Disappointed w/Consumer Glass or is it D30?

Bart · Jan 6, 2002

I enjoyed my E10 and E20 very much. My shots were great and I started to get some paid work. Even in print.

Decided to take it to the next level though money was tightening. Got a new D30 + 2 lenses. I enjoyed the weight of the E20 but really needed the speed and supposed near film-like quality of the D30.

Didn't want to be carrying around much more than 4 pounds of camera + lens so I opted for consumer glass. Price was right too.

Got the 24-85 as a general knockabout lens and the 28-135IS for the longer shot as well as the low light the IS might help me with.

Most of my indoor work needs extensive tweaking in PS because it is either too dark, too soft, or both. Outdoors on a cloudy day I find the 3.5/4.5 to render dull shots as well. My E20 blows them away as far as vibrancy.

So you say stick w/E-20. I love the D30 speed, I crave the speed of the D30. I know the camera can do better as well as I, but for the glass.

NOW- What to do? I don't want to waste anymore dough with lenses I won't use much.

Been thinking this way:

50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both on the camera and the wallet.

I'm sure that some of you genius' crossed the same path as I. Any advice is nice.

Best regards to all
Bart

Michael Thomas Mitchell · Jan 6, 2002

Bart,

At the risk of offence, which is not my intention, it sounds like you just need to spend more time with the camera. The D30 and the Olympus cameras are pretty different beasts, with the latter designed to provide a more "vibrant", among other things, out-of-the-camera image. D30 images do frequently need work. Sometimes, they don't. But they seldom need "extensive" work.

Again, I don't know much about your experience level with pro digicams (strictly speaking, the D30 isn't a pro level cam, but it does, however, behave and perform like one) or with Photoshop. But it sounds like you just need the honeymoon to last a bit longer. The two lenses you have are nice lenses. They are not the best Canon has to offer, but your expectations simply seem beyond what spending more money on glass will provide.

You mentioned that sometimes exposures are too dark. In-camera meters aren't always the most accurate and the D30, I believe, like many dSLRs tends to slightly underexpose so as to avoid blowing highlights. Take some shots using a handheld meter and really get to know what's going on inside the D30.

M

Bart said:
I enjoyed my E10 and E20 very much. My shots were great and I
started to get some paid work. Even in print.

Decided to take it to the next level though money was tightening.
Got a new D30 + 2 lenses. I enjoyed the weight of the E20 but
really needed the speed and supposed near film-like quality of the
D30.

Didn't want to be carrying around much more than 4 pounds of camera
+ lens so I opted for consumer glass. Price was right too.

Got the 24-85 as a general knockabout lens and the 28-135IS for the
longer shot as well as the low light the IS might help me with.

Most of my indoor work needs extensive tweaking in PS because it is
either too dark, too soft, or both. Outdoors on a cloudy day I find
the 3.5/4.5 to render dull shots as well. My E20 blows them away as
far as vibrancy.

So you say stick w/E-20. I love the D30 speed, I crave the speed of
the D30. I know the camera can do better as well as I, but for the
glass.

NOW- What to do? I don't want to waste anymore dough with lenses I
won't use much.

Been thinking this way:

50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get
very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both
on the camera and the wallet.

I'm sure that some of you genius' crossed the same path as I. Any
advice is nice.

Best regards to all
Bart

Andrew Grant27981 · Jan 6, 2002

Bart said:
I enjoyed my E10 and E20 very much. My shots were great and I
started to get some paid work. Even in print.

Decided to take it to the next level though money was tightening.
Got a new D30 + 2 lenses. I enjoyed the weight of the E20 but
really needed the speed and supposed near film-like quality of the
D30.

Didn't want to be carrying around much more than 4 pounds of camera
+ lens so I opted for consumer glass. Price was right too.

Got the 24-85 as a general knockabout lens and the 28-135IS for the
longer shot as well as the low light the IS might help me with.

Seems like a lot od duplication to me. Get rid of one of them and buy a 50/1.4 or a 50/1.8.

