Which lenses?

[Applejack]

Enjoy:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

Thanks!:ylsmoke:

I'm going to buy a couple of lenses today just for fun, really just to see differences in possibilities. I found on CL a Canon 28-105 Ultrasonic AF and a Tamron 19-35 AF together for $85.
Sometimes I find I learn better by feeling out whats possible first and then refine technique. Like riding a wheelie, some people work their way up to it while I like to find the limit (going all the way over:Wow1 and then work my way back. Foolish? Yeah probably

 

[MatthewThompson]

Thanks!:ylsmoke:

I'm going to buy a couple of lenses today just for fun, really just to see differences in possibilities. I found on CL a Canon 28-105 Ultrasonic AF and a Tamron 19-35 AF together for $85.
Sometimes I find I learn better by feeling out whats possible first and then refine technique. Like riding a wheelie, some people work their way up to it while I like to find the limit (going all the way over:Wow1 and then work my way back. Foolish? Yeah probably

I shot a 28-105 for years and made a good deal of money too. Is it the faster version (3.5-4.5)? It's the best of the midrange zooms Canon offers.

 

[ywen]

The rule of diminishing return applies to lenses, especially when you have diff lens of the same fov and f-stop..

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[nwoods]

Thanks!:ylsmoke:

I'm going to buy a couple of lenses today just for fun, really just to see differences in possibilities. I found on CL a Canon 28-105 Ultrasonic AF and a Tamron 19-35 AF together for $85.
Sometimes I find I learn better by feeling out whats possible first and then refine technique. Like riding a wheelie, some people work their way up to it while I like to find the limit (going all the way over:Wow1 and then work my way back. Foolish? Yeah probably

Be prepared to not be very impressed. That 28-105 costs less new that the protective UV filters I put on my lenses. Cheap glass will make learning even harder I think, because your results will always disappoint you, and they will be inconsistent for different reasons. It will be harder to figure out what settings to use when, because the lens will let you down. It's not the camera that matters, its the lens.

 

[MatthewThompson]

Cheap glass will make learning even harder I think, because your results will always disappoint you, and they will be inconsistent for different reasons.

You've got to admit that's a good step coming from a kit lens, though.

 

[Applejack]

Be prepared to not be very impressed. That 28-105 costs less new that the protective UV filters I put on my lenses. Cheap glass will make learning even harder I think, because your results will always disappoint you, and they will be inconsistent for different reasons. It will be harder to figure out what settings to use when, because the lens will let you down. It's not the camera that matters, its the lens.

I think that I'm having that problem with my current kit lens. Went out early this morning to catch the sunrise from the top of a butte. Some shots turned out pretty nice and other were complete poo. It was still a nice learning experience though, messing around with low light conditions.
Here's a few shots from this morning. I'm open to critique and suggestions of course. I think these turned out alright but they just don't seem to be as crisp looking as I'd like. I was thinking that was the lens quality, no?

 

[Lost Canadian]

Your top and bottom shots were taken at F22 which is way too high for a cropped frame camera. Once you go past F11-13 you'll run into resolution robbing diffraction which will make your images look soft. Try not to go past F8-9 and certainly stay under F11-13.

 

[ywen]

In short- No. Especially at these tiny Web resolutions. Not sure what criteria you're looking for to judge lens quality, but the final output size for an image is a great equalizer of good and bad lenses.

For me the definition of crisp is also sharpness.. I took one of your photo and applied a little bit sharpening on it.

Here's a few shots from this morning. I'm open to critique and suggestions of course. I think these turned out alright but they just don't seem to be as crisp looking as I'd like. I was thinking that was the lens quality, no?

 

[Lost Canadian]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between lens sharpness and post process sharpening. Lens sharpness is defined by the resolving power of the lens, or more simply how much detail it can extract. Post process sharpening on the other hand is more of an illusion, where by the program increases contrast between pixels which fools the eye into thinking that detail has been resolved. A poorly resolving lens is still a poorly resolving lens no matter how much post process sharpening is applied. If you want sharp photos it's best to learn and understand how best to maximize the ability of the equipment you have before resulting to spending money or thinking that image sharpness is dependant on a computer program.

 

[ETAV8R]

I've seen great results from kit lenses and poor results from nice L glass. Developing a photographic eye takes time. I would suggest staying with the kit stuff until you learn a bit more. Study what does what on your camera. Then when you have the money ready for some good glass either rent a copy at a local camera store or go for it. I have 3 lenses which I use often, a Canon 24-70 f2.8, Canon 70-200IS f2.8, and a Sigma 150-500. With these three I have a pretty good set up for what I like to shoot. The 70-200 I rented at a local shop before buying one. I used it at an airshow and down in the local wetlands. The results impressed me enough to get one. I've been using SLR's since the 3rd grade and still have much to learn, particularly about post processing.

When you do decide to make that purchase I would suggest either Amazon or BH Photo (if you live outside NY). Unfortunately most camera shops cannot match prices quite as well as these retailers. Again, good luck on the decision.

 

[Applejack]

Once you go past F11-13 you'll run into resolution robbing diffraction which will make your images look soft. Try not to go past F8-9 and certainly stay under F11-13.

Nice! Thanks for the tip. And I agree, I would rather have good quality resolution from the lens and it's proper use rather than a kind of touch up, though I do use some rather basic photo programs for that from time to time.
Good stuff thanks.

 

[ywen]

Nice! Thanks for the tip. And I agree, I would rather have good quality resolution from the lens and it's proper use rather than a kind of touch up, though I do use some rather basic photo programs for that from time to time.
Good stuff thanks.

At the resolution you were showing your images, lens resolution difference between a kit lens and the sharpest L lens won't be visible.

Lens resolution difference is visible when you are pixel-peeping or when you need to print/display larger.

 

[Lostmanifesto]

Working for an off-road magazine puts me all over the place shooting photos. My two must have lenses are Canon 16-35f/2.8 and Canon 70-200f/2.8. I can accomplish most anything I need with those two. That and a good 580EX flash and you will be in great shape. If you want to spend a little less you can go with the Canon 17-40f/4 and Canon 70-200f/4 versions. They are slower but still great choices.

Most of all remember its really not about the lenses just get out there and enjoy photography. If I could walk around with only ONE lens I would probably grab a Canon 24-105f/4.

Cheers!

Jordan

 

[Applejack]

Most of all remember its really not about the lenses just get out there and enjoy photography.

Exactly!!