If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
Hi,
I have what is hopefully a pretty basic question. I have a Canon 350D with the two kit lenses: * EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II * EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM As a test, I tried taking the "same" photo with each lens; that is, I framed a still object as closely as possible with each lens and used the same settings: Manual mode, 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO-100, Flash (Speedlite 430EX pointed ahead), tripod. Obviously I had to move the camera back to get the same shot with the 75-300. The only other difference was of course the focal lengths: 45mm vs 75mm. The picture taken with the 75-300 came out much sharper than with the 18-55. What accounts for that? I ask because, in general, I'm able to get better looking pictures out of the 75-300. Thanks in advance! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
gwperil wrote:
Hi, I have what is hopefully a pretty basic question. I have a Canon 350D with the two kit lenses: * EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II * EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM As a test, I tried taking the "same" photo with each lens; that is, I framed a still object as closely as possible with each lens and used the same settings: Manual mode, 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO-100, Flash (Speedlite 430EX pointed ahead), tripod. Obviously I had to move the camera back to get the same shot with the 75-300. The only other difference was of course the focal lengths: 45mm vs 75mm. The picture taken with the 75-300 came out much sharper than with the 18-55. What accounts for that? I ask because, in general, I'm able to get better looking pictures out of the 75-300. Better lens. Can you easily post the two photos? -- John McWilliams |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
Can you easily post the two photos? -- John McWilliams I'd like to see them also. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
"gwperil" schreef in bericht ups.com... Hi, I have what is hopefully a pretty basic question. I have a Canon 350D with the two kit lenses: * EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II * EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM As a test, I tried taking the "same" photo with each lens; that is, I framed a still object as closely as possible with each lens and used the same settings: Manual mode, 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO-100, Flash (Speedlite 430EX pointed ahead), tripod. Obviously I had to move the camera back to get the same shot with the 75-300. The only other difference was of course the focal lengths: 45mm vs 75mm. The picture taken with the 75-300 came out much sharper than with the 18-55. What accounts for that? I ask because, in general, I'm able to get better looking pictures out of the 75-300. Thanks in advance! Both lenses are not producing very good pictures 'at the ends'. So, don't use 18 and 55 or 75 and 300mm Same for the aperture. Stay away from the ends. Compare them again in the middle sections, ergo around 35mm and around 150mm, both with f8. I think the difference will be less. (beware that the largest apertures will become smaller when zoomin in. f5,6 will be wide-open in tele, dont't use it) br Aad |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
"gwperil" wrote in message ups.com... Hi, I have what is hopefully a pretty basic question. I have a Canon 350D with the two kit lenses: * EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II * EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM As a test, I tried taking the "same" photo with each lens; that is, I framed a still object as closely as possible with each lens and used the same settings: Manual mode, 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO-100, Flash (Speedlite 430EX pointed ahead), tripod. Obviously I had to move the camera back to get the same shot with the 75-300. The only other difference was of course the focal lengths: 45mm vs 75mm. The picture taken with the 75-300 came out much sharper than with the 18-55. What accounts for that? I ask because, in general, I'm able to get better looking pictures out of the 75-300. Thanks in advance! Can you repeat the experiment without using the flash, use ambient light in an open area? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
"gwperil" wrote:
Hi, I have what is hopefully a pretty basic question. I have a Canon 350D with the two kit lenses: * EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II * EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM As a test, I tried taking the "same" photo with each lens; that is, I framed a still object as closely as possible with each lens and used the same settings: Manual mode, 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO-100, Flash (Speedlite 430EX pointed ahead), tripod. Obviously I had to move the camera back to get the same shot with the 75-300. The only other difference was of course the focal lengths: 45mm vs 75mm. The picture taken with the 75-300 came out much sharper than with the 18-55. What accounts for that? I ask because, in general, I'm able to get better looking pictures out of the 75-300. Thanks in advance! Trying to compare resolving power of two lenses is not as easy as it first appears. One big problem with your configuration was the use of flash, which will result in different lighting for the two images, making them impossible to compare. I suppose the ideal comparison is done between 11 AM and 1 PM on a cloudy day, outside. :-) Second, there are several comparisons that you'll want to know about. At the middle of the zoom range, and at each end; plus with the aperture wide open and with it stopped down to an optimum opening and with it stopped down to f/16 or so. It might also (depending on what you intend to shoot) be interesting to do all of that with both close and distant targets. It generates a rather large amount of data. You may want to limit it to that which appears to apply to your needs. For example, if you do a lot of available light, then you do want to compare at wider aperture, otherwise maybe not. If you do any closeup work, then a close focus comparison is definitely needed. If you shoot portraits, you'll want to compare in the areas that match your portrait style. Generally you do want to test the extremes of focal length and aperture, because you want to know what the effects are when there is no choice. Is it worth even trying to shoot with a given lense wide open, or not? In what circumstances? For example I have some lenses that I don't mind, or even prefer, shooting wide open when making portraits, but would not think of trying to focus up close on a flower or a bug and using that same lense wide open. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Looking through your website, I was wondering if you would share how you got the Canon 800mm lens onto your Nikon? Since the Canon has a shorter register distance, I presumed that you must have removed part of the rear of the lens and put on a Nikon mount, but I was wondering if you could share the details. Presumably it would also be possible to put a Canon EF mount on in a similiar manner and FD lenses are sooo cheap now ... Of course there are adapters that allow infinity focus for Canon FD to EF, but the real Canon one is expensive and rare, and the $40 is apparently not great. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
