Reading mode: Light Dark

Christmas Lens pictures (35 f1.4 & 85 f1.8)

Go to last post
dukefleming said:
I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke
Click to expand...
Hi there Duke,
Nice of you to come in.
Your shots are very nice also.

I especially like the squirrell shots and the dog I think they are great. I see what you mean by trying to differentiate which was taken by which lens. I suspect the one numbered 0022 was taken with a prime lens. Irrespective you have some very nice shots of your family and of other interests which you can be proud off.

I'll let you know when I make a post once I decide what I am buying as I am still waiting to hear back from Gary re my questions but do realise there is a difference in our time zones as I am over here in Ireland.
Do you personally feel the F4 is up to par with the F2.8.?

In hindsight having had the experience youv'e had with several lenses if you were starting out again and had to choose only 2 lenses out of your collection which 2 would you select and why.
Seems like a quiz show !!

Regards,
Ian
 
I just can't reasonably come up with the arguments to get one of the L wides at the moment, so I got a Sigma 20/1.8 to tie me over for the time being. I like the look of indoor non-flash pics. What I can say directly after a minimum of testing is that this lens (and I would assume that goes for the Sigma 24 and 28 as well) is it's not nearly as good as the Canons, and the colors are off. Nothing that can't be fixed or at least improved in Photoshop, but still.

I will get the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 eventually, it's just not in my budget right now. The 85/1.8 however, will be mine as soon as I can find one (no used copies in sight, and Canon are all out, probably for some time).

Have fun with your new lenses, and Happy New Year!

-Anders
dukefleming said:
I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke
Click to expand...
 
Hi Ian,

Thanks for looking at them and making comments. I appreciate that very much. The dog picture -022 was made with the 85 f1.8. It's a great portrait lens even for a dog.

Between f2.8 and f4 are you talking about the 70-200, or were you comparing the 17-40 vs the 24-70? I think you are refering to the 70-200. The f4 version has three good things going for it. It is lighter weight, just as sharp, and only costs $550 US. You don't give up anything but the extra stop and the ability to have IS if you need it. Some of the f4's have rather significant backfocus problems but Canon has been able to fix them with no problems (to my knowledge). F4 will be a little slow for anything inside sports-wise. Even the f2.8 is in some venues.

When i sold all my film equipment and went to this camera last July, the first two lenses I bought were the 70-200L f2.8 and the 24-70L f2.8. I would do the exact same thing again except get the IS on the 70-200. Gary Combs has a gallery full of really great pictures with just those two lenses. He says he doesn't need a prime: I do.

Duke
Ian Downey said:
dukefleming said:
I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke
Click to expand...
Hi there Duke,
Nice of you to come in.
Your shots are very nice also.
I especially like the squirrell shots and the dog I think they are
great. I see what you mean by trying to differentiate which was
taken by which lens. I suspect the one numbered 0022 was taken with
a prime lens. Irrespective you have some very nice shots of your
family and of other interests which you can be proud off.
I'll let you know when I make a post once I decide what I am buying
as I am still waiting to hear back from Gary re my questions but do
realise there is a difference in our time zones as I am over here
in Ireland.
Do you personally feel the F4 is up to par with the F2.8.?
In hindsight having had the experience youv'e had with several
lenses if you were starting out again and had to choose only 2
lenses out of your collection which 2 would you select and why.
Seems like a quiz show !!

Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
Hi Anders,

The Sigma 20mm f1.8 lens is well liked and I've seen great pictures with it at 2.8 and up. It really wouldn't bother me to use it at f4 like the 17-40.

I think the 17-40 is a better buy than the 24 and 35 f1.4's and it makes a sharp contrasty picture. What I like about the 35 is that it makes such a great picture at f2. It has a quality that is hard for me to describe, but I like it.

If you had to have only three lenses for general work and they had to be primes it would be the 35 f1.4 the 85 f1.8 and the 135 f2. I think you will really like the 85 f1.8 and it doesn't cost nearly as much as the other two. It's about the same cost as a 50 f1.4 and the quality is much higher.

Thanks for looking at my pictures.

Duke
FretNoMore said:
I will get the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 eventually, it's just not in my
budget right now. The 85/1.8 however, will be mine as soon as I can
find one (no used copies in sight, and Canon are all out, probably
for some time).

