WOW and "not so" WOW - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

07/03/2005 11:13:23 AM · #1

I'd been thinking about buying the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I happened to be in a shopping mall with a Ritz camera and stopped in to see if they had it.

Nope.

But they DID have a few lenses to look at, so I did!

First lens I looked at was a Tamron AF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 IF for Canon ($100). I zoomed to 100mm and took a highly fascinating photo of the store wall for later comparison:

Next, I asked to see the closest thing he had to what I was originally looking for. Turns out, he had a Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM ($500). Same fascinating wall:

What a difference! The guy's probaby feeling sorry he let me look at that Canon lens. I was thinking about buying the Tamron. Not now. IF an extra $400 can produce such a shocking difference in color saturation and clarity, there's no way I'm buying the cheap stuff!!

Saving for the good stuff, now...

Message edited by author 2005-07-03 11:18:28.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

07/03/2005 11:24:38 AM · #2

Honestly, these two photos don't look (to me) like lens differences. They appear to be exposed differently.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/03/2005 11:31:54 AM · #3

Well, yes and no. Keep in mind that the Canon lens will go down to F/2.0, while the Tamron only does F/4.0.

Both shots were taken using ISO200 and a shutter speed of 1/60sec. The aperture values WERE different: F/4.0 for the Tamron and F/2.0 for the Canon.

I suppose to keep things "fair" I would have checked to make sure the settings were identical for aperture, but to be honest, it wasn't my intention to do a "fair" test. I was trying to find out which lens would do a better job taking shots in the environment I usually find myself in (inside).

deapee

Kodak V803

07/03/2005 11:32:44 AM · #4

For a real comparison, you'd have to set your white balance to a specific setting (which is obviously most of the difference here). Set your aperture and shutter speed, then shoot with both. Otherwise, you aren't comparing apples with apples.

The WB in the first one actually looks accurate, in the second it's off.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

07/03/2005 11:34:36 AM · #5

Hmm, you may have something there. I didn't think about white balance. I'll have to check my camera settings. Thought I did both with all the same settings, but I could be wrong.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

07/03/2005 11:37:57 AM · #6

The white balance settings were probably the same. The second shot got almost two more stops of exposure than the first shot did. That's why it looks brighter.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/03/2005 11:44:58 AM · #7

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The white balance settings were probably the same. The second shot got almost two more stops of exposure than the first shot did. That's why it looks brighter.

It doesn't just look brighter, John. The wall turned yellow. If you cannot see a white balance problem, then I'd have to question your ability to see color properly, in all seriousness.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/03/2005 11:45:35 AM · #8

The first image has glare in it which is probably impacting the camera's choice of exposure (causing the rest of the image to be under exposed). Notice that the 2nd image did not have any glare in it. So either the angle was changed, or a light was moved.

The glare may also be impacting the White Balance. But really, with automatic white balance, all you have to do is move the camera ever so slightly and you can get a completely different picture. I hate auto WB for that very reason!

These two pictures are definitely not about lens quality, but rather exposure and white balance. The one thing that could relate to lens quality is sharpness. But since two different apertures were used, you can't even compare the photos on those grounds.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/03/2005 11:48:35 AM · #9

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The white balance settings were probably the same. The second shot got almost two more stops of exposure than the first shot did. That's why it looks brighter.

If, by the same "white balance settings", you mean you left it on Auto... then your statement is technically correct ... from a user perspective. But it means that the camera can totally pick its own white balance, meaning the two images can indeed be captured with a different WB in spite of using the same "user setting" for both.

Best bet: Pick a manual selection of white balance ... in this case, it probably should have been set to either tungsten or flourescent, depending on what was in the shop. But which ever, pick one and leave it. Then take two shots. You'll at least have consistent color.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/03/2005 11:52:48 AM · #10

A couple thoughts...

Don't do Ritz in the SD Area for lens, they have ok prices for bags, and cleaning supplies and even their Multi Coated filters are OK always buy two get one free. Canon Lenses at RITZ are always 100-150 higher than what you should pay.

San Diego Camera Shops
Georges just off university and Washingtion I think...(We used to refer to that store as the Camera Nazi's as there was Guy in there that hated digital shooters and he acted just like the Soup Nazi from Seinfield. "You Like digital. No lens for you, get out of my store" :) They did get a lot better now and it is ok to in there.

Nelson's right in the middle of Little Italy is a better store but higher prices on everything. Somewhere between Ritz and Georges prices. They almost always have everything in stock and the staff is a younger more exciting (quite knowledgeable) crew.

My Fav and I drive from the Sorrento Mesa to get to it is Calumet up in Escondido of Grand. The Online mega monster bought what was North County Camera and only enhanced what they had going on. It is very clean, well laid out, always have what I am looking for and you can always get an idea of prices as their web presence is quite a bit better than the others I mentioned including Ritzcamera... //www.calumetphoto.com/pr.jsp?t=nccam

To be fair there is a camera shop in Del Mar that I here the prices are along the lines of Nelson's, haven't been there but I know their web presence sux.

