Reading mode: Light Dark

Whoa! Difference in build quality in lenses..

Go to last post
G

Georgi

Veteran Member
Messages
7,638
Reaction score
0
Location
NC, US
Guys, I bought the 20D kit with what I refer to as a POS lens, the 18-55

Hell, I've sent letters that weighed more.

I CANNOT stand plastic unless it's in syringes and about to save my life or something but definitely NOT in lenses. This thing is so LIGHT, so OPPOSITE of confidence inspiring and I have YET to take a picture with it that even approaches anything that's less than blurry as hell.

Anyway, I also bought some other Sigma lenses on ebay and they were about the same in build quality and then today, I got the 28-70/2.8 EX and when I got the package in my hand I thought, DAMN! Did they put something heavy to make it sturdy or does the lens really weigh that much.

Sho nuff! It was the lens. Beautiful build quality (LOVE that finish), LOVE the weight (I'm used to schlepping a 50LB camera bag so heavy lenses ain't shi* to me) and I just love everything about it.

Now, I am at least APPROACHING what I think I should be getting in sharpness.

But whoa, what a difference. Now THIS I can live with. This other lens, well, my wifes cats are gonna pi*s me off one day and killing them will probably get me a quick divorce so I figure, a good pitch to the forehead with this POS lens probably won't do any damage (to the cat) so I've got it earmarked for that...damn junk!

Of course, I might be biased. I STOPPED taking pictures around 20 years ago and in those days, well you know what I mean . Metal lenses (FD), 85/1.2L's and all that.

By the way, I DO have a question.

I talked to a pro photographer that I know and he tells me that IF the picture is NOT out of focus, this is as sharp as it gets and I HAVE to sharpen this in PS??!!

NOw to me this sounded like a bunch of bull so I kinda complained but hell, he's the pro so he wouldn't even listen to it.

I said stuff like, well, I remember when I shot, all my pictures (properly focused) were sharp (at least) and of course, with the lenses I had, they were usually very to super sharp and now he starts talking about well, that's only because when you looked at them, SOMEONE had done some post processing to them...as in, whoever made the prints and I said, well shi*, what about when I looked at them as a regular slide...

Now he started talking about "yeah, but that was analog, this is digital and if you scanned the pics, you would still need to sharpen them"

Am I just dumb as the proverbial sack of shi* or what?

I've seen Ron Purdys pick (scary face) and although I think he said there was some USM, there wasn't much.

What's the deal here. I cannot get what I think is a SHARP pic out of my 20D. Granted, tonight I shot couple of pics of text printed on something and they seemed pretty good on the LCD so I need to check them out (the 28-70) but NOTHING and I mean NOTHING out of that 18-55 looked much better than a pinhole camera shot and I'm talking autofocus, manual, focusing in the middle of a bunch of fenceposts/sticks to make sure I either see sharp in front or behind.

Shooting with self timer and all that and NOTHING and I mean NOTHING even approached something that I could live with.

What's the deal? Is it the drugs I'm taking?

Am I expecting too much, that I picture should be sharp?

Heeelp!

George
 
I don't know how unsharp you're photos are to answer, but I think the pro was telling you the truth. There's some kind of filter over the sensor that makes the photos less sharp. You need to either use Photoshop unsharp mask filter to sharpen it up, or crank the camera's sharpening up in the menu option. The former method is considered by most to be better. If you view a 20D image at 100 percent it's like taking a photo taken with film and blowing it up massively and looking at it with a magnifying glass. If you look at it at 50 percent it's probably a little closer to what you are used to seeing with film.
Georgi said:
Guys, I bought the 20D kit with what I refer to as a POS lens, the
18-55

Hell, I've sent letters that weighed more.

I CANNOT stand plastic unless it's in syringes and about to save my
life or something but definitely NOT in lenses. This thing is so
LIGHT, so OPPOSITE of confidence inspiring and I have YET to take a
picture with it that even approaches anything that's less than
blurry as hell.

Anyway, I also bought some other Sigma lenses on ebay and they were
about the same in build quality and then today, I got the 28-70/2.8
EX and when I got the package in my hand I thought, DAMN! Did they
put something heavy to make it sturdy or does the lens really weigh
that much.

Sho nuff! It was the lens. Beautiful build quality (LOVE that
finish), LOVE the weight (I'm used to schlepping a 50LB camera bag
so heavy lenses ain't shi* to me) and I just love everything about
it.

