Photography Thailand Forum

[canon]

Hi,

I have a few question which I hope some will be able to help me with. Recently, I purchased
a canon 350D with its kit lense EFs 18-55mm. I really do enjoy this camera and soon got used
to the dials after having a film EOS in the past. But the AF focus points in the viewer is constantly
annoying me in the sence that rarely do I get a shoot in complete focus except in portrait mode
with the blurred background and being fairly close to the subject. Offen I recompose the picture
again and press the AF buttom to change the focus settings, this goes for a single center red
spot or a complete fill of red AF focus point in the viewer. It is really hard to get a whole picture
in focus. I've obviously read the manual backwards many times, been on the canon leaning center
at www.photoworkshop.com/canon/index and shoot already hundreds of shoots both in raw and
jpeg. Generally when shooting I try point the red AF point to somewhere in far distant and
sometimes I set the aperture setting low to f/22 or f/30 which is helping somehow however
not what I would have expected so I am certain it is how I operate it.

Any suggestions to make my life easier?

[aaronkok]

you can try to use the A-DEP mode which takes the furthest item to the nearest item in focus.

Also could it be hand-movements from a too low shutter speed instead of the aperture size? (for the kit lens at maximum wide you need to be around 1/50 and at max tele 1/100 to be safe.

Do you have sample pictures we can have a look at before we know the exact issue?

[canon]

Hi aaronkok,

Thks for your suggestions - I'll not rule out camera shake but usually I get a clear shoot even
with shutter speed 0'5'' or 1/3.

This image is taken today around 1730 and the light was obviously abit tricky. It was shoot
in auto mode and came out with 1/125 and f/7.1 - iso 400 at 18mm. The AF point
is red at horizontal points 1-2-4 (counting from left) the rest is out of focus (using canon's
zoombrowser). As you can see the greenery to the right is not in focus whereas the tree branch
above is?? or appear sharper - even the dark tree top left seem in focus but the maybe the shading.

[canon]

should be there now..

[aaronkok]

the picture actually looks pretty decent, in the small size. It looks more like softness of the lens than focus issues.  You using any filters infront of the lens?

I'm not sure if it's a DOF issue as your focus point seems to be far enough for the DOF to be up to infinity..

I'm guessing it's the kit lens issue? Maybe the new 17-55/f2.8 IS will help?

Anyone else?

[Marc Schultz]

I agree with Aaronkok, the focus looks sharp and it seems like on a wide shot like this the lens would have been focusing close to infinity anyway so focus point would not been so much of an issue.

Unfortunately I would say that the general softness you are getting in you rpictures can be solely attributed to the low quality of the lens that comes with that Canon kit. Those low quality lenses they give you for free when you buy a body just don't have very good resolving power to bring out good sharpness in areas of small detail. This means pictures will generally look soft as well, colors sometimes not well saturated, and with limited contrast. Unsharp Mask in Photoshop can help a bit, but on images where the detail is not so sharp to begin with you can end up with images that quickly look oversharpened with what we call "Jaggies" if you are not careful.

If you want to know for sure before spending a lot of money on a new, higher quality lens, you can rent any Canon L series lens for a day to test it out and make a comparison. You should see a significant difference in picture quality.

I hope this helps.

[aaronkok]

Are there places to rent L lenses in Bangkok??

I can't decide between the 135L, 200f2.8L and the 70-200f2.8L

[anna]

I agree with Marc.  The quality of lens makes a world of difference.  I started using good lens for the first time - 24-70 f/2.8 Canon for the past two weeks on my 20D Canon.  I see big difference between images taken from