Bart said:
Most of my indoor work needs extensive tweaking in PS because it is
either too dark, too soft, or both. Outdoors on a cloudy day I find
the 3.5/4.5 to render dull shots as well. My E20 blows them away as
far as vibrancy.

Sounds like you are not exposing your shots correctly. Are these indoor shots with flash. You may not understand how the E-TTL flash system works, many don't. As far as softness goes, what aperture are you using and what focus mode. Some sharpening will be required. Photoshop's USM works very well. How are you post processing your images.

When photographing outside on a cloudy day, dullness is probably an accurate reflection of the scene. However, "vibrancy" can be added in photoshop. What saturation settings are you using. I assume you are shooting RAW, if so how are you converting the images.

Bart said:
So you say stick w/E-20. I love the D30 speed, I crave the speed of
the D30. I know the camera can do better as well as I, but for the
glass.

I would not stick with the E/20. Stick with the D30 and one of the lenses you have, learn how the flash system works and

Bart said:
NOW- What to do? I don't want to waste anymore dough with lenses I
won't use much.

Been thinking this way:

50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

Personally, I stick to Canon glass. Better resale value.

Bart said:
or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get
very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both
on the camera and the wallet.

Greg M · Jan 6, 2002

Bart said:
I enjoyed my E10 and E20 very much. My shots were great and I
started to get some paid work. Even in print.

Decided to take it to the next level though money was tightening.
Got a new D30 + 2 lenses. I enjoyed the weight of the E20 but
really needed the speed and supposed near film-like quality of the
D30.

Didn't want to be carrying around much more than 4 pounds of camera
+ lens so I opted for consumer glass. Price was right too.

Got the 24-85 as a general knockabout lens and the 28-135IS for the
longer shot as well as the low light the IS might help me with.

Most of my indoor work needs extensive tweaking in PS because it is
either too dark, too soft, or both. Outdoors on a cloudy day I find
the 3.5/4.5 to render dull shots as well. My E20 blows them away as
far as vibrancy.

I have read on this forum that the D30 generally underexposes by about 1 stop. I have mine at +2/3 and have gotten much nicer pics. Check out Fred's site for some nice Photoshop actions that make touch-up fast and easy. Of coarse they don't cover everything but they have made myself, and others, look alot better at photoshop.

Bart said:
So you say stick w/E-20. I love the D30 speed, I crave the speed of
the D30. I know the camera can do better as well as I, but for the
glass.

NOW- What to do? I don't want to waste anymore dough with lenses I
won't use much.

Been thinking this way:

50 1.4

I really like this lens.

Bart said:
Sigma 28-70

or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get
very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both
on the camera and the wallet.

Have you read Fred's review on this lens? 16-35L

Bart said:
I'm sure that some of you genius' crossed the same path as I. Any
advice is nice.

Best regards to all
Bart

John MacLean Photography · Jan 6, 2002

Bart said:
or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get
very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both
on the camera and the wallet.

Bart,

I replied to your post the other day mentioning I tried to email you, but your address was bad. I've got a EF 17-35 for sale that's 9+ condition. As I mention to another interested party via email:

I shoot commercial jobs which are the most demanding for quality. I'm eventually upgrading all of my current gear that has been updated by Canon. So yes, I'm planning on the 16-35, 70-200 IS, 1D, etc.

Mainly want the 16-35 for the closer focussing, and I can use the extra 1mm when I get the 1D. I do have a 14mm, but I can only put gel filters behind the lens. For most casual shooters, even event/wedding shooters the 17-35 is all they would ever need. It's been a great lens for me and has made lots of great shots and $$$ for me. See the links below. 80%+ were probably shot with it.

81 Blue Stem - 3 pix
http://www.johnmaclean.com/81

705 Ocaso Del Sol - 8 pix
http://www.johnmaclean.com/705

1567 Bishops Lodge Road - 5 pix
http://www.johnmaclean.com/1567

Photo Archive - 42 pix
http://www.johnmaclean.com/real_estate/
-- http://www.johnmaclean.com

Richard M · Jan 7, 2002

Your 24-85 and 28-135 really do not offer too many options they basically overlap too much. Do not get caught thinking that L lenses will solve all of your problems with indoor shooting. Do you have an external flash ?? This will be a much better investment that any lenses for shooting indoors.