Now, I am at least APPROACHING what I think I should be getting in
sharpness.

But whoa, what a difference. Now THIS I can live with. This other
lens, well, my wifes cats are gonna pi*s me off one day and killing
them will probably get me a quick divorce so I figure, a good pitch
to the forehead with this POS lens probably won't do any damage (to
the cat) so I've got it earmarked for that...damn junk!

Of course, I might be biased. I STOPPED taking pictures around 20
years ago and in those days, well you know what I mean . Metal
lenses (FD), 85/1.2L's and all that.

By the way, I DO have a question.

I talked to a pro photographer that I know and he tells me that IF
the picture is NOT out of focus, this is as sharp as it gets and I
HAVE to sharpen this in PS??!!

NOw to me this sounded like a bunch of bull so I kinda complained
but hell, he's the pro so he wouldn't even listen to it.

I said stuff like, well, I remember when I shot, all my pictures
(properly focused) were sharp (at least) and of course, with the
lenses I had, they were usually very to super sharp and now he
starts talking about well, that's only because when you looked at
them, SOMEONE had done some post processing to them...as in,
whoever made the prints and I said, well shi*, what about when I
looked at them as a regular slide...

Now he started talking about "yeah, but that was analog, this is
digital and if you scanned the pics, you would still need to
sharpen them"

Am I just dumb as the proverbial sack of shi* or what?

I've seen Ron Purdys pick (scary face) and although I think he said
there was some USM, there wasn't much.

What's the deal here. I cannot get what I think is a SHARP pic out
of my 20D. Granted, tonight I shot couple of pics of text printed
on something and they seemed pretty good on the LCD so I need to
check them out (the 28-70) but NOTHING and I mean NOTHING out of
that 18-55 looked much better than a pinhole camera shot and I'm
talking autofocus, manual, focusing in the middle of a bunch of
fenceposts/sticks to make sure I either see sharp in front or
behind.
Shooting with self timer and all that and NOTHING and I mean
NOTHING even approached something that I could live with.

What's the deal? Is it the drugs I'm taking?

Am I expecting too much, that I picture should be sharp?

Heeelp!

George
Click to expand...
 
Georgi said:
By the way, I DO have a question.

I talked to a pro photographer that I know and he tells me that IF
the picture is NOT out of focus, this is as sharp as it gets and I
HAVE to sharpen this in PS??!!
Click to expand...
Yes. On most digital camera, especially Canon, there is an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor which will soften the image somewhat. A sharp image will still be significantly sharper than a non-sharp one (duh) but you won't get a film look stright out of the camera (on default settings).

there are a couple of ways to approach this. If you are high volume JPEG shooting, then most people set a paramenter on the camera to set saturation, sharpness tone and contrast as they want and use that as their finished JPEG image. The non-pro cameras are okay, but as you can imagine the pro 1DII and 1DIIs are much more tweakable in that regard.

Or - we can post process our images as needed in Photoshop or your editor of choice to get them nice and sharp relative to the medium they'll be presented at. Read virtually any article on printing digital images and it will cover sharpening for the print size. The basics start wuth a bit of USM in Photoshop or sharpening in RAW conversion up to dedicated sharpening programs that perform all sorts of wizzardry.

Your pro friend is right, you do generally need to sharpen digital images to get the final look. You mostly probably won't notice much difference though if you only ever printed 4x6" for instance though.

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 
Regarding build quality, if you want it, you have to pay for it. Check out any of the "L" Canon lenses and then you will see build quality, at a price of course.
 
I just hate junk.

So what you're all saying is that the same lens put on say an old CANON manual body would give sharper pics which means I can't really judge anything from that lcd screen till I take it home and run it the washing machine to clean it up?

By the way, I do NOT print so this to me looks like shi* on the monitor. I can only imagine what it'll look like in 16x20 or so.

THanks

George
 
Georgi said:
I just hate junk.

So what you're all saying is that the same lens put on say an old
CANON manual body would give sharper pics which means I can't
really judge anything from that lcd screen till I take it home and
run it the washing machine to clean it up?

By the way, I do NOT print so this to me looks like shi* on the
monitor. I can only imagine what it'll look like in 16x20 or so.
Click to expand...
No wonder it looks like on your monitor...

