Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 or Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/07/2005 11:42:53 PM · #1

I have the Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Canon (Black), it came bundled with my Rebel 300D, but I am taking crappy pictures and want to blame it on the lens, so I looked at some of the shots taken with it and with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II and am thinking about getting the Canon since it's less than $100 to find out if it's just me. Any advice? Should I invest the $100 in a better (but possibly more expensive) lens? Should I just save my money and work on figuring out what I am doing wrong?

I don't have much patience for learning too deep into the technicals - I am more of a trial-and-error learner, but I have shot over 4000 pictures since february and some of my shots are getting better, but the main problem seems to be lack of sharp focus no matter what I try.

Tell me it's the lens. ;-)

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

05/07/2005 11:55:30 PM · #2

Well the 50mm is a bargain in some ways, but it's often too much lens where you want an F1.8 lens (too long, because of the SLR crop factor). It would be good for indoor portraits, etc.

Your shots look nice to me--what do you mean your shots are coming out crappy? Can you be more specific? Are you finding you can't get enough light?

Personally, I don't want to buy any more lenses without IS! I love IS. It solves a big problem for me--there's just never enough light for my SLR.

petrakka

05/07/2005 11:55:42 PM · #3

a 50 1.8 is like the standard solid lens everyone should get as their first lens (besides a kit whatever) in my opinion. They do tend to be pretty sharp.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/08/2005 12:16:52 AM · #4

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Well, the shots I post are majorly compensated in post-processing. Mostly low-light as well as my ignorance of white balance changes going indoor outdoor, etc. But I shot a bunch yesterday and was paying particular attention to the exposure meter and when I would adjust the shutter speed to get the meter in the middle, the shots were coming out significantly underexposed. I found 2 stops up was where I felt it actually came out right.

Here's an outtake from my Five challenge (scrapped this whole concept). The focuse just seems off. This was a tripod and remote control shutter shot:

And here's the EXIF:
Shooting Mode: Manual, Tv( Shutter Speed ): 0.6, Av( Aperture Value ): 16, Metering Mode: Center-weighted averaging, ISO Speed: 100, Lens: 28.0 - 80.0 mm, Focal Length: 80.0 mm, Image Size: 3072x2048, Image Quality: Fine, Flash: Off, White Balance: Tungsten, AF Mode: Manual Focus,

Thanks, Neil, for taking time to advise. Thanks for your advice also Peter.

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 02:15:05.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

05/08/2005 01:10:02 AM · #5

I'm guessing from your EXIF you don't shoot RAW, and if I'm wrong, my apologies for this long post in advance.

My best advice would be to start shooting RAW. The problems you describe are mostly eliminated when using RAW, though it does add an extra step to the workflow.

In a RAW file, your camera doesn't apply any white balance (well, maybe for the preview). You apply it after the fact, and you can thus choose the best white balance for the scene--sometimes even choosing the wrong white balance for effect.

Second, in processing a RAW file, you can apply exposure compensation after the fact--adjust up to 2 stops up or down. You'll still get the best results exposing right during the shot, but the adjustment is nonetheless helpful, and you can even save it off twice and use DRI or the new Photoshop CS to combine the "two exposures" coming from the one shot to give you more dynamic range. This is in fact, what I did for this shot:

Regards--Neil

05/08/2005 01:22:48 AM · #6

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I'm guessing from your EXIF you don't shoot RAW, and if I'm wrong, my apologies for this long post in advance.

Thanks Neil. You're right - not shooting RAW. I have a few times and as you mentioned it is an extra step. I am wondering what the difference is then if I post-proc RAW images or just make all adjustments in PS? Is it that I will have already lost unrecoverable elements (in a JPG)?

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/08/2005 01:42:54 AM · #7

edit: i'm dumb i didn't click your first link... lol... Yes i HATE that lens too. Notice that i'm on the pics part for that lens.

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 01:44:43.

05/08/2005 02:05:22 AM · #8

Originally posted by kyebosh:

edit: i'm dumb i didn't click your first link... lol... Yes i HATE that lens too. Notice that i'm on the pics part for that lens.

I saw you on the list. I KNEW IT! It's not me, it's the lens! ;-) Any recommendations?

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/08/2005 02:09:19 AM · #9

Originally posted by kpriest:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
edit: i'm dumb i didn't click your first link... lol... Yes i HATE that lens too. Notice that i'm on the pics part for that lens.

I saw you on the list. I KNEW IT! It's not me, it's the lens! ;-) Any recommendations?

if you want about the same range... Sigma 24-70 ex macro, or tamron 28-75 are both good if you get a nice copy. Or you can look at the canon IS that covers a bit more range... i forget the exact numbers on that lens however... :-(

ps: i have the 50 1.8 and it's a great lens, the only drawbacks to it are that it only has 5 blades and the build is not great. The bokeh is ok but it tends to turn things into little 5 sided shapes instead of nice circles. I think the extra money for the 1.4 would be worth it. Also the 50mm 2.5 macro is supposed to be the best of the canon 50's in terms of distortion... it's also very sharp (moreso than the 1.8). It is a bunch more expensive though.

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 02:16:07.

05/08/2005 02:19:16 AM · #10

Thanks Logan. I appreciate the advice.

05/08/2005 02:21:50 AM · #11

Does anyone know if you can 'rent' any decent lenses or try-before-you-buy? I would really like to do some testing and experimenting.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/08/2005 02:28:51 AM · #12

Originally posted by kpriest:

Does anyone know if you can 'rent' any decent lenses or try-before-you-buy? I would really like to do some testing and experimenting.

you could just find a place with a 30 day return policy or something no?