Another good option is the 50mm 1.4 but on a D30 is a bit long for close ups or portraits.

Bart said:
I enjoyed my E10 and E20 very much. My shots were great and I
started to get some paid work. Even in print.

Decided to take it to the next level though money was tightening.
Got a new D30 + 2 lenses. I enjoyed the weight of the E20 but
really needed the speed and supposed near film-like quality of the
D30.

Didn't want to be carrying around much more than 4 pounds of camera
+ lens so I opted for consumer glass. Price was right too.

Got the 24-85 as a general knockabout lens and the 28-135IS for the
longer shot as well as the low light the IS might help me with.

Most of my indoor work needs extensive tweaking in PS because it is
either too dark, too soft, or both. Outdoors on a cloudy day I find
the 3.5/4.5 to render dull shots as well. My E20 blows them away as
far as vibrancy.

So you say stick w/E-20. I love the D30 speed, I crave the speed of
the D30. I know the camera can do better as well as I, but for the
glass.

NOW- What to do? I don't want to waste anymore dough with lenses I
won't use much.

Been thinking this way:

50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get
very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both
on the camera and the wallet.

I'm sure that some of you genius' crossed the same path as I. Any
advice is nice.

Best regards to all
Bart

kelleym · Jan 7, 2002

Bart,

Comparing images out of the camera between the D30 and any other P&S is not going to be productive. They are the raw negatives from which you produce your prints, and a little Photoshop tweaking will bring out the beauty (still another reason to shoot RAW).

If you take a RAW image and adjust levels, sharpness and saturation with the lenses you currently have, you ought to be able to blow any other digital out of the water (obviously, as always, IMHO). On my site I give complete advice on how to do this, if you don't already know. It shouldn't take more than a few seconds for each image, but without it you're just not looking at the right things.

This isn't to say you can't get other lenses -- only that you need to learn how good the camera can be with the glass you have first. Then you'll know what lenses you need/want.--Mike http://www.kelleytown.com

Dave Lewis · Jan 7, 2002

Bart said:
50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

I just received my 24-85 and my 50 1.4 today. I have taken about fifty pictures with each and honestly don't think there is a big difference. The 50 is perhaps a little contrastier in the light of a late afternoon gloomy snowy day than the 24-85. If the 50 1.4 is a benchmark, then the 24-85 surely isn't falling much short. Perhaps you need to give it more work. All the shots I took were pretty much wide open so it was a good test of sharpness and contrast. It didn't knock me down but didn't make it a disappointment in comparision to the 50 1.4 either.

While I'm here, a qustion about the 24-85. The instruction sheet says the manual focus ring should not be used while in autofocus mode. It seems to work exactly like the 50 1.4, which lets you use manual and auto at the same time. I like the ability to touch up focus. What gives. Are the instructions wrong.
--Dave Lewis

Dave Werner · Jan 7, 2002

Dave Lewis said:
While I'm here, a qustion about the 24-85. The instruction sheet
says the manual focus ring should not be used while in autofocus
mode. It seems to work exactly like the 50 1.4, which lets you use
manual and auto at the same time. I like the ability to touch up
focus. What gives?

I don’t know how that crept into the instructions. The 24-85 is a ring motor USM “full time focusing” lens. (If anything a superior focusing mechanism than the 50 1.4 which is micro-motor USM!) Feel free to use “FTM” to override the autofocus anytime you want.

BTW my experiences with the 24-85 on a D30 have been very positive and I've posted samples.

--Dave Werner

Karl Guttag · Jan 7, 2002

It is really not "fair or rational" to compare one lens at F1.4 and another lens at F3.5 or F4.5. You need to compare them at the same F-numbers to see the difference. Even an excellent lens like the 50F1.4 is going to be a good bit softer at F1.4 than F2 and will be sharper still at F4. There is an inherent optical effect that a wider aperture will tend to be softer since it is "collecting light" from a wider angle relative to the surface (the "extra light, is coming from the outside of the lens and is the hardest to focus). Stopping the aperture down cut out the light rays that are hardest to focus.