Have fun with your new lenses, and Happy New Year!

-Anders
dukefleming said:
I just got two new lenses "for Christmas"; so while I was visiting
relatives at Christmas, I gave the lenses (and the relatives) a
workout. I normally would be using the 24-70 for this type of
family pictures, so I tried to use it, the 135 f2 and the 17-40 in
similar situations to get a feeling for what each did best.

This is not a lens test; it's more of a photographer test; but
it's interesting to see how well the 24-70 & 17-40 hold up to these
good prime lenses.

Pictures are FULL SIZE, medium fine, JPG's and have not been
sharpened or edited in any way. (straight out of camera set on 0).

Warning Medium large files (1.5mb) This picture is the first in
the series that follows: (click to load)

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560048

I welcome comments.
--
Duke
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
Hi there Duke,

I thought I would cut out the earlier info just to say thanks for your reply and advice/comments. I went back again and had a look at your photos armed this time with various observations from others in the forum and was able to see them from a different aspect this time. I suppose this is all part of my learning curve but you see I am learning fast with all your help.

I definitely will go for the 24-70L and the 70 - 200 IS - but only one at a time - which I think will be the 24-70 first.

Best wishes to you and yours and all in the forum for the New Year.
--
Regards,
Ian
 
That's a good idea, Ian. I leave that lens on the camera and only take it off when it won't get the picture. It gets used a lot. I know some have had problems with the lens and some have had troubles using the lens, but there are many of us who haven't had any problems.

I think some people are surprised by the size. It really looks like a telephoto, but once you get past that, you will be fine. make sure you look at one first before you order. If you need a small lens that is the size of the 24-85, this is not it.

Good Luck. Let me know if I can help with anything.

Duke
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
I thought I would cut out the earlier info just to say thanks for
your reply and advice/comments. I went back again and had a look at
your photos armed this time with various observations from others
in the forum and was able to see them from a different aspect this
time. I suppose this is all part of my learning curve but you see I
am learning fast with all your help.

I definitely will go for the 24-70L and the 70 - 200 IS - but only
one at a time - which I think will be the 24-70 first.

Best wishes to you and yours and all in the forum for the New Year.
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
dukefleming said:
Yes, the two are different in the way they handle colors, but don't
you really like the way the 35L looks at f2.
Click to expand...
yes, it is an incredible lens at f/2. i'm a bit afraid to use any lens wide open, but some test shots w/my friend the other day reminded me that it's amazing at f/1.4 too. i should really take advantage of wide open, particularly when subject distance is far enough to make DOF reasonable.
dukefleming said:
It also seems to be much easier to work with than the 135f2.
Click to expand...
indoors, certainly! 35mm on a 10D is a near-perfect length for "general" shooting. i think that i actually get better pictures on average with the 135 than the 35 though. i think telephotos are a little easier to shoot, with the exception of motion blur... because they capture a narrower range of the scene they tend to really focus your shot and make its intent clearer. with a wideangle, you really need to compose carefully to balance all the elements... also wideangles are more subject to things like flare and variances in dynamic range. i just find it tougher to balance a wideangle shot.
dukefleming said:
Both the 35 and the 135 require some work and understanding to
make them show their best.
Click to expand...
ah, but you see, i think what you are sensing here is the beauty of primes! all lenses really require work and understanding to get the best out of them. in the end, shooting a 35L is no different technically than shooting a 24-70L at 35mm. well ok, the extra speed of the prime does mean one must learn how to use very narrow DOF, but other than that it's really not that different. what the big difference is, in my opinion, is that when you have a prime, you no longer have the crutch of zoom to "quick fix" your shots. you give up focal length flexibility for incredible optics (as good as the 24-70L is the 35L and 135L are slightly better overall) and speed, and in the process, as Petteri has said, force yourself to shoot a scene more creatively. i find that even in situations where a zoom would have been more "useful" (e.g. indoor family pics), the limitation of a prime really forces me to evaluate what i see in the viewfinder very carefully. that may just be my lack of "eye" - a truly good photographer can visualize the scene w/o needing a particular lens to "force" the image onto him - but i'm not at that level yet.

i would probably still like a 24-70L some day, just because changing lenses in rapidly changing shooting situations starts to become a pain (indoors, moving from room to room in a relatively small house shooting family, seems to require different focal lengths all the time). but i find that even my friends with no DSLR experience (just point-and-shoot digitals) can pick up my camera and take amazing shots with a prime like the 35L. at first they reach for the focusing ring thinking there would be a zoom ring there, but once they get over their "what, this huge expensive thing doesn't have zoom?" dismay i think they take pictures with much more character than what they would have with a zoom.
 
