Some opinions on elcheapo lenses with D60

I recently moved from a Minolta Dynax 7 & Olympus E10 kit to the Canon D60. For my first lens I bought the 50mm F/1.4, and later added the 70-200L f/4. I was extremely pleased with the results, and have sold many photosets (glamour, yes yes I know...) shot using these lenses.

Recently I decided to add a compact zoom for use when I travel & need to do casting shoots. I decided to skip the expensive L Canon's and buy a Sigma 24-85mm "Aspherical" zoom. I was shocked at how bad the photos were using this lens, there is absolutely NO WAY that anybody in his/her right mind can justify to me that they get good results using cheap zooms. There is barely any contrast, and the photos are so soft I checked to see if I didn't accidently use a soft-focus filter on the Sigma. The amount of barrel distortion is unacceptable to say the least. I feel so disgusted by this lens that I nearly threw it into the dustbin, but decided to hang on to it in case I meet a sucker who's willing to buy it off me.

Do yourself a favour, if you bought the D60 with one of those disposable all-plastic holiday zooms, go buy a proper lens like the cheap 50mm f/1.8 and you will be amazed at the difference it makes.

--
HighContrast

Dear Mr Contrast

I have to agree with you entirely. I've been testing out Canon's 24-85 consumer zoom and this older 28-70 3.5-4.5 II canon zoom (supposed to be canon's best consumer zoom ever made). Both pale in comparison to my cheap 50 1.8, and honestly there is little to separate the 24-85 from the 28-70, even though the latter is rated higher. The 28-70 may be a hair sharper but also gives more purple fringing at wider apertures. If I could afford a 28-70L I'd try it for fun. The more I look at all these shots the more impressed I am by this simple prime lens.

Rich

Hi Rich,

I'm using 28-70 L lens and did not notice any problems. Very sharp, beautifull colors. I don't know how you can compare this one to 24-85.
Thanks Darius.

Rich said:

Dear Mr Contrast

I have to agree with you entirely. I've been testing out Canon's
24-85 consumer zoom and this older 28-70 3.5-4.5 II canon zoom
(supposed to be canon's best consumer zoom ever made). Both pale in
comparison to my cheap 50 1.8, and honestly there is little to
separate the 24-85 from the 28-70, even though the latter is rated
higher. The 28-70 may be a hair sharper but also gives more purple
fringing at wider apertures. If I could afford a 28-70L I'd try it
for fun. The more I look at all these shots the more impressed I am
by this simple prime lens.

Rich

Click to expand...

Rich,

Really now, don't you think claiming your 24-85 is as good as a 28-70 L is a bit of stretch??? Try shooting handheld indoors with available light with your 24-85 at about 70mm and let us know how it goes.

Darius said:

Rich said:

Dear Mr Contrast

I have to agree with you entirely. I've been testing out Canon's
24-85 consumer zoom and this older 28-70 3.5-4.5 II canon zoom
(supposed to be canon's best consumer zoom ever made). Both pale in
comparison to my cheap 50 1.8, and honestly there is little to
separate the 24-85 from the 28-70, even though the latter is rated
higher. The 28-70 may be a hair sharper but also gives more purple
fringing at wider apertures. If I could afford a 28-70L I'd try it
for fun. The more I look at all these shots the more impressed I am
by this simple prime lens.

Rich

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

read the post properly before replying.......

David Hood said:

Really now, don't you think claiming your 24-85 is as good as a
28-70 L is a bit of stretch??? Try shooting handheld indoors with
available light with your 24-85 at about 70mm and let us know how
it goes.

Darius said:

Rich said:

Dear Mr Contrast

I have to agree with you entirely. I've been testing out Canon's
24-85 consumer zoom and this older 28-70 3.5-4.5 II canon zoom
(supposed to be canon's best consumer zoom ever made). Both pale in
comparison to my cheap 50 1.8, and honestly there is little to
separate the 24-85 from the 28-70, even though the latter is rated
higher. The 28-70 may be a hair sharper but also gives more purple
fringing at wider apertures. If I could afford a 28-70L I'd try it
for fun. The more I look at all these shots the more impressed I am
by this simple prime lens.

Rich

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,

Stuart Rider.

you get what you pay for. (all makes incl. Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Cosina).

