If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Soft Focus Issues / Lens Test
So I was out the other day shooting and when I got home that afternoon I
wasn't very unhappy with the results from my EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Everything seemed too soft. This prompted me to go out the next day and do an unscientific test of all my lenses. The results can be seen here. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/lens_test I shot this test using 3 of my lens in an effort to compare their performance. Lenses used: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM These images are shot at the minimum focal length of the lens used. Other then shutter speed I kept all other camera settings the same. The lenses were auto focused using the center focus point only. I took a series of pics with each lens all of which looked just about the same. The images were processed using Capture One where I applied the same amount of sharpening and adjusted exposure and contrast. The processed images look pretty good, however, you can see that the original images are all very soft. I'm concerned that the originals should be sharper and wondering if my camera needs adjusting. I keep reading post saying that the 18-55 is a fairly sharp lens but I wouldn't call my results sharp at all. Does this look like an issue with the camera? Is it something I'm doing? Or is this what I should expect from these lenses? I have to say that I've had little to no problems with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens. But the 18-55 and the 28-135 seem way too soft. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Rob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What was your aperature ? If wide open, that could be your problem. For
maxiumum sharpness, you do know to stop down to the optimum f-stop. For most lenses you should be stopping down to at least f8.0. For scenics like you have shown make sure you are using a tripod. Try stopping down to f11 or smaller aperature. The images you posted are not bad but could be even better on a tripod at f16. Experiment to see how the aperature effects your images. Craig Flory |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Craig Flory" wrote in message
ink.net... What was your aperature ? If wide open, that could be your problem. For maxiumum sharpness, you do know to stop down to the optimum f-stop. For most lenses you should be stopping down to at least f8.0. For scenics like you have shown make sure you are using a tripod. Try stopping down to f11 or smaller aperature. The images you posted are not bad but could be even better on a tripod at f16. Experiment to see how the aperature effects your images. They were all shot at F8. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
According to Canon (EOS Magazine March 2005), "Digital cameras do not take
sharp images. This is nothing to do with focusing - it is caused by the interpolation of colour data". It follows that all digital images need some sharpening and this is more true of the EOS SLRs than digital compacts. In-camera sharpening is performed in the compacts. There are many, many articles on this subject and many different views about the best methods and optimum results. The end result required will depend on personal taste and the eventual output wanted (web, print, screen). For me, for example, your sharpened 18mm shot is a touch over-sharpened. Also, you can get the 300D to perform some of this if you take in JPEG format. In that format, you can set elements of in-camera sharpening as well as colour saturation. Mike Bernstein "Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message ... So I was out the other day shooting and when I got home that afternoon I wasn't very unhappy with the results from my EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Everything seemed too soft. This prompted me to go out the next day and do an unscientific test of all my lenses. The results can be seen here. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/lens_test I shot this test using 3 of my lens in an effort to compare their performance. Lenses used: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM These images are shot at the minimum focal length of the lens used. Other then shutter speed I kept all other camera settings the same. The lenses were auto focused using the center focus point only. I took a series of pics with each lens all of which looked just about the same. The images were processed using Capture One where I applied the same amount of sharpening and adjusted exposure and contrast. The processed images look pretty good, however, you can see that the original images are all very soft. I'm concerned that the originals should be sharper and wondering if my camera needs adjusting. I keep reading post saying that the 18-55 is a fairly sharp lens but I wouldn't call my results sharp at all. Does this look like an issue with the camera? Is it something I'm doing? Or is this what I should expect from these lenses? I have to say that I've had little to no problems with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens. But the 18-55 and the 28-135 seem way too soft. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Rob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message
... Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Rob Now you got me puzzled... I downloaded one of your images at "original" size, and Photoshop reports it at 1014 x 676 pixels. My EOS10D images from the same CCD are ~3000 x 2000 pixels, and boy!, are they sharp when I use my EF 50 f1.4. Anyway, using my standard Unsharp Mask (200, 0.6,4), your image sharpens up nicely. In matters like this, I'd suggest getting a copy of the EF 50 f1.8 - despite its poor build quality, it's very sharp, and easily acts as an affordable bench mark. -- M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Malcolm Stewart" wrote in message ... "Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message ... Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Rob Now you got me puzzled... I downloaded one of your images at "original" size, and Photoshop reports it at 1014 x 676 pixels. My EOS10D images from the same CCD are ~3000 x 2000 pixels, and boy!, are they sharp when I use my EF 50 f1.4. Anyway, using my standard Unsharp Mask (200, 0.6,4), your image sharpens up nicely. In matters like this, I'd suggest getting a copy of the EF 50 f1.8 - despite its poor build quality, it's very sharp, and easily acts as an affordable bench mark. Malcolm, I appreciate the thoughts. I've down sized the image to conserve space on the website, however, the full size image is just as soft. As far as sharpening the images, I've been able to get all my images sharpened in post processing, my concern is if I'm getting the best possible image out of the camera to begin with. Maybe I am, I just don't know for sure. Rob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message