Saw your NYC police picture this morning. That's what the 135 does well isn't it!

I was talking about the decreased depth of field that take some working with on these two lenses to know exactly what you will get. If I remember right, you worked on that also.

The family pictures are exactly what the 24-70 does well and we will have to differ on the way we see the lens' use. I see the picture (with the perspective I want) and I don't need a lens on the camera to see it. Then it's up to me and the camera system to get that picture as I see it. I will probably seldom do these pictures the other way as you and Petteri do. If it's a crutch, then call me cripple.

In sports, it's a totaly different story. I have a given lens, and I know exactly what that lens does and where I need to stand to get the picture that this lens does best and best shows the sport. This is where the foot zoom and previsualization comes in.

Duke
tasty donuts said:
dukefleming said:
Yes, the two are different in the way they handle colors, but don't
you really like the way the 35L looks at f2.
Click to expand...
yes, it is an incredible lens at f/2. i'm a bit afraid to use any
lens wide open, but some test shots w/my friend the other day
reminded me that it's amazing at f/1.4 too. i should really take
advantage of wide open, particularly when subject distance is far
enough to make DOF reasonable.
tasty donuts said:
It also seems to be much easier to work with than the 135f2.
Click to expand...
indoors, certainly! 35mm on a 10D is a near-perfect length for
"general" shooting. i think that i actually get better pictures on
average with the 135 than the 35 though. i think telephotos are a
little easier to shoot, with the exception of motion blur...
because they capture a narrower range of the scene they tend to
really focus your shot and make its intent clearer. with a
wideangle, you really need to compose carefully to balance all the
elements... also wideangles are more subject to things like flare
and variances in dynamic range. i just find it tougher to balance a
wideangle shot.
tasty donuts said:
Both the 35 and the 135 require some work and understanding to
make them show their best.
Click to expand...
ah, but you see, i think what you are sensing here is the beauty of
primes! all lenses really require work and understanding to get the
best out of them. in the end, shooting a 35L is no different
technically than shooting a 24-70L at 35mm. well ok, the extra
speed of the prime does mean one must learn how to use very narrow
DOF, but other than that it's really not that different. what the
big difference is, in my opinion, is that when you have a prime,
you no longer have the crutch of zoom to "quick fix" your shots.
you give up focal length flexibility for incredible optics (as good
as the 24-70L is the 35L and 135L are slightly better overall) and
speed, and in the process, as Petteri has said, force yourself to
shoot a scene more creatively. i find that even in situations where
a zoom would have been more "useful" (e.g. indoor family pics), the
limitation of a prime really forces me to evaluate what i see in
the viewfinder very carefully. that may just be my lack of "eye" -
a truly good photographer can visualize the scene w/o needing a
particular lens to "force" the image onto him - but i'm not at that
level yet.

i would probably still like a 24-70L some day, just because
changing lenses in rapidly changing shooting situations starts to
become a pain (indoors, moving from room to room in a relatively
small house shooting family, seems to require different focal
lengths all the time). but i find that even my friends with no DSLR
experience (just point-and-shoot digitals) can pick up my camera
and take amazing shots with a prime like the 35L. at first they
reach for the focusing ring thinking there would be a zoom ring
there, but once they get over their "what, this huge expensive
thing doesn't have zoom?" dismay i think they take pictures with
much more character than what they would have with a zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
dukefleming said:
The family pictures are exactly what the 24-70 does well and we
will have to differ on the way we see the lens' use. I see the
picture (with the perspective I want) and I don't need a lens on
the camera to see it. Then it's up to me and the camera system to
get that picture as I see it. I will probably seldom do these
pictures the other way as you and Petteri do. If it's a crutch,
then call me cripple.
Click to expand...
that's not a crutch at all, that's ability. ;) being able to visualize at different focal lengths at the same time is a true skill methinks. i don't have that skill yet, so i stick a prime on and work with that. whatever works best, to each their own of course.

cheers,
TD
 
Ready for me to send you mine for a trial yet?