Tamron Lens
I have had a few and my experience with them is that I will never buy a Non SP Tamron lens again... the non SP lenses from Tamron are soft like a low end quantaray or any other budget lens.

I will however, in a heartbeat, get another SP AF Tamron lens. The SP build/Glass will add 250-300 dollars on the lens but the build and sharpness is a world apart. I went hunting for a Wide for my 20D and started comparing the Canon 17-40L and the Tammy SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 and found the canon didn't offer a whole lot more build/picture quality to pay an additional $300. I love my Tamron SP 17-35mm.

I have a Tamy AF (non sp) 28-300mm XR Di LD Macro and actually pulled it out yesterday to see if I could get away with using it at the SD Fair today. I did some test shots and it went back on the self. I just can't run the risk of having a good shot soft. Guess I'll be lugging my 70-200mm 4L and my Tamy SP 17-35mm around with me today.

Bottom Line when it comes to Tamron and others, in the end you will be happier with their quality line of glass SP, EX et el.

Message edited by author 2005-07-03 12:00:24.

07/03/2005 11:52:48 AM · #11

You may have something there, dwterry. I looked at the EXIF data for both photos, and everything is the same except the aperature. When you pointed out the glare, I checked to see if the flash had gone off for the Tamron lens, but it had not. So it must be the AutoWB. I typically avoid full-auto, but dang if it doesn't look like that's how I took the shot.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/03/2005 11:56:13 AM · #12

Wow, seriouslly, you guys continually re-validate my reasons for joining dpchallenge: to learn from the folks who know what they're doing! This has been an educational thread for me, so far.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/03/2005 12:04:38 PM · #13

Re: WB â�� The Tamron shot has 2 stops less exposure. WB issues are always more noticeable in the brighter areas of an image; shoot a white 'n black shot so see what I mean. I don't think WB actually is changing between the shots; it's not CORRECT, for sure (needed tungsten WB probably) but I think it's consistent. Underexposure always minimizes WB problems to a certain extent, as far as visual perception goes.

So John is correct IMO.

Robt.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/03/2005 02:24:54 PM · #14

Originally posted by bear_music:

I don't think WB actually is changing between the shots;

I disagree. Bring both shots into photoshop. Put your eye dropper in the middle of the wall (aboe the TDK 8mm tapes) and take a reading.

First image: C = 36%, M = 36%, Y = 52%
Second image: C = 3%, M = 16%, Y = 44%

Both have a definite yellow tint. But the first image has more cyan in it. Plus, if all you do is adjust for exposure (in levels), you can't get the same color out of it. But if you adjust for color instead, then the pictures look very similar in spite of the exposure difference (e.g. try auto-color on both images and they will look very similar).

Uusilehto

Canon EOS-1D

Carl Zeiss 35mm f2.4 Jena/Flektogon MC

07/03/2005 03:39:49 PM · #15

Hmm.. The latter one looks as if it has been taken with a polarizer. All the reflections visible on the first image are gone in the second

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/03/2005 05:47:39 PM · #16

The results of your informal test are not that surprising to me. Putting a budget class, medium aperture speed zoom up against a fairly expensive, very fast aperture prime is like putting a high school baseball team up against the World Series champion. It's not really a fair comparison. It would be quite surprising if the $500 lens didn't outperform the $100 lens by a large margin. Did you really think they were going to produce the same image quality?

Sounds to me like you need to do some more thinking about what kind of shooting you have in mind for your next lens and how much you want to spend; then compare some lenses from different makers that fit your criteria.

Message edited by author 2005-07-03 17:49:18.

postoakinversion

Canon EOS-6D

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for Canon

07/03/2005 06:42:11 PM · #17

That may not have been a very scientific comparison, but it's true that the Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM is a great lens! One of the best $400 I ever spent. It completely replaced my 75-300mm zoom. There's no other lens I'd rather have in the 100mm range. It's tiny, sharp, fast-focusing, well-built, and does incredibly sharp macro shots with a 50mm f/1.8 reverse-mounted on it.

Message edited by author 2005-07-03 18:43:51.

dr3amz

Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Minolta

07/03/2005 07:06:01 PM · #18

if you take a shot at EXACTLY the same aperture/shutter speeds, with one lens thats f4+ and another thats f2... then the difference that you have shown in the images is exactly what you'd expect to see from 2 stops lower on the f2.

what you should have done was put it in aperture priority, shot at each of the lowest - this would have slowed the shutter speed on the tamron, to allow in the correct level of light - as it is you have an under-exposed shot.

i have a tamron 28-300mm lens, cost me Â£200 and bar the slower speed of it (f4-6.3) the images it produces are easily as good as some Â£400-Â£500 lenses.

i figure if im shooting in lower light situations, i'll need a tripod anyway - so the f4-6.3 really isn't an issue.

if i want to do portraits etc i use my 50mm f1.8, for the speed but also the enhanced DOF.