DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Give me SHARP! CRISP! and NEAT! or give me DEATH!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 42 of 42, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/12/2007 01:19:35 AM · #26
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by jfriesen:

But, I just noticed this was taken with the 17-40L



If I was out with *my* 17-50, could I get the same results with color replication and clarity?


I think it's silly to make lens comparisons based on little tiny images like this to be honest, unless that is going to be the sort of thing you will end up doing with all your shots.


I care not it's content but its replication from the real world (what I see) to a digital file.

The image of the cow is better than my eyes could have seen it. Now, technically, we know this is not true. But it exaggerates the zone to be more beautifully aesthetic.
 09/12/2007 05:09:31 AM · #27
Wait until you see the original file though. Also you have white balance, colour temprature, degrees of saturation and a million other things that made this image what it is. I dont think you could take any picture and get an exact match of it using any equipment.

But if you like the lens, check out some other unedited shots (they have these on Photozone but theyre massive files so watch out) and see what you think.

09/12/2007 07:00:12 AM · #28
Originally posted by Tez:

But if you like the lens, check out some other unedited shots (they have these on Photozone but theyre massive files so watch out) and see what you think.


Could you share a link to photozone that you are refering to?

Thanks,
Rich
 09/12/2007 07:16:44 AM · #29
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
Originally posted by Tez:

But if you like the lens, check out some other unedited shots (they have these on Photozone but theyre massive files so watch out) and see what you think.


Could you share a link to photozone that you are refering to?

Thanks,
Rich

PhotoZone Reviews
 09/12/2007 08:00:51 AM · #30
Originally posted by Raziel:
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
Originally posted by Tez:

But if you like the lens, check out some other unedited shots (they have these on Photozone but theyre massive files so watch out) and see what you think.


Could you share a link to photozone that you are refering to?

Thanks,
Rich

PhotoZone Reviews


Thanks alot
Rich
 09/12/2007 09:50:30 AM · #31
The Photozone website is really good information, thanks for sharing this. The only lens I didnt see covered that I was interested in looking at data for was the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon.

Great information, thanks again for sharing
Rich
 09/12/2007 09:54:37 AM · #32
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
The Photozone website is really good information, thanks for sharing this. The only lens I didnt see covered that I was interested in looking at data for was the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon.

Great information, thanks again for sharing
Rich


Yea, I was looking for that too. I wanted to know if the Tamron 28-75 was any better than the Tamron 17-50 . All the raves I heard about Tamron in comparison to the 17-40 f/4 L have been about the Tammy 28-75 not the 17-50. So, wondering if me getting the 17-50 is still a comparable substitution for the 17-40 f/4L .
 09/12/2007 11:10:03 AM · #33
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
The Photozone website is really good information, thanks for sharing this. The only lens I didnt see covered that I was interested in looking at data for was the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon.

Great information, thanks again for sharing
Rich

Photozone does not get lenses supplied by manufacturers for review so they don't always have reviews of all the lenses. They do have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for Nikon so you could take a look at that review, better than nothing.
 09/12/2007 08:30:42 PM · #34
The Fuji S3 that I use has provision to set sharpening at 3 levels in camera. I am not sure if that is available on the Canon that you have. It is a nice feature. If I see that I am shooting something with huge detail, like a wide shot with a lot of leaves on trees, I can cut down on the sharpening to keep the image from being oversharpened in camera. I can then sharpen it later in PP to the optimum level.
One other "duh" thing that crossed my blurry brain today would be to make sure that the viewfinder diopter is set right for your focusing eye.
Canon also makes different focusing screens for fast lenses. I don't think that you need one with a 1.8.
Another thing to try is shoot without a filter. Some filters can degrade image quality a lot too.
Make sure that the rear element of the lens is very clean too, as that can cause huge problems with sharpness.
09/12/2007 11:57:26 PM · #35
Did a little test with the 50mm f/1.8

100% crop

It seems sharp to me.

Camera:
f/3.5
1/200
ISO 800 (too high)

Post:
Auto Levels
A serving of USM

Now if I can only get this to work outside...

Message edited by author 2007-09-13 00:18:45.
 09/13/2007 09:14:14 AM · #36
Outside it will be great, just take down the ISO.

I used that lens outside and got this:



The sharpness of that issue is exemplary. I usually have it F2.2 to get the best compromise between speed and clarity. It's a great lens, give it a job and it'll do it.
 09/13/2007 09:26:12 AM · #37
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Did a little test with the 50mm f/1.8

Stop pixel peeping!! :)
 09/13/2007 10:01:38 AM · #38
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Did a little test with the 50mm f/1.8

Stop pixel peeping!! :)


hhaha, I've got to!
 09/13/2007 12:57:19 PM · #39
The Tamron and the L lens are not comparable. At f8, I am sure there is very little difference, but outside of the sweet spot, you will see dramatic differences in color and sharpness. The 3rd party lenses wide open will not give the same results as the L. You want the sharpest lens ever... get the 85mm 1.2L.
 09/13/2007 05:03:12 PM · #40
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
The Tamron and the L lens are not comparable. At f8, I am sure there is very little difference, but outside of the sweet spot, you will see dramatic differences in color and sharpness. The 3rd party lenses wide open will not give the same results as the L. You want the sharpest lens ever... get the 85mm 1.2L.


Yea right, maybe if I win the lottery!
 09/13/2007 11:55:40 PM · #41
How much PP work are you doing? Those are hardly straight out of camera. I know firsthand because I have that lens and its really not all that sharp. Its fun to play with but cheaply made. That particular lens is sharpest at 5.6 but why buy a 1.8 if you have to shoot at 5.6..

Anyways, post up some that you think have problems so we can tell you more about it.
 09/13/2007 11:59:28 PM · #42
Originally posted by jfriesen:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
The Tamron and the L lens are not comparable. At f8, I am sure there is very little difference, but outside of the sweet spot, you will see dramatic differences in color and sharpness. The 3rd party lenses wide open will not give the same results as the L. You want the sharpest lens ever... get the 85mm 1.2L.


Yea right, maybe if I win the lottery!


Not that it matters because its also horridly expensive, but the 50 f/1.2 is sharper. However, the 85mm handles CA better.

Message edited by author 2007-09-14 00:00:00.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/19/2025 04:55:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 06/19/2025 04:55:05 AM EDT.