"default" wrote:
Looking through your website, I was wondering if you would share how you got the Canon 800mm lens onto your Nikon? Since the Canon has a shorter register distance, I presumed that you must have removed part of the rear of the lens and put on a Nikon mount, but I was wondering if you could share the details. I don't really know the details, other than it is a rather well done permanent conversion to a Nikon F mount on some kind of a contract for a number of lenses (both Canon SSC 600mm f/4 and 800mm SSC f/5.6) by Tempe Camera Repair in Tempe AZ. I'm not sure when was done, but assume that it would have been modified in the late 70's or even early 80's. The lense was designed for the 1976 Montreal Olympics, and was in production until 1981, when Canon came out with a newer L version. Adorama sold four or five each of the modified 600mm and 800mm lenses on eBay. I've seen other odd lenses that Tempe Camera had modified too, so apparently they did more than just a few. All of them have been obviously well used, though also well maintained, lenses. The one I have is in good condition, but the case had clearly been shipped around the world a few times and suffered the consequences. The outside was beat to pieces while the inside was in very nice condition. I considered it quite a find, because it sold for not only far less than any other decent quality Nikon mount lense, the ones modified for the Nikon mount sold for less than other unmodified Canon 800mm lenses had sold for. It isn't like having an autofocus lense, but that of course would cost thousands of dollars more. What is really astounding is that it works well with a selected pair of telconverters, a 1.6x and a 2x, or with another specific 2x (I tested it with a number of different combination and individual teleconverters to find ones that make a good match, because most of them simply do not work well at all). Can you imagine how hard it is to focus an 800mm lense with a 1.6x and a 2x teleconverter, making it into a 2560mm focal length! It requires a *sturdy* tripod. (Right now it is in the box, stored away, waiting for the sun to come back up in late January. :-) Presumably it would also be possible to put a Canon EF mount on in a similiar manner and FD lenses are sooo cheap now ... Of course there are adapters that allow infinity focus for Canon FD to EF, but the real Canon one is expensive and rare, and the $40 is apparently not great. Tempe Camera Repair is still in business, and is a very interesting outfit. I have no idea if they would consider doing such modification today or not. Do a web search for them, it is interesting reading! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
Rudy Benner wrote:
"gwperil" wrote in message ups.com... Hi, I have what is hopefully a pretty basic question. I have a Canon 350D with the two kit lenses: * EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II * EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III USM As a test, I tried taking the "same" photo with each lens; that is, I framed a still object as closely as possible with each lens and used the same settings: Manual mode, 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO-100, Flash (Speedlite 430EX pointed ahead), tripod. Obviously I had to move the camera back to get the same shot with the 75-300. The only other difference was of course the focal lengths: 45mm vs 75mm. The picture taken with the 75-300 came out much sharper than with the 18-55. What accounts for that? I ask because, in general, I'm able to get better looking pictures out of the 75-300. Thanks in advance! Can you repeat the experiment without using the flash, use ambient light in an open area? Thanks for everyone's comments on this. I will take the advise of dropping the flash and going outside on a cloudy day. Then I will find a place to post the photos. Part of the reason for these tests is that I do not (yet) have the experience to differentiate between bad technique and inferior equipment... so as I consider a new lens, I want to measure the quality of the two kit lenses as a reference point. There are a lot of strong opinions out there with respect to lens quality. For example, I'm interested in the EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. Research is all over the map: "Perfect walk-around lens." "Way too soft." "IS is a life-saver." "IS is not worth the money." And my personal favorite: "Watch out for bad copies." Bad copies? There goes some more hair... I guess there's no substitute for just plunking down the $$$ and trying it out. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie question re. sharpness
Part of the reason for these tests is that I do not (yet) have the experience to differentiate between bad technique and inferior equipment... so as I consider a new lens, I want to measure the quality of the two kit lenses as a reference point. There are a lot of strong opinions out there with respect to lens quality. For example, I'm interested in the EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. Research is all over the map: "Perfect walk-around lens." "Way too soft." "IS is a life-saver." "IS is not worth the money." And my personal favorite: "Watch out for bad copies." Bad copies? There goes some more hair... I guess there's no substitute for just plunking down the $$$ and trying it out. Or, you can use modulation transfer curves and make decisions based on how you will most often use a particular lens: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7445 By the way, the sharpness freaks can lead one astray. I have run tests between two similar Canon zoom lenses, one of which was L-glass, and was underwhelmed with the difference in sharpness. It was definitely there ... I could see it; but honestly the difference was modest. Just me. I'm not saying that L-glass is not worth it, by the way. Auto-focus acquisition time and ruggedness are certainly worth having and paying for if one has deep pockets or is a pro. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
newbie RAW question for XP or FC1 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 24th 06 07:26 PM |
newbie question | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 28 | April 24th 06 04:47 AM |
Canon 5D Sharpness Question | Edward Holt | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | February 26th 06 03:53 PM |
Newbie Question...? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 7 | January 1st 05 12:03 AM |
Possible Newbie Question | MATT WILLIAMS | Large Format Photography Equipment | 5 | July 12th 04 01:27 PM |