The problem with that lens was its auto focus and clarity under certain lighting.
Get 'em while they're hot!
- Thread starter JaniceL
- Start date
PNWPhotos.com a friendly and growing community of photographers with an interest in the Pacific Northwest region.
We feature a Photography Discussion Forum and Pacific Northwest Photo Gallery. It's a fun and friendly place to talk with other photographers, ask questions, share you knowledge, view and post photos and more!
The problem with that lens was its auto focus and clarity under certain lighting.
OK, and that is one thing I forgot to mention. Pro grade lenses will also focus more accurately and faster. In normal use, there isn't a huge difference. In low light or otherwise challenging conditions, it can be.
Focus speed can also be affected by the camera body.
I don't know about sharpness, but the kit lens that came with my original Rebel 300D...when you reversed direction on the zoom ring, the whole front group would shift sideways ~1/16" and cant a little. The only upside of losing that camera was that was the lens mounted at the time.
Benton 12nov10
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
The problem with that lens was its auto focus and clarity under certain lighting.
OK, and that is one thing I forgot to mention. Pro grade lenses will also focus more accurately and faster. In normal use, there isn't a huge difference. In low light or otherwise challenging conditions, it can be.
Focus speed can also be affected by the camera body.
I'm going back to my previous post where I suggested looking at renting a lens and see if any quality changes and even rent a camera.
That way, before spending money on upgrades you can look at your shooting and processing techniques. Renting is a pretty reasonable way to narrow down what needs to be improved.
That's why I pulled up my older shots with the xti. It can be a good starter camera once you learn its limitations. I think if you sharpen your skills on that camera your other photos will be stunning when you upgrade.
That way, before spending money on upgrades you can look at your shooting and processing techniques. Renting is a pretty reasonable way to narrow down what needs to be improved.
That's why I pulled up my older shots with the xti. It can be a good starter camera once you learn its limitations. I think if you sharpen your skills on that camera your other photos will be stunning when you upgrade.
Last edited:
HoedadKid
New Member
Hey Guys/Gals-
Thanx for all of the feedback. I think I will indeed try renting a lens or two, maybe even a body, and get a clearer idea of what the real problem is (most likely me
.)
Bob, I've had a ton of trouble with my external harddrive as of late, and unfortunately cannot retrieve almost 99% of my photos. This is where I wanted to pull from to give you an idea of the clarity issues I was complaining about.
My 20-35mm I.S. Canon is currently in Japan at the moment, getting a new motor. My 75-300mm Tamron is being used by good friend. But, I do have my 18-55mm kit lens. So I thought I'd try taking a few reflection images to see what I could do with it. This lens has no image stabilization, but I did take these via assistance of mi tripod.
I wanted to do a few different things with the lens, in order to give you a good idea of its range. Here is the data for these three shots-
1st shot- 1/250, f5.6, ISO 100, focal length 55, Dimensions 2292x3486
View attachment 4080
2nd shot- 0.3", f22, ISO 200, focal length 34, Dimensions 2588x1601
View attachment 4081
3d shot- 1/160, f7.0, ISO 1600, focal length 50, Dimensions 3114x2022
View attachment 4082
'Twas the best I could do today...
Again, thank you all for your great advice. It helps more than you know!
regards- Tobiah =)
Thanx for all of the feedback. I think I will indeed try renting a lens or two, maybe even a body, and get a clearer idea of what the real problem is (most likely me
.)Bob, I've had a ton of trouble with my external harddrive as of late, and unfortunately cannot retrieve almost 99% of my photos. This is where I wanted to pull from to give you an idea of the clarity issues I was complaining about.
My 20-35mm I.S. Canon is currently in Japan at the moment, getting a new motor. My 75-300mm Tamron is being used by good friend. But, I do have my 18-55mm kit lens. So I thought I'd try taking a few reflection images to see what I could do with it. This lens has no image stabilization, but I did take these via assistance of mi tripod.
I wanted to do a few different things with the lens, in order to give you a good idea of its range. Here is the data for these three shots-
1st shot- 1/250, f5.6, ISO 100, focal length 55, Dimensions 2292x3486
View attachment 4080
2nd shot- 0.3", f22, ISO 200, focal length 34, Dimensions 2588x1601
View attachment 4081
3d shot- 1/160, f7.0, ISO 1600, focal length 50, Dimensions 3114x2022
View attachment 4082
'Twas the best I could do today...
Again, thank you all for your great advice. It helps more than you know!
regards- Tobiah =)
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, now we have something specific to talk about...
> 1st shot- 1/250, f5.6, ISO 100, focal length 55, Dimensions 2292x3486
There are a couple of challenges here. You're close to a small subject, and you've got a shallow depth of field (f 5.6). Basically you're trying to use your kit lens as a macro lens. The results you got are about what I'd expect in that situation. It's hard for a lens to focus very close like that.