Unless you happen to have a 3504 x 2336 monitor (the resolution of the 20D), you haven't even a clue as to how sharp your camera really is. Have a few of your best shots printed at 8x12 on one of the good on-line services that uses Frontier printing equipment and prepare to be amazed with your quality.

--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams
 
Georgi said:
What's the deal? Is it the drugs I'm taking?
Am I expecting too much, that I picture should be sharp?
Click to expand...
The misunderstanding is that pictures should be sharp out from the camera. They should NOT.

You should expect that the picture will eventually become sharp, but no digital picture should be sharp out from the camera. Those cameras that give sharp pictures out from the camera are not as good as those who deliver pictures that look soft but contain much more detail. Such high-quality image files need post processing. This is no fault; moreover if the details are not there no post processing can create them.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
Georgi said:
but NOTHING and I mean NOTHING out of
that 18-55 looked much better than a pinhole camera shot
Click to expand...
the 18-55 is a very good lens for 100,- I think the reason you don't get anything good out of your camera is your lack of knowledge about 'digital' and 'post-processing'.
 
Georgi wrote:
[snip]
Georgi said:
Am I expecting too much, that I picture should be sharp?
Click to expand...
The pro's right. It's because of something called "demosaicing."

Your camera captures the image with a sensor array that has color filters on top of the sensors, arranged in a pattern like this:

RGBGRGBG
GRGBGRGB
RGBGRGBG

To get the final picture, the camera guesses what the brightness and color of each pixel should be from the values captured at that and the surrounding photosites. This will result in a soft-ish picture. To get it to optimal sharpness, you need to use unsharp mask or some similar contrast-increasing technique. Some RAW converters do this during conversion; in particular, CaptureOne produces extremely crisp edges "out of the box."

However, that's not really the point. The point is that it's stupid to judge image sharpness by looking at "actual pixels." Make print and look at that instead. I'll wager that you'll find that your "pinhole-soft" pics from the kit lens will turn out to be extremely crisp as 8 x 10 prints -- at least as good as you get from your film gear.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
Canon started putting large amounts of plastic (polycarbonate) into their lenses with the "New" FD lenses in the late 70s. Nearly everyone uses significant amounts of polycarbonate in their lenses these days, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Polycarbonate is lighter, and used in the right places, it's a better material.

What we don't know--and it would be expensive to find out--is what materials they're using in the critical areas, such as focusing helicoils. Popular Photography used to take lenses apart and judge them on appropriate material use and construction techniques. Alas, no more.

Most DSLRs, especially Canon, us an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor to "defocus" moire from subjects with finely patterned surfaces. The Kodak DSLR is one that does not--it is significantly sharper out of the camera. However, it will also show moire if you photograph something like silk. That's the tradeoff, but it's easier to resharpen the image that has been defocused by an antialiasing filter than it is to remove moire from an image.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
There is a huge variation in monitor quality. I have read threads where someone gets a new monitor and then discovers their pics are a lot sharper than they ever knew.

Prints from a good lab are the only real way to test sharpness. I noticed that when I got my new Canon i900D printer my pics were considerably sharper than coming out of my Epson 785EPX.

So many variables...

Lisa
Gary Coombs said:
No wonder it looks like on your monitor...

Unless you happen to have a 3504 x 2336 monitor (the resolution of
the 20D), you haven't even a clue as to how sharp your camera
really is. Have a few of your best shots printed at 8x12 on one of
the good on-line services that uses Frontier printing equipment and
prepare to be amazed with your quality.

--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx
 
.. you don't show any picture. Perhaps you're just not doing it the right way. Just a wild guess.

Frederique
--
photolog.isafeelin.org
 
What I am talking is not lack of detail that's hidden in there somewhere, I'm talking about focusing in between objects to get something sharp and nothing is and I'm trying to figure out what's going on.

I mean, I accept the fact that I'm a dumbass and that I dont' know what I'm doing, hell, I have no problem with that. I can learn, but what I HAVE a hard time accepting is that I'm not even close to getting a sharp picture.

..and come to think of it, I knew (but had forgotten till I just read these posts) that you had to do more work to extract a good image out of the camera when it's a good quality camera but I'm not talking about a little bit of "surface" sharpening, I'm talking about pictures not even close to being sharp.