... "Malcolm Stewart" wrote in message ... "Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message ... Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Rob Now you got me puzzled... I downloaded one of your images at "original" size, and Photoshop reports it at 1014 x 676 pixels. My EOS10D images from the same CCD are ~3000 x 2000 pixels, and boy!, are they sharp when I use my EF 50 f1.4. Malcolm, I appreciate the thoughts. I've down sized the image to conserve space on the website, however, the full size image is just as soft. As far as sharpening the images, I've been able to get all my images sharpened in post processing, my concern is if I'm getting the best possible image out of the camera to begin with. Maybe I am, I just don't know for sure. Rob I'm not an expert on this but, AFAIK if you save as RAW there is no sharpening done in camera, and you have to do all the work, but the results can be excellent. Alternatively, if you crank up the sharpness in camera prior to saving as a jpeg, your results will initially look better, but you may be stuffed if you want to do further work on the image, as it will already have the beginnings of sharpening halos. Personally, I mostly save as jpeg (neutral EOS10D parameters) but tend to use prime lenses all the time, and good prints to A3+ are easily made. I have a range of zooms, and used them much more with my EOS3 and Provia 100F. Affordable scanning seemed to make all my lenses look alike, and grain aliasing was the real problem! -- M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:43:47 -0400, Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
So I was out the other day shooting and when I got home that afternoon I wasn't very unhappy with the results from my EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Everything seemed too soft. This prompted me to go out the next day and do an unscientific test of all my lenses. The results can be seen here. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/lens_test I shot this test using 3 of my lens in an effort to compare their performance. Lenses used: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM These images are shot at the minimum focal length of the lens used. Other then shutter speed I kept all other camera settings the same. The lenses were auto focused using the center focus point only. I took a series of pics with each lens all of which looked just about the same. The images were processed using Capture One where I applied the same amount of sharpening and adjusted exposure and contrast. The processed images look pretty good, however, you can see that the original images are all very soft. I'm concerned that the originals should be sharper and wondering if my camera needs adjusting. I keep reading post saying that the 18-55 is a fairly sharp lens but I wouldn't call my results sharp at all. Does this look like an issue with the camera? Is it something I'm doing? Or is this what I should expect from these lenses? I have to say that I've had little to no problems with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens. But the 18-55 and the 28-135 seem way too soft. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Rob I think you may find this has something to do with the sensor being a CMOS and not a CCD. I read an article recently that explained the major differences between the two types of sensor and the gist of it suggests that CMOS sensors require a lot of in-camera processing to reduce the amount of noise they generate. Ironically a CCD is not as noisy in its raw state, but costs a lot more to manufacture than a CMOS sensor, which is why manufacturers have gone from CCD to CMOS. This probably explains why CMOS appears to be less noisy at higher ISO levels than a CCD, but it's a false reality, since most of the noise is removed by software, which will obviously have some kind of effect on optimum image sharpness. Don't shoot the messenger. -- Save photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
"Craig Flory" wrote in message ink.net... What was your aperature ? If wide open, that could be your problem. For maxiumum sharpness, you do know to stop down to the optimum f-stop. For most lenses you should be stopping down to at least f8.0. For scenics like you have shown make sure you are using a tripod. Try stopping down to f11 or smaller aperature. The images you posted are not bad but could be even better on a tripod at f16. Experiment to see how the aperature effects your images. They were all shot at F8. I think it is easy to underestimate what even slight movement can make to sharpness, hence Robert's good suggestion to use tripod whenever possible. The higher resolution of digicams get, the more necessary tripods are. Also, it doesn't take much crud on lens front surface to affect sharpness of high contrast scenes. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! | Bill Gillooly | General Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 20th 05 06:43 AM |
Rolleiflex Automat weird problem | Dmitry Poplavsky | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 25 | December 9th 04 10:01 AM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories | Henry Peña | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 2 | November 12th 03 02:56 PM |
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories | Henry Peña | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | November 11th 03 06:20 PM |