2nd shot- 0.3", f22, ISO 200, focal length 34, Dimensions 2588x1601
Looks fine to me. It's a bit blurry but that happens when you photograph water.
3d shot- 1/160, f7.0, ISO 1600, focal length 50, Dimensions 3114x2022
Once again, you're pushing the lens to the limits trying to focus so close. The low light situation made you use ISO 1600, which created the grain. A challenging shot, and one that would probably take a special lens and additonal light.
There's a reason that you see that big selection of lens when you go into a camera store. No single lens can do it all, not even an expensive pro grade one.
Macro lenses are a great example. At a glance, they don't seem much different than a regular lens. Many photographers ask "A 105 macro? My lens is a 70-200, it has 105 in there, why would I need the macro?" Well, the 105 macro can acheive sharp focus close to the subject, a typical lens cannot.
As an example, take the Nikon's 70-200. Nikon tells you the minimum focusing distance right on the product page: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2185/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html
For that lens, it's 4.6 feet. So Nikon is telling you that if you're trying to photograph something that's less than 4.6 feet away, this lens will NOT get good focus on it. That doesn't mean it's a cheap lens, (it's not!) it's simply part of how optics work.
> 1st shot- 1/250, f5.6, ISO 100, focal length 55, Dimensions 2292x3486
There are a couple of challenges here. You're close to a small subject, and you've got a shallow depth of field (f 5.6). Basically you're trying to use your kit lens as a macro lens. The results you got are about what I'd expect in that situation. It's hard for a lens to focus very close like that.
2nd shot- 0.3", f22, ISO 200, focal length 34, Dimensions 2588x1601
Looks fine to me. It's a bit blurry but that happens when you photograph water.
3d shot- 1/160, f7.0, ISO 1600, focal length 50, Dimensions 3114x2022
Once again, you're pushing the lens to the limits trying to focus so close. The low light situation made you use ISO 1600, which created the grain. A challenging shot, and one that would probably take a special lens and additonal light.
There's a reason that you see that big selection of lens when you go into a camera store. No single lens can do it all, not even an expensive pro grade one.
Macro lenses are a great example. At a glance, they don't seem much different than a regular lens. Many photographers ask "A 105 macro? My lens is a 70-200, it has 105 in there, why would I need the macro?" Well, the 105 macro can acheive sharp focus close to the subject, a typical lens cannot.
As an example, take the Nikon's 70-200. Nikon tells you the minimum focusing distance right on the product page: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2185/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html
For that lens, it's 4.6 feet. So Nikon is telling you that if you're trying to photograph something that's less than 4.6 feet away, this lens will NOT get good focus on it. That doesn't mean it's a cheap lens, (it's not!) it's simply part of how optics work.
Benton
New Member
I don't know about sharpness, but the kit lens that came with my original Rebel 300D...when you reversed direction on the zoom ring, the whole front group would shift sideways ~1/16" and cant a little. The only upside of losing that camera was that was the lens mounted at the time.
Benton 12nov10
Hoedadkid,
Thanks for posting the photos, I'm going to repeat what Bob said.
I see some banding in the reflections on the first and quite a bit of noise in the third. It seems that in both of those images you have cropped them out of a larger image.
#1 Some pretty heavy banding, that comes most likely from your processing. That looks like a dandelion head. If I'm right you stretched that image about as far as you can with your lens, I'm surprised it came out as well as it did. I think you just might be using the wrong lens in this case. A macro or adding extension tubes might be a better choice.
#2 looks like it is more in the range that that lens is designed for. Not bad at all, just work on your processing and composition. You said that was shot at .3" I think that is a typo.
#3, An ISO of 1600 is useless on the xti. Nothing more than 400, 800 if you must. Also it looks like a different lens choice might be in order.
Look at the images I posted of photos that I took with the xti. There are three lens examples there. Each one was used knowing I expected a particular image in mind. The little turquoise spirit bear is only an inch tall and he was nearly full frame (i just uploaded a larger image), just cropped a little to take out some extra background. The light source was the morning sun and ISO 200. And the crevasse on mount hood was taken from the parking lot at Timberline Lodge. I planned my shots and I used the right tools. I knew the limits of my camera.
Our camera and lenses are the tools we use to get the job done. All craftsmen and artists spend time with their tools to learn their limitations and refine their skills to make the tools dance. Your on your way. Keep up the exploration and good work.
Thanks for posting the photos, I'm going to repeat what Bob said.
I see some banding in the reflections on the first and quite a bit of noise in the third. It seems that in both of those images you have cropped them out of a larger image.
#1 Some pretty heavy banding, that comes most likely from your processing. That looks like a dandelion head. If I'm right you stretched that image about as far as you can with your lens, I'm surprised it came out as well as it did. I think you just might be using the wrong lens in this case. A macro or adding extension tubes might be a better choice.
#2 looks like it is more in the range that that lens is designed for. Not bad at all, just work on your processing and composition. You said that was shot at .3" I think that is a typo.