What you are getting with a 50F1.4 Prime is 2.6 to 3.3 F-stops. This means you can shoot with about 1/5th to 1/10th the amount of light at the same ISO and Shutter speed, or at 5x to 10x the shutter speed at the same ISO.

Look at the 28-70F2.8 and the price goes up over 3X just to get about 1 f-stops over the 24-85.

Karl

Dave Lewis said:
Member said:

50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

Click to expand...

I just received my 24-85 and my 50 1.4 today. I have taken about
fifty pictures with each and honestly don't think there is a big
difference. The 50 is perhaps a little contrastier in the light of
a late afternoon gloomy snowy day than the 24-85. If the 50 1.4 is
a benchmark, then the 24-85 surely isn't falling much short.
Perhaps you need to give it more work. All the shots I took were
pretty much wide open so it was a good test of sharpness and
contrast. It didn't knock me down but didn't make it a
disappointment in comparision to the 50 1.4 either.

While I'm here, a qustion about the 24-85. The instruction sheet
says the manual focus ring should not be used while in autofocus
mode. It seems to work exactly like the 50 1.4, which lets you use
manual and auto at the same time. I like the ability to touch up
focus. What gives. Are the instructions wrong.

--
Dave Lewis

--Karl

Daniel Lauring · Jan 7, 2002

D30 shots are much less processed coming out of the camera. This gives you the option of adding any bit of sharpening or leveling you desire. If you want them to look more like E10/E20 shots, you can batch process them. I prefer to treat them individually...something that isn't possible with presharpened shots from other cameras.

By the way, it really depends on what you are using the shots for. I find most shots don't need any processing if they are going to be made into typical 4" prints. Web viewing requires a bit more pop. Viewing full-sized on a monitor begs for even more sharpening.

Good luck,
Danny

Bart said:
I enjoyed my E10 and E20 very much. My shots were great and I
started to get some paid work. Even in print.

Decided to take it to the next level though money was tightening.
Got a new D30 + 2 lenses. I enjoyed the weight of the E20 but
really needed the speed and supposed near film-like quality of the
D30.

Didn't want to be carrying around much more than 4 pounds of camera
+ lens so I opted for consumer glass. Price was right too.

Got the 24-85 as a general knockabout lens and the 28-135IS for the
longer shot as well as the low light the IS might help me with.

Most of my indoor work needs extensive tweaking in PS because it is
either too dark, too soft, or both. Outdoors on a cloudy day I find
the 3.5/4.5 to render dull shots as well. My E20 blows them away as
far as vibrancy.

So you say stick w/E-20. I love the D30 speed, I crave the speed of
the D30. I know the camera can do better as well as I, but for the
glass.

NOW- What to do? I don't want to waste anymore dough with lenses I
won't use much.

Been thinking this way:

50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get
very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both
on the camera and the wallet.

I'm sure that some of you genius' crossed the same path as I. Any
advice is nice.

Best regards to all
Bart

VincentJ · Jan 7, 2002

My advice would be to avoid the Sigma lens. I am not sure about the new lenses but I had an older Sigma zoom whose glass became cloudy/milky. I believe it is because of some outgassing due to the lubricants used in the lens. It was out of warranty and I dumped the lens.

As for sharpness, your 24-85 and 28-135 are consumer grade lenses. Dont expect the kind of sharpness and color saturation you will get from a lens like a 50/1.8 or 1.4. Over the years I've replaced my zooms with 4 primes. They deliver noticeably more sharpness and color saturation than the consumer zooms I was using.

Buchan-Grant · Jan 8, 2002

Indeed I agree, I was going to go for the 16-35 to replace my 20mm 2.8 but I've been comapring shots and the 20 mm produces noticably sharper and better looking images. Your right to question your images.

Sharpness, contrast etc can be plotted and measured in a 100 ways but it comes down to the pictures producing a reaction of wonder and astonishment in how 'zippy' they look. I have the 20mm the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 and I wouldn't touch the sigma if you want that 'zippy' look. The decent Canon lenses handle well, they feel good to use, they are also usually smaller than the sigmas too. I'd go for primes, your obviously picky with quality! If money is tight there are always loads of good used primes around at great prices.