There is a marked difference between consumer zooms and either primes or L's. The only mistake is to be disappointed by the performance of the cheaper lenses - they are actually not bad for the price.

Funnily, I never really noticed the lack of sharpness until I got the D30. Having said that, 7x5 and 6x4 prints were the norm in the film days with very rare 10x8s. It is really on the larger print sizes (and on-screen at 100%) that the limitations are exposed.

The other disadvantage of the consumer grade lenses is that they are relatively slow (f4-f5.6) which makes the D30 AF work even harder in low light.

I always keep my 50/1.8 to hand for the "perfect" photo. Pity it becomes an 80mm effective on the D30 though. Early years were spent shooting with naught but 50mm "standard" lens.

Soorry Rich,
I misunderstand your post.
Darius.

Stuart Rider said:

David Hood said:

Really now, don't you think claiming your 24-85 is as good as a
28-70 L is a bit of stretch??? Try shooting handheld indoors with
available light with your 24-85 at about 70mm and let us know how
it goes.

Darius said:

Rich said:

Dear Mr Contrast

I have to agree with you entirely. I've been testing out Canon's
24-85 consumer zoom and this older 28-70 3.5-4.5 II canon zoom
(supposed to be canon's best consumer zoom ever made). Both pale in
comparison to my cheap 50 1.8, and honestly there is little to
separate the 24-85 from the 28-70, even though the latter is rated
higher. The 28-70 may be a hair sharper but also gives more purple
fringing at wider apertures. If I could afford a 28-70L I'd try it
for fun. The more I look at all these shots the more impressed I am
by this simple prime lens.

Rich

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,

Stuart Rider.

Click to expand...

GjB said:

you get what you pay for. (all makes incl. Canon, Sigma, Tamron,
Tokina, Cosina).

Funnily, I never really noticed the lack of sharpness until I got
the D30. Having said that, 7x5 and 6x4 prints were the norm in the
film days with very rare 10x8s. It is really on the larger print
sizes (and on-screen at 100%) that the limitations are exposed.

Click to expand...

So I wonder, what is the answer? It is great to have the capabilty to make large prints and view pics on a 20" monitor, but in a way that capablilty leads to a fair amount of disappointment (ie with sharpness, exactness of focus, color sat. etc.- especially with the kind of lenses that I can afford !). It is like a big unending circle. Cause next year an even better camera will come out and reveal even more flaws.

And yet on the other hand I would add that in the 20 some years I have been into photography I have never been as pleased with my results as when I finally bought a D30! And my level of skill and knowledge has increased tremdously now that I get instant feedback on the various little exposure and composition adjustments I am inclined to make. Not to mention having total control over the "darkroom" process as well.

So are we (those with limited budgets) to settle for great 5 x 7's etc. with the knowledge their larger brethern are flawed? An interesting conundrum. I know a great deal could be solved with better and better glass, but that's mighty expensive!

Mike

If that's true, why is the $75 50mm 1.8 considered to be such a good lens?

GjB said:

you get what you pay for. (all makes incl. Canon, Sigma, Tamron,
Tokina, Cosina).

Click to expand...

I agree that the 50/1.8 is excellent (as said in my original post). Why? Probably because it is easier to make good primes than zooms. It is also cheaper to manufacture a "standard" lens than wide angle or telephoto. Most manufacturers "low cost" 50mm lenses were of good optical quality.

Peter T said:

GjB said:

you get what you pay for. (all makes incl. Canon, Sigma, Tamron,
Tokina, Cosina).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No. But you are becoming more discerning when the "quality" is under your nose. And there is no shame in that. It is part of the learning process. Any chain is as strong as its weakest link (be that the camera, lens, post-processing, printer or [in my case] the photographer). I suspect that many of us made the decision to go digital and made a significant investment in D30/D60 bodies without realising the cost of building an equally good supporting "system" (i.e. lenses).

Good glass has never been cheap. No matter what happens to camera bodies in the future, really good quality lenses will remain relatively expensive. It's not really worth labouring over though. Look at how much more creative freedom and control we are getting with Digital.

And the real truth is that a good photographer will still produce stunning images with a $200 lens - the last few % of perfection in the image capture is not as important as the picture itself. I am amused frequently at the "quality" of many of the 1D + expensive L glass photos posted here which have no photographic or technical merit but which have been made possible by $7-$10K worth of technology.