I'm not sure if I visualize different focal lengths. You may be giving me too much credit.

Duke
tasty donuts said:
dukefleming said:
The family pictures are exactly what the 24-70 does well and we
will have to differ on the way we see the lens' use. I see the
picture (with the perspective I want) and I don't need a lens on
the camera to see it. Then it's up to me and the camera system to
get that picture as I see it. I will probably seldom do these
pictures the other way as you and Petteri do. If it's a crutch,
then call me cripple.
Click to expand...
that's not a crutch at all, that's ability. ;) being able to
visualize at different focal lengths at the same time is a true
skill methinks. i don't have that skill yet, so i stick a prime on
and work with that. whatever works best, to each their own of
course.

cheers,
TD
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
dukefleming said:
That's a good idea, Ian. I leave that lens on the camera and only
take it off when it won't get the picture. It gets used a lot. I
know some have had problems with the lens and some have had
troubles using the lens, but there are many of us who haven't had
any problems.

I think some people are surprised by the size. It really looks
like a telephoto, but once you get past that, you will be fine.
make sure you look at one first before you order. If you need a
small lens that is the size of the 24-85, this is not it.

Good Luck. Let me know if I can help with anything.

Duke
Click to expand...
dukefleming said:
Hi there Duke,
Click to expand...
Actually there is something I would like some advice/help with.

I have got my hands on a Canon 28-135 IS USM Zoom an am trying it out but am not quite happy with some of the results. If you would be kind enough when you've time to take a look at one for me I would appreciate your comments. The problem I am finding is that the focusing is not as sharp as I would have hoped and secondly and just as important there appears to be a 'green' line at the edges of straight lines where they meet the sky for example. As you probably know from the postings I only just recently have got the EOS300D so maybe it is somthing I am doing wrongly or not doing. here is one I took today of the local town hall and if you look at the 'actual pixels' size you can see it.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24692645

Before this I had a Canon Powershot G5 which produced excellent sharp pictures some of which I posted on http://www.pbase.com/bannview
Will look forward to your valued comments.
regards,
Ian

P.S. I do not have your e-mail address otherwise I would have sent this to you privately as I am not sure whether or not I should be using the forum for this.
dukefleming said:
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
I thought I would cut out the earlier info just to say thanks for
your reply and advice/comments. I went back again and had a look at
your photos armed this time with various observations from others
in the forum and was able to see them from a different aspect this
time. I suppose this is all part of my learning curve but you see I
am learning fast with all your help.

I definitely will go for the 24-70L and the 70 - 200 IS - but only
one at a time - which I think will be the 24-70 first.

Best wishes to you and yours and all in the forum for the New Year.
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
 
Ian,

I think it looks fine. At 1/40 sec the people will not be sharp because they are moving and the building does need some USM to make it look sharper and some levels adjustment. Want me to try it for you.

I saw the spot you are talking about. It looks like a little CA but not bad. It will get better stopped down

Duke
Ian Downey said:
dukefleming said:
That's a good idea, Ian. I leave that lens on the camera and only
take it off when it won't get the picture. It gets used a lot. I
know some have had problems with the lens and some have had
troubles using the lens, but there are many of us who haven't had
any problems.

I think some people are surprised by the size. It really looks
like a telephoto, but once you get past that, you will be fine.
make sure you look at one first before you order. If you need a
small lens that is the size of the 24-85, this is not it.

Good Luck. Let me know if I can help with anything.