George
 
I also know enough to put a camera on a tripod (gitzo with Arca), use the self timer, focus both manually and automatically on a subject that is right in front of where the RED square tells me it's focusing and get pictures that are fuzzy as hell.

A also know that there ARE limitations to what software will do IF the stuff ain't there to start with.

Mind you, I really couldn't give a dam* about what the 18-55 does, I'm not keeping it anyway.

Not just because lack of sharpness, I can't stand the build quality and I had the intention to buy other lenses anyway.

George
 
I've looked at them on the camera screen and on my screen and I have a bright and sharp Sony Trinitron 19" but hey, I'll admit that maybe I'm a jackass and I'll try anything because it's a learning process so I have no problem with criticism either, especially if it's constructive so if you guys give me the name of a good processing place that has reasonable prices, I'd be happy to send pictures in to be enlightened.

Also, if someone HERE wants to print this, I'd pay for it in hope that this same person can take the picture and analyze/work with it to see what they can get.

I'm ranting and raving because I can't get it right, not because I think I'm RIGHT, infallable or some shi* like this.

I WANT the 20D to give me the results I've seen here (quality wise I mean, not composition or whatever creative juices that are needed) and I'm willing to try whatever is suggested.

Therefore, I am going to get me a 50/1.8 MK II (which most seem to agree will give me good or excellent results) and if I'm STILL not happy with the results, I'll get back here to raise some hell and you guys can come down on me and tell me what I'm doing wrong.

I really have no problem with that 'cause I want to be able to do what I did years ago and get some decent pics.

Thanks

George
 
they were still made a hell of a lot better than some of these lenses that I've bought and seen.

As for the anti aliasing filter, I heard about that too. Don't misunderstand me, I would LIKE to get good results out of the camera but I guess after some time, I'll learn to judge what comes out on the little screen and how much I can GET out of it, doing the right work.

Fine, if the process doesn't work the way I hoped, I'll work with whatever i've got, as long as the END result is good.

Thanks

George
 
It's just when i first mentioned my problem, people started asking me questions that I couldnt answer so I will first try to figure out what I'm doing, how to do it and then I'll post some pictures with (hopefully) the answers you guys need to be able to help out.

Again, no sense in posting junk if I don't know what i did.

By the way, if I post some unaltered pics in jpeg, they WILL retain the exif so that people here can look at it, right?

George
 
You can take your photos down to any drug store or photo place and have them printed, and even without post processing, if your exposure and color balance was correct a photo should look great on an 8x10. Crank up the in camera sharpness and saturation a bit. It sounds to me that maybe you do have some sort of problem then. If they still look bad then you know you definately have a problem with your equipment, because it sounds to me you know enough of what your doing to take a decent picture. You can print direct from your flashcard or from a CD. Good luck.
Georgi said:
I've looked at them on the camera screen and on my screen and I
have a bright and sharp Sony Trinitron 19" but hey, I'll admit that
maybe I'm a jackass and I'll try anything because it's a learning
process so I have no problem with criticism either, especially if
it's constructive so if you guys give me the name of a good
processing place that has reasonable prices, I'd be happy to send
pictures in to be enlightened.

Also, if someone HERE wants to print this, I'd pay for it in hope
that this same person can take the picture and analyze/work with it
to see what they can get.

I'm ranting and raving because I can't get it right, not because I
think I'm RIGHT, infallable or some shi* like this.

I WANT the 20D to give me the results I've seen here (quality wise
I mean, not composition or whatever creative juices that are
needed) and I'm willing to try whatever is suggested.

Therefore, I am going to get me a 50/1.8 MK II (which most seem to
agree will give me good or excellent results) and if I'm STILL not
happy with the results, I'll get back here to raise some hell and
you guys can come down on me and tell me what I'm doing wrong.

I really have no problem with that 'cause I want to be able to do
what I did years ago and get some decent pics.

Thanks

George
Click to expand...
 
If you love to complain so much about the 18-55 and its "build quality" then why would you bother with a 70$ lens known to some as "the plastic fantastic?"
Georgi said:
Therefore, I am going to get me a 50/1.8 MK II (which most seem to
agree will give me good or excellent results) and if I'm STILL not
happy with the results, I'll get back here to raise some hell and
you guys can come down on me and tell me what I'm doing wrong.

I really have no problem with that 'cause I want to be able to do
what I did years ago and get some decent pics.

Thanks

George
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top