| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2004 01:51:38 PM · #1 |
Alright guys, I've recently gotten into the d-slr game. I have a 28-105, but it's awfully soft. Now I've been doing some research, and either the 28-70, or the 24-70 will do. I know the 24-70 is the newer one, and has some changes, but it's also about $300-$400 more expensive for me.
I also came across reading that the 24-70 was somewhat soft @2.8, and at 24. Anyone can confirm this?
Basically, is the 24-70 worth $300-$400 more than the 28-70 is my question.
Thanks for helping out. |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 01:58:12 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 02:03:57 PM · #3 |
You say your lens is awfully soft. I'm not disagreeing, but are you sure you are sharpening enough in your post processing? Images from DSLR's are much softer out of the camera than those from a compact digicam.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 02:10:17 PM · #4 |
Which 28-105? If it's the 4-5.6, I could see that. Much less so if it's the 3.5-4.5 version, which isn't bad at all.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 02:37:04 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Which 28-105? If it's the 4-5.6, I could see that. Much less so if it's the 3.5-4.5 version, which isn't bad at all. |
Thanks for the link, that was very helpful. It's the 3.5-4.5 btw.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You say your lens is awfully soft. I'm not disagreeing, but are you sure you are sharpening enough in your post processing? Images from DSLR's are much softer out of the camera than those from a compact digicam. |
Ya, I read about that. Here, let me take a quick shot. Maybe it's normal, but it feels softer than what I would imagine.
One with the 28-105 3.5-4.5, and then a 50 1.8
Both focused at the central digial clock display.
28-105 3.5-4.5 1/100@F4 ISO 800
50 1.8 1/100@F4 ISO 800
I know being a prime, the 50 1.8 will have an advantage, but there still shouldn't be this much of a diffrence, should there? |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 02:40:43 PM · #6 |
The Canon 28-70 is a discontinued model. The 24-70 is a fantastic lens throughout the range. It lives on my Mark II and is a great walk-around lens. Here are some samples:
  
ps: The 24-70 is in a completely different league when compared to the 28-105, can't compare the 2.
Message edited by author 2004-12-14 14:43:32.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 02:56:02 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You say your lens is awfully soft. I'm not disagreeing, but are you sure you are sharpening enough in your post processing? Images from DSLR's are much softer out of the camera than those from a compact digicam. |
i knew this was the case before i purchased my new rebel, but am curious if you would say it's noticeable vs. something like the 717, which i would think provides a reasonable amount of post-processing freedom (not that i truly know, as i'm still new to all of this)? i noticed my images are quite a bit softer with my 300D w/ kit lens(than with the 717) out of the camera, even with in-camera sharpness set at maximum - is this to be expected?
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 03:01:08 PM · #8 |
As a 24-70 owner (and lover!) I'd agree that this is one fantastic lens. Regarding any softness wide open, my experience with my copy is that there may be a little softness at 2.8 at the long end. I don't see much softening at all at the short end.
That said, I'm of course using a 1.6 crop cam, so I'm not seeing the corners at all. Mebbe I'll spring for the 1Ds II so I can check them out ;)
The 28-70 is also supposed to be a fine lens, but I have no direct experience. The 4mm on the short end will make a huge difference, though. I have really noticed the difference in FoV in comparison to my now-sold 28-200.
You will run across reports of "bad copies" of this lens, and I'm not sure just how accurate they are. I'm sure that there is variability, but just as sure that some folks will attribute any observed issues to a "bad copy" when it's user error.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 03:03:11 PM · #9 |
I just got the canon 24-70 this week , it's bigger than I though but it is lazor fast and sharp as a tack , dr nick talked me into it and i'm not sorry , if you want to price this lens go to dell.com it was $1054.
Message edited by author 2004-12-14 15:09:28. |
|
|
|
12/14/2004 03:27:59 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You say your lens is awfully soft. I'm not disagreeing, but are you sure you are sharpening enough in your post processing? Images from DSLR's are much softer out of the camera than those from a compact digicam. |
i knew this was the case before i purchased my new rebel, but am curious if you would say it's noticeable vs. something like the 717, which i would think provides a reasonable amount of post-processing freedom (not that i truly know, as i'm still new to all of this)? i noticed my images are quite a bit softer with my 300D w/ kit lens(than with the 717) out of the camera, even with in-camera sharpness set at maximum - is this to be expected? |
When I bought my 10D, I was shocked at the sharpening I needed to apply to the images when compared to my G5. That said, you nned to keep in mind that the D-Rebel has a higher level of sharpening that the 10D. I think the lowest setting on the D-Rebel is roughly equivalent to the middle setting on the 10D.
As for setting the in-camera sharpening, I set the camera to the LOWEST setting so that I can do that in the PC and have better control and reversibility. The pics look softer right out of the camera, but the end result is better.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 03:33:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Skamal:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Which 28-105? If it's the 4-5.6, I could see that. Much less so if it's the 3.5-4.5 version, which isn't bad at all. |
Thanks for the link, that was very helpful. It's the 3.5-4.5 btw.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You say your lens is awfully soft. I'm not disagreeing, but are you sure you are sharpening enough in your post processing? Images from DSLR's are much softer out of the camera than those from a compact digicam. |
Ya, I read about that. Here, let me take a quick shot. Maybe it's normal, but it feels softer than what I would imagine.
One with the 28-105 3.5-4.5, and then a 50 1.8
Both focused at the central digial clock display.
28-105 3.5-4.5 1/100@F4 ISO 800
50 1.8 1/100@F4 ISO 800
I know being a prime, the 50 1.8 will have an advantage, but there still shouldn't be this much of a diffrence, should there? |
A better comparison would be the 50mm f1.8 @f4 and the 28-105 at something like f8. Most lenses give their best performance when stopped down a couple of stops, right where you have the 50mm, the 28-105 is almost wide open at f4.
The 50mm f1.8 is a VERY sharp lens. Probably much sharper than most, if not all, zooms.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2004 03:52:15 PM · #12 |
hmm - yeah, could possibly just be my lens (or maybe it's me, eek!).. i guess the true test will come if i get a new lens over the next few weeks and test it out. thanks for the reply spaz
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 05:34:50 PM EDT.