Duke
Click to expand...
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
Click to expand...
Actually there is something I would like some advice/help with.
I have got my hands on a Canon 28-135 IS USM Zoom an am trying it
out but am not quite happy with some of the results. If you would
be kind enough when you've time to take a look at one for me I
would appreciate your comments. The problem I am finding is that
the focusing is not as sharp as I would have hoped and secondly and
just as important there appears to be a 'green' line at the edges
of straight lines where they meet the sky for example. As you
probably know from the postings I only just recently have got the
EOS300D so maybe it is somthing I am doing wrongly or not doing.
here is one I took today of the local town hall and if you look at
the 'actual pixels' size you can see it.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24692645
Before this I had a Canon Powershot G5 which produced excellent
sharp pictures some of which I posted on http://www.pbase.com/bannview
Will look forward to your valued comments.
regards,
Ian
P.S. I do not have your e-mail address otherwise I would have sent
this to you privately as I am not sure whether or not I should be
using the forum for this.
Ian Downey said:
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
I thought I would cut out the earlier info just to say thanks for
your reply and advice/comments. I went back again and had a look at
your photos armed this time with various observations from others
in the forum and was able to see them from a different aspect this
time. I suppose this is all part of my learning curve but you see I
am learning fast with all your help.

I definitely will go for the 24-70L and the 70 - 200 IS - but only
one at a time - which I think will be the 24-70 first.

Best wishes to you and yours and all in the forum for the New Year.
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
Hi Duke,
I've not in bed yet and it's way after 1.

I would appreciate you having a go at improving it then I can see what can be done, when necessary, and as you pointed out I will know that the lens is capable of producing good sharp images when the lighting allows me to operate at faster shutter speeds.

I am able to buy this lens at a saving of £110 against the shop prices so if you think it is just minor adjustments that are necessary in post processing when shooting at low shutter speeds then I will buy it as I have taken other photos which turned out O.K. and some others where the focus was not too good but I think it was down again to slow shutter speeds in not ideal weather conditions - wind etc.

Does this lens tend to produce CA as I've noticed it on other shots e.g. when photographing the house outside especially around windows etc. where there were sharp edges. I wish I could get a good sunny day to try it out when I could shoot at higher speeds then I would have a better idea and content myself there is nothing wrong with the lens it is just my lack of knowledge at this moment in time.
Regards,
Ian
dukefleming said:
I think it looks fine. At 1/40 sec the people will not be sharp
because they are moving and the building does need some USM to make
it look sharper and some levels adjustment. Want me to try it for
you.

I saw the spot you are talking about. It looks like a little CA
but not bad. It will get better stopped down

Duke
Ian Downey said:
dukefleming said:
That's a good idea, Ian. I leave that lens on the camera and only
take it off when it won't get the picture. It gets used a lot. I
know some have had problems with the lens and some have had
troubles using the lens, but there are many of us who haven't had
any problems.

I think some people are surprised by the size. It really looks
like a telephoto, but once you get past that, you will be fine.
make sure you look at one first before you order. If you need a
small lens that is the size of the 24-85, this is not it.

Good Luck. Let me know if I can help with anything.

Duke
Click to expand...
dukefleming said:
Hi there Duke,
Click to expand...
Actually there is something I would like some advice/help with.
I have got my hands on a Canon 28-135 IS USM Zoom an am trying it
out but am not quite happy with some of the results. If you would
be kind enough when you've time to take a look at one for me I
would appreciate your comments. The problem I am finding is that
the focusing is not as sharp as I would have hoped and secondly and
just as important there appears to be a 'green' line at the edges
of straight lines where they meet the sky for example. As you
probably know from the postings I only just recently have got the
EOS300D so maybe it is somthing I am doing wrongly or not doing.
here is one I took today of the local town hall and if you look at
the 'actual pixels' size you can see it.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24692645
Before this I had a Canon Powershot G5 which produced excellent
sharp pictures some of which I posted on http://www.pbase.com/bannview
Will look forward to your valued comments.
regards,
Ian
P.S. I do not have your e-mail address otherwise I would have sent
this to you privately as I am not sure whether or not I should be
using the forum for this.
dukefleming said:
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
I thought I would cut out the earlier info just to say thanks for
your reply and advice/comments. I went back again and had a look at
your photos armed this time with various observations from others
in the forum and was able to see them from a different aspect this
time. I suppose this is all part of my learning curve but you see I
am learning fast with all your help.

I definitely will go for the 24-70L and the 70 - 200 IS - but only
one at a time - which I think will be the 24-70 first.

Best wishes to you and yours and all in the forum for the New Year.
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
 
Man, you're up late.

OK here it is:



Just very minor sharpening , levels and contrast. There are a lot of people here that could do it even better. I didn't think it needed a lot of help. If I had a little more time, I would work on the sky a little.