#3, An ISO of 1600 is useless on the xti. Nothing more than 400, 800 if you must. Also it looks like a different lens choice might be in order.
Look at the images I posted of photos that I took with the xti. There are three lens examples there. Each one was used knowing I expected a particular image in mind. The little turquoise spirit bear is only an inch tall and he was nearly full frame (i just uploaded a larger image), just cropped a little to take out some extra background. The light source was the morning sun and ISO 200. And the crevasse on mount hood was taken from the parking lot at Timberline Lodge. I planned my shots and I used the right tools. I knew the limits of my camera.
Our camera and lenses are the tools we use to get the job done. All craftsmen and artists spend time with their tools to learn their limitations and refine their skills to make the tools dance. Your on your way. Keep up the exploration and good work.
Last edited:
HoedadKid
New Member
Bob and Janice- THANK YOU!!!
I have so much to learn. Unfortunately, I miss a lot of these things, or I am even completely unaware of them until I bounce them off of others like yourselves. I have suspected a lot of the problems you both mentioned, but with little real knowledge myself, I always second guess.
I am beginning to understand that I cannot expect to be able to do everything I want with the tools I currently have at my disposal. I will expand and invest, and it's becoming clearer (thanx to y'all) what I really need. I'll probably rent first, etc...
As well, I really need to get myself into a class on Photo processing. It's just a crapshoot for me right now; trial and error. I've never had an ounce of instruction.
Janice- I'm glad you mentioned the high ISO thing. I realize that anything above even 400, is pretty useless, too bad And the banding: I didn't know what caused that when I processed it, but today I think I figured it out.
Again, thanx sooooooooo much, both of yuz. GRATCI GRATCI GRATCI GRATCI GRATCI!
best, Tobiah
I have so much to learn. Unfortunately, I miss a lot of these things, or I am even completely unaware of them until I bounce them off of others like yourselves. I have suspected a lot of the problems you both mentioned, but with little real knowledge myself, I always second guess.
I am beginning to understand that I cannot expect to be able to do everything I want with the tools I currently have at my disposal. I will expand and invest, and it's becoming clearer (thanx to y'all) what I really need. I'll probably rent first, etc...
As well, I really need to get myself into a class on Photo processing. It's just a crapshoot for me right now; trial and error. I've never had an ounce of instruction.
Janice- I'm glad you mentioned the high ISO thing. I realize that anything above even 400, is pretty useless, too bad
And the banding: I didn't know what caused that when I processed it, but today I think I figured it out.Again, thanx sooooooooo much, both of yuz. GRATCI GRATCI GRATCI GRATCI GRATCI!
best, Tobiah
That's the great thing about forums like this.
I'm wondering how many in this forum have taken classes on processing. I haven't. I learned by trial and error and honest critiques. My understanding of my camera came from high school which developed (no pun intended) into a life long love for photography. It's been my refuge and therapy if you will when my life has been rough. And, I learn something each time I pick it up.
Keep posting your pics, Tobiah and your opinions matter to us too.
Looking forward to seeing more.
Janice.
I'm wondering how many in this forum have taken classes on processing. I haven't. I learned by trial and error and honest critiques. My understanding of my camera came from high school which developed (no pun intended) into a life long love for photography. It's been my refuge and therapy if you will when my life has been rough. And, I learn something each time I pick it up.
Keep posting your pics, Tobiah and your opinions matter to us too.
Looking forward to seeing more.
Janice.
HoedadKid
New Member
So...
I am still awake, lol. Cannot sleep tonight, not sure why.
I've been reading online tutorials on post-processing and playing around with Photoshop. I'm trying to find that balance where I feel like I am only enhancing my images and bringing them to their intended fullest potential, rather than altering them into something fake, or a deception. There in lies the eternal dilemma of the photographer's conscience, I guess...
The one thing I discovered tonight, was the process of blur/overlay blending. I took this photo a few days ago, and with this new blending tecnique, was really happy with the results.
Honest critiques and/or opinions welcomed and appreciated-
And... If you all think that I'm posting too many photos on here, let me know. I just can't help it. I'm addicted. It's a disease.
best-
Tobiah
I am still awake, lol. Cannot sleep tonight, not sure why.
I've been reading online tutorials on post-processing and playing around with Photoshop. I'm trying to find that balance where I feel like I am only enhancing my images and bringing them to their intended fullest potential, rather than altering them into something fake, or a deception. There in lies the eternal dilemma of the photographer's conscience, I guess...
The one thing I discovered tonight, was the process of blur/overlay blending. I took this photo a few days ago, and with this new blending tecnique, was really happy with the results.
Honest critiques and/or opinions welcomed and appreciated-
And... If you all think that I'm posting too many photos on here, let me know. I just can't help it. I'm addicted. It's a disease.
best-
Tobiah
Last edited:
PNWPhotos.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com