That reminds me of something Michael at luminouslandscape.com said that stuck in my mind: "most lenses are better than most photographers".

GjB said:

And the real truth is that a good photographer will still produce
stunning images with a $200 lens - the last few % of perfection in
the image capture is not as important as the picture itself. I am
amused frequently at the "quality" of many of the 1D + expensive L
glass photos posted here which have no photographic or technical
merit but which have been made possible by $7-$10K worth of
technology.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's easy to confuse the two lenses since they have the same focal length. The initial round of shooting has left me wondering how everyone could rate the old 28-70 II so highly, to me it doesn't look that different from the 24-85, I'm sure the L lens would perform better (it dang well should for $1000).

Now I don't know what to do. I am sort of thinking about selling both and trying the Sigma or Tokina quasi-pro versions, or perhaps the older 28-80L canon. But according to Ron Parr even his 28-70L does not look that good when stacked up against the 50 1.8 prime. Am I condemned to live with prime lenses if I want the sharpest cleanest possible images?

I'll try posting some of the shots this afternoon if time permits, I may also run a few more pics off since it looks like it actually may NOT rain today (never thought I'd be saying that in the middle of July in San Antonio)

Rich

True, but some of us don't take pictures primarily for artistic purposes.

I see two reasons to have a camera... (1) to show my wife what I see. So, I guess this is the tourist in me. (2) to TRY to be an artist.

I want the D60 to replace my P&S 995 becase (1) I want to have more flexibility and speed in capturing images for my wife, and (2) because I feel it will give me more ease of use in being an artist and if I actually DO create something good I can frame it because of the 6mp.

I figure some days I'll take tons of pictures that will only get saved at 1400x1200 resolution JPEGs. Other days, I'll wish I already had two microdrives to store all the images I HOPE are good.

My theory on equipment relates to my experience with waterskiing. The best waterskiers can perform pretty darn well with the worst equipment. They may not do their absolute best, but it will be very good nonetheless. When I get out and waterski I keep this in mind. Consistent equipment is more important to me than the latest and greatest (most of the time). As with most activities, you get better as time goes by because you are more familiar with the equipment you are using. Photography is the same way. With waterskiing, the most advanced hardware will give you the chance to ski as well as the pros, but most likely you will never realize that level. The same is with camera bodies and lenses. The equipment doesn't make you what you are...it can only be seen as an aid. It is rarely a real hinderance. $0.03.

GjB said:

No. But you are becoming more discerning when the "quality" is
under your nose. And there is no shame in that. It is part of the
learning process. Any chain is as strong as its weakest link (be
that the camera, lens, post-processing, printer or [in my case] the
photographer). I suspect that many of us made the decision to go
digital and made a significant investment in D30/D60 bodies without
realising the cost of building an equally good supporting "system"
(i.e. lenses).

Good glass has never been cheap. No matter what happens to camera
bodies in the future, really good quality lenses will remain
relatively expensive. It's not really worth labouring over though.
Look at how much more creative freedom and control we are getting
with Digital.

And the real truth is that a good photographer will still produce
stunning images with a $200 lens - the last few % of perfection in
the image capture is not as important as the picture itself. I am
amused frequently at the "quality" of many of the 1D + expensive L
glass photos posted here which have no photographic or technical
merit but which have been made possible by $7-$10K worth of
technology.

Click to expand...

--
Regards,

Bill

Canon A2e
Canon D60 (on order)
Canon 24-85mm
Sigma 15-30 (on order)
Sigma 50-500 (on order)
Nikon Coolpix 995

http://public.fotki.com/o2bnme

I'm about to pass out asleep but did manage to get one pic up on pbase from the 28-70 3.5-4.5 II up (the f/4.5 shot) I'll try and post more tomorrow. This pic should probably not be compared directly to the others, it was shot as a jpg and on a different day than the others. Honestly I can't see why the reviews were so glowing over this lens, to me the 24-85 does the same or better.

http://www.pbase.com/richtrav/d30_lens_comparison

What's really disturbing is the occurrence of purple fringing in certain situations at wider apertures with the 28-70 lens, there must be some sort of coating present on the 24-85 that minimizes this (would a filter help on the old 28-70?). At apertures smaller than 5.6 the problem is greatly diminished. It wasn't just this test shot either, I saw the fringing in some casual shots as well.