Duke
Ian Downey said:
dukefleming said:
I think it looks fine. At 1/40 sec the people will not be sharp
because they are moving and the building does need some USM to make
it look sharper and some levels adjustment. Want me to try it for
you.

I saw the spot you are talking about. It looks like a little CA
but not bad. It will get better stopped down

Duke
Ian Downey said:
dukefleming said:
That's a good idea, Ian. I leave that lens on the camera and only
take it off when it won't get the picture. It gets used a lot. I
know some have had problems with the lens and some have had
troubles using the lens, but there are many of us who haven't had
any problems.

I think some people are surprised by the size. It really looks
like a telephoto, but once you get past that, you will be fine.
make sure you look at one first before you order. If you need a
small lens that is the size of the 24-85, this is not it.

Good Luck. Let me know if I can help with anything.

Duke
Click to expand...
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
Click to expand...
Actually there is something I would like some advice/help with.
I have got my hands on a Canon 28-135 IS USM Zoom an am trying it
out but am not quite happy with some of the results. If you would
be kind enough when you've time to take a look at one for me I
would appreciate your comments. The problem I am finding is that
the focusing is not as sharp as I would have hoped and secondly and
just as important there appears to be a 'green' line at the edges
of straight lines where they meet the sky for example. As you
probably know from the postings I only just recently have got the
EOS300D so maybe it is somthing I am doing wrongly or not doing.
here is one I took today of the local town hall and if you look at
the 'actual pixels' size you can see it.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24692645
Before this I had a Canon Powershot G5 which produced excellent
sharp pictures some of which I posted on http://www.pbase.com/bannview
Will look forward to your valued comments.
regards,
Ian
P.S. I do not have your e-mail address otherwise I would have sent
this to you privately as I am not sure whether or not I should be
using the forum for this.
Ian Downey said:
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
I thought I would cut out the earlier info just to say thanks for
your reply and advice/comments. I went back again and had a look at
your photos armed this time with various observations from others
in the forum and was able to see them from a different aspect this
time. I suppose this is all part of my learning curve but you see I
am learning fast with all your help.

I definitely will go for the 24-70L and the 70 - 200 IS - but only
one at a time - which I think will be the 24-70 first.

Best wishes to you and yours and all in the forum for the New Year.
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
Hi again Duke,,

Thanks for your help - appreciated - I can go to bed now a little more relaxed in the knowledge it might be a good buy after all.

I take it that the CA can be reduced during post processing then on my other shots ?
Regards,
Ian
dukefleming said:
OK here it is:



Just very minor sharpening , levels and contrast. There are a lot
of people here that could do it even better. I didn't think it
needed a lot of help. If I had a little more time, I would work on
the sky a little.

Duke
Ian Downey said:
dukefleming said:
I think it looks fine. At 1/40 sec the people will not be sharp
because they are moving and the building does need some USM to make
it look sharper and some levels adjustment. Want me to try it for
you.

I saw the spot you are talking about. It looks like a little CA
but not bad. It will get better stopped down

Duke
Ian Downey said:
dukefleming said:
That's a good idea, Ian. I leave that lens on the camera and only
take it off when it won't get the picture. It gets used a lot. I
know some have had problems with the lens and some have had
troubles using the lens, but there are many of us who haven't had
any problems.

I think some people are surprised by the size. It really looks
like a telephoto, but once you get past that, you will be fine.
make sure you look at one first before you order. If you need a
small lens that is the size of the 24-85, this is not it.

Good Luck. Let me know if I can help with anything.

Duke
Click to expand...
dukefleming said:
Hi there Duke,
Click to expand...
Actually there is something I would like some advice/help with.
I have got my hands on a Canon 28-135 IS USM Zoom an am trying it
out but am not quite happy with some of the results. If you would
be kind enough when you've time to take a look at one for me I
would appreciate your comments. The problem I am finding is that
the focusing is not as sharp as I would have hoped and secondly and
just as important there appears to be a 'green' line at the edges
of straight lines where they meet the sky for example. As you
probably know from the postings I only just recently have got the
EOS300D so maybe it is somthing I am doing wrongly or not doing.
here is one I took today of the local town hall and if you look at
the 'actual pixels' size you can see it.
http://www.pbase.com/image/24692645
Before this I had a Canon Powershot G5 which produced excellent
sharp pictures some of which I posted on http://www.pbase.com/bannview
Will look forward to your valued comments.
regards,
Ian
P.S. I do not have your e-mail address otherwise I would have sent
this to you privately as I am not sure whether or not I should be
using the forum for this.
dukefleming said:
Ian Downey said:
Hi there Duke,
I thought I would cut out the earlier info just to say thanks for
your reply and advice/comments. I went back again and had a look at
your photos armed this time with various observations from others
in the forum and was able to see them from a different aspect this
time. I suppose this is all part of my learning curve but you see I
am learning fast with all your help.