VincentJ said:
My advice would be to avoid the Sigma lens. I am not sure about the
new lenses but I had an older Sigma zoom whose glass became
cloudy/milky. I believe it is because of some outgassing due to the
lubricants used in the lens. It was out of warranty and I dumped
the lens.

As for sharpness, your 24-85 and 28-135 are consumer grade lenses.
Dont expect the kind of sharpness and color saturation you will get
from a lens like a 50/1.8 or 1.4. Over the years I've replaced my
zooms with 4 primes. They deliver noticeably more sharpness and
color saturation than the consumer zooms I was using.

--Neil http://www.neilbuchangrant.co.uk

Dave Werner · Jan 8, 2002

Karl, I agree with you that comparing one lens at 1.4 to another at 3.5 is not “fair” (“rational” I’ll leave alone…

However, there has been a general rush to speed in this forum that confused me quite a bit at first. Coming from a manual focus background, I missed the connection to autofocus speed. I found myself wondering if there really is that kind of overwhelming interest in high speed lenses for indoor sports photography. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

I now recognize that the quest for perfect autofocus, even more than low light capability, is behind all the seeming fanaticism. What used to be “f8 and be there” has become “2.8L or be square”. (OK, I should leave the poetry alone…).

I’m finding myself drawn to defending the better less expensive lenses (like the 24-85 and the 70-200 f4L). There are a lot of new people out there migrating up from digital cameras that have never purchased lenses. There are some very nice options in the middle between the 5-1 or higher ratio zoom low end that most gravitate to, and the over $1k “Ls”.

Comparisons at f5.6, 8, 11, etc. are absolutely valid, as that is the most used range of apertures. Yes, in a perfect world we all want the 16-35L, 28-70L, 70-200 2.8L IS "Holy Trinity"… But must of us are pretty nearly financially exhausted after paying for the D-30 body. And most of us do not shoot natural light indoor action shots as our primary mode of expression.

There is some pretty good mid-range glass in the Canon line that is getting shoved aside by marginal “what if” logic. I would defy anyone to consistently pick out f8 images produced by any $1k plus L over images produced using and one of Canon’s better midrange zooms or primes.

Lastly, it seems to me that, two other issues come into play here. With the arrival on the scene of some really effective noise reduction software (I’ve just started using Fred’s 400 iso plug in) the need for speed in lenses is less critical, and as contrast is at least as important as raw speed to the D-30 autofocus system, more attention should be given to contrast in lens evaluation with AF performance in mind. It is not coincidental that most of the complaining about D-30 AF performance seems to coming from 28-135 IS owners (one of Canons sharp but less contrasty lenses).

All the best,--Dave Werner

xsy · Jan 8, 2002

I concur with this.

The prosumer lenses (with ring USM) are actually quite good. It's more important to use your to get a good coverage (20mm-200mm for the D30). Once you know what you want to shoot, then you can use your money to buy L's or primes to cover your most often used focal length.

--xsy

Karl Guttag · Jan 8, 2002

Dave Werner,

I was responding to Dave Lewis' response that:

"All the shots I took were pretty much wide open so it was a good test of sharpness and contrast."

I shoot a lot of amateur indoor sports and with F2.8, even ISO1600 is not really enough for exposure. I bought an 85F1.8 for indoor basketball. I have tried all different kinds of noise reduction and at ISO800 it is pretty managable, but I have never been that happy at ISO1600.

You are right that at F8 almost any lens will be good. Certainly people tend to buy more glass than they need (how many prints do they blow up and hang on the wall). If people don't need F2.8 and the more rugged build of L glass, then they are paying a very steep premium for very little better image. I have stated many times in this forum that what I see people paying for in "L" glass is good performance at low F-numbers.

Personally I use a 28-135IS as my walk around general purpose lens it does fine. I have not noticed a contrast problem with it. I think the autofocus system does fall off with higher F-number. As you are aware, with a low F-number the change in focus effect is more dramatic and thus easier for the focusing system to detect. Also there is more light to work with so it make the AF system work better.