Other than that the two lenses are very close, the older 28-70 of course does not focus as quickly as the 24-85. All in all I'll probably end up selling the 24-85 just since it's worth more and start looking at a Tokina or (gasp) Sigma. The 28-70L is just too much $$ right now. Anybody have any input?

Rich

Mike Kuder said:

So are we (those with limited budgets) to settle for great 5 x 7's
etc. with the knowledge their larger brethern are flawed? An
interesting conundrum. I know a great deal could be solved with
better and better glass, but that's mighty expensive!

Click to expand...

The solution is actually very easy. Stay away from zooms altogether. I will buy a 20 mm 2.8 prime, a 35 2.0 mm prime, and a 100 mm 2.8 macro. All original lenses, of course. They will be equivalents to 32 mm, 56 mm and 160 mm. That will cover most photographic situations.

This will be much less expensive than buying zooms. Prime lenses of high quality cost considerably less than high-quality zooms. On top of that they are better than the zooms.

Frankly, I do not understand why people cannot realize that zoom lenses are always of lesser optical quality than prime lenses of the same class.

Just do not buy zooms.

Per Inge Oestmoen
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

Frankly, I do not understand why people cannot realize that zoom
lenses are always of lesser optical quality than prime lenses of
the same class.

Just do not buy zooms.

Click to expand...

If you decide to go with just primes, then you're making a decision to trade resolution for convenience and reduced flexibility in framing. Perspective determines the relative size of objects in the image and is determined entirely by your distance to the subject. If you want to achieve a particular framing and maintain perspective, you must stay in the same physical position and pick the appropriate focal length. Zooming with your feet will change perspective.

Unless you have an infinite number of primes in your bag, you can't fill the frame any way you like and maintain perspective. Now, you could pick a wider angle prime and just crop. However, you sacrifice resolution when you do this. So, the question you need to ask yourself is whether you lose more resolution to cropping than you gain by going with a prime instead of a zoom.

If we had high enough resolution sensors and high enough quality primes to match, we'd never need zooms and we could just crop instead of zooming. Until then, zooms will continue to play an important role.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Rich,

That is some of the most obvious chromatic abberation (CA, or Purple Fringing) I have seen in ages! Perhaps you got a bum example of the 28-70? I've not seen the output from a "good" one, though, so maybe this is just typical of the lens.

I do have the 24-80 and 50 f/1.8. I thought about the EX Sigmas in that range, but decided I wanted the compactness and silence of the Canon.

Rich said:

I'm about to pass out asleep but did manage to get one pic up on
pbase from the 28-70 3.5-4.5 II up (the f/4.5 shot) I'll try and
post more tomorrow. This pic should probably not be compared
directly to the others, it was shot as a jpg and on a different day
than the others. Honestly I can't see why the reviews were so
glowing over this lens, to me the 24-85 does the same or better.

http://www.pbase.com/richtrav/d30_lens_comparison

What's really disturbing is the occurrence of purple fringing in
certain situations at wider apertures with the 28-70 lens, there
must be some sort of coating present on the 24-85 that minimizes
this (would a filter help on the old 28-70?). At apertures smaller
than 5.6 the problem is greatly diminished. It wasn't just this
test shot either, I saw the fringing in some casual shots as well.

Other than that the two lenses are very close, the older 28-70 of
course does not focus as quickly as the 24-85. All in all I'll
probably end up selling the 24-85 just since it's worth more and
start looking at a Tokina or (gasp) Sigma. The 28-70L is just too
much $$ right now. Anybody have any input?

Rich

Click to expand...

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots.

Favorite Quote: 'Never let the quest for the Perfect become the enemy of the Excellent'

Woody

Yeah it sort of bummed me out, by every account the 28-70 II is supposed to humble the 24-85 but it just isn't the case. I don't know if I have a so-so 28-70 or a really good 24-85 (doubt it, my pics from the 24-85 look like most other people's), I just don't know. The fringing goes away rapidly once you start stopping down the lens, but still, it looks like a consumer digicam. Perhaps the coatings on the older lenses aren't as good? This lens is rarely used on the d30 so it's hard to find comparisons.

Rich