while good ones ($600-$1,000) are still great at these apertures, they are even better at their own f/4 and f/8 settings. This is one of those things where quality really is worth the price you pay for it, and 'good enough' is where those of us who aren't rich will have to sit for a while.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||