I definitely will go for the 24-70L and the 70 - 200 IS - but only
one at a time - which I think will be the 24-70 first.

Best wishes to you and yours and all in the forum for the New Year.
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
Click to expand...
--
Duke
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Ian
 
I think I mis-spoke on the CA. I looked at it again and it looks more like sensor blooming. It's from strong light on a light object CA would be purple. If you stop down some it will be minimized. In sharpening, a lot can be fixed with USM.

I think your lens looks fine though. I would be happy if I took the picture.

Let's face it, you haven't had the best light yet. You will be amazed when you see a picture with better light. Sometimes I take pictures in the backyard here where it's very shady and in winter, just plain dreary. It seems like any time I get a new lens and want to test it, it looks bad outside.

If you want to compare this camera and lens more directly with the G5, go in and turn up the sharpening and contrast on the custom functions. If you do pocessing in Photoshop, you will want to leave them at normal, which is a little sharper on your camera than it is on mine. It's harder to undo sharpening when it's on the original.

Duke
Ian Downey said:
Thanks for your help - appreciated - I can go to bed now a little
more relaxed in the knowledge it might be a good buy after all.
I take it that the CA can be reduced during post processing then on
my other shots ?
Regards,
Ian
dukefleming said:
Man, you're up late.

OK here it is:



Just very minor sharpening , levels and contrast. There are a lot
of people here that could do it even better. I didn't think it
needed a lot of help. If I had a little more time, I would work on
the sky a little.

Duke

TRIM....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Trust me. This sigma lens will grow on you.
I didn't like mine until about a month and a half went by.
Now, I love it.
Wouldn't trade it up for a 17-40L.
 
dukefleming said:
I think your lens looks fine though. I would be happy if I took
the picture.
Click to expand...
i agree, i am normally not a fan of the 28-135IS's pictures but i thought that picture came out very well given the circumstances. sure it would have been nicer on a 24-70L but then what wouldn't be? as for vs. G5, yeah just crank up sharpening, contrast, and saturation on the 10D and it's a more valid comparison. also remember that DOF is much narrower on a larger format camera (10D APS-size sensor vs. G5 small sensor) so aperture and focusing choices become much more critical on the SLR.
 
Glad you said that. Sometimes the things some of the really good photographers find objectionable, pass me by. So I worry when I make comments.

I left you a note above, earlier.

Duke
tasty donuts said:
dukefleming said:
I think your lens looks fine though. I would be happy if I took
the picture.
Click to expand...
i agree, i am normally not a fan of the 28-135IS's pictures but i
thought that picture came out very well given the circumstances.
sure it would have been nicer on a 24-70L but then what wouldn't
be? as for vs. G5, yeah just crank up sharpening, contrast, and
saturation on the 10D and it's a more valid comparison. also
remember that DOF is much narrower on a larger format camera (10D
APS-size sensor vs. G5 small sensor) so aperture and focusing
choices become much more critical on the SLR.
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
I think that's right. You need to have a lens for a little time to get the feeling for it. I'm not totally in sync with these new lenses yet either, though I'm pretty close.

I wouldn't send anything back after a just a few trials.

I was surprised by two of the pictures. They were of the family working on a crossword puzzle and the 17 didn't "look" much wider than the 35, plus the 35 didn't have as much distortion (my fault on the 17). Makes me wonder if I need a wide lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/24560332
http://www.pbase.com/image/24560061

Duke
JC JC said:
Trust me. This sigma lens will grow on you.
I didn't like mine until about a month and a half went by.
Now, I love it.
Wouldn't trade it up for a 17-40L.
Click to expand...
--
Duke
 
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