One side note and a "draw back" to digital. With digital all my images get Displayed on a 21-inch monitor and while I work on them in PS, I may even be looking at them at 100% or greater. I worked with a few thousand film scans before the D30 so I was used to seeing images up close. Not many people ever saw more than at most a few of their film images blown up to 21-inch diagonally (or 19 or 17 inch for that matter). Now they see many/most of their digital images that size. Problems that went unnoticed on 4x6 prints are now causing them problems. Yes with a D30 you are cropping the outsides of the lens' image, but the center gets even more critical and then you blow it up to say 21-inches diagonally. I imaging film people would want better lenses if they always cropped by 1.6x and then routinely blew up most of their images to 21-inches diagonally.

Karl

Dave Werner said:
Karl, I agree with you that comparing one lens at 1.4 to another at
3.5 is not “fair” (“rational” I’ll
leave alone… However, there has been a general rush to
speed in this forum that confused me quite a bit at first. Coming
from a manual focus background, I missed the connection to
autofocus speed. I found myself wondering if there really is that
kind of overwhelming interest in high speed lenses for indoor
sports photography. (Not that there’s anything wrong with
that!
I now recognize that the quest for perfect autofocus, even more
than low light capability, is behind all the seeming fanaticism.
What used to be “f8 and be there” has become
“2.8L or be square”. (OK, I should leave the poetry
alone…).
I’m finding myself drawn to defending the better less
expensive lenses (like the 24-85 and the 70-200 f4L). There are a
lot of new people out there migrating up from digital cameras that
have never purchased lenses. There are some very nice options in
the middle between the 5-1 or higher ratio zoom low end that most
gravitate to, and the over $1k “Ls”.
Comparisons at f5.6, 8, 11, etc. are absolutely valid, as that is
the most used range of apertures. Yes, in a perfect world we all
want the 16-35L, 28-70L, 70-200 2.8L IS "Holy Trinity"… But
must of us are pretty nearly financially exhausted after paying for
the D-30 body. And most of us do not shoot natural light indoor
action shots as our primary mode of expression.
There is some pretty good mid-range glass in the Canon line that is
getting shoved aside by marginal “what if” logic. I
would defy anyone to consistently pick out f8 images produced by
any $1k plus L over images produced using and one of Canon’s
better midrange zooms or primes.
Lastly, it seems to me that, two other issues come into play here.
With the arrival on the scene of some really effective noise
reduction software (I’ve just started using Fred’s 400
iso plug in) the need for speed in lenses is less critical, and as
contrast is at least as important as raw speed to the D-30
autofocus system, more attention should be given to contrast in
lens evaluation with AF performance in mind. It is not
coincidental that most of the complaining about D-30 AF performance
seems to coming from 28-135 IS owners (one of Canons sharp but less
contrasty lenses).

All the best,
--
Dave Werner

--Karl

Dave Werner · Jan 8, 2002

Karl Guttag said:
One side note and a "draw back" to digital. With digital all my
images get Displayed on a 21-inch monitor and while I work on them
in PS, I may even be looking at them at 100% or greater. I worked
with a few thousand film scans before the D30 so I was used to
seeing images up close. Not many people ever saw more than at
most a few of their film images blown up to 21-inch diagonally (or
19 or 17 inch for that matter). Now they see many/most of their
digital images that size.

Ha! I know what you mean.

I was up late last night scanning some 20 year old negatives. I finally crawed into bed muttering: "but that Macro Switar was such a sharp lens...!?"
--Dave Werner

skeys · Jan 8, 2002

Hi Bart...
Just came across this question from you.

If you cannot rent a lens locally, tell us where you live and request a day's photo trip with other photogs who have the lens you are considering. I am sure they would let you try their lens while they are with you. Are you near Reno, NV?
Steve

Bart said:
I enjoyed my E10 and E20 very much. My shots were great and I
started to get some paid work. Even in print.

Decided to take it to the next level though money was tightening.
Got a new D30 + 2 lenses. I enjoyed the weight of the E20 but
really needed the speed and supposed near film-like quality of the
D30.

Didn't want to be carrying around much more than 4 pounds of camera
+ lens so I opted for consumer glass. Price was right too.

Got the 24-85 as a general knockabout lens and the 28-135IS for the
longer shot as well as the low light the IS might help me with.

Most of my indoor work needs extensive tweaking in PS because it is
either too dark, too soft, or both. Outdoors on a cloudy day I find
the 3.5/4.5 to render dull shots as well. My E20 blows them away as
far as vibrancy.

So you say stick w/E-20. I love the D30 speed, I crave the speed of
the D30. I know the camera can do better as well as I, but for the
glass.

NOW- What to do? I don't want to waste anymore dough with lenses I
won't use much.

Been thinking this way:

50 1.4
Sigma 28-70

or I'm back to the weight issue with Canon 17-35 which seems to get
very mixed reviews on this forum or Canon 16-35 whis is heavy both
on the camera and the wallet.

I'm sure that some of you genius' crossed the same path as I. Any
advice is nice.

Best regards to all
Bart

Bart · Jan 8, 2002

I've been printing my images w/ an Epson 1270 and printing out 8x10s, 11x17's and 13x19's. With my Olympus even my 13x19s must be reduced to 40% of the image unless I do some major cropping.

This makes 5mp a lot of fun. When reducing the size down to 25-35% or more as I do w/8x10's, my printed images have wound up in glossy mags and look terrific.

I still size down w/the D30, just not as much. When comparing 2 indoor shots using the built in flash of the E20 and the D30, the D30 images are warmer with a pinkish hue. The E20 shots are more contrasty and more natural loooking but not necessarily better looking, just different. I find myself using the 24-85 on the D30 because I like the weight balance.

I am by no means an "expert" expert and have a long way to go, but I have a good eye for composing a shot, and good working knowledge for post processing. I've been lucky enough to have had my work seen by the right people at the right time and now I'm in print.

I have been a hobbyist and amateur for several years but defer to the wisdom on this panel.

I'm trying to get comfortable w./ the D30 both physically and I want to get the best possible "noticeable" quality out of the camera so I can do my best.

I find I handle the camera better in more ways with a lens of no more than 16oz. That must be factored into my equation. I would also very much like f2.8 or better.

Ideally, I want a 28-70 f2.8 w/L glass that weighs 14oz and doesn't extend when it zooms a la Tokina.
Is that too much to ask.

Bart · Jan 8, 2002

Seriously pricing 20mm and 50mm primes. Not sure if 1.4 worth it The image is everything.

I have the 24-85 to bop around w/ but when I need a serious shot, I don't want to settle an I don't want the weight.

Neil Buchan-Grant said:
Sharpness, contrast etc can be plotted and measured in a 100 ways
but it comes down to the pictures producing a reaction of wonder
and astonishment in how 'zippy' they look. I have the 20mm the 50
1.4 and the 85 1.8 and I wouldn't touch the sigma if you want that
'zippy' look. The decent Canon lenses handle well, they feel good
to use, they are also usually smaller than the sigmas too. I'd go
for primes, your obviously picky with quality! If money is tight
there are always loads of good used primes around at great prices.

VincentJ said:

My advice would be to avoid the Sigma lens. I am not sure about the
new lenses but I had an older Sigma zoom whose glass became
cloudy/milky. I believe it is because of some outgassing due to the
lubricants used in the lens. It was out of warranty and I dumped
the lens.

As for sharpness, your 24-85 and 28-135 are consumer grade lenses.
Dont expect the kind of sharpness and color saturation you will get
from a lens like a 50/1.8 or 1.4. Over the years I've replaced my
zooms with 4 primes. They deliver noticeably more sharpness and
color saturation than the consumer zooms I was using.

Click to expand...

--
Neil
http://www.neilbuchangrant.co.uk

Disappointed w/Consumer Glass or is it D30?

Well-known member

Michael Thomas Mitchell

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

kelleym

Guest

Dave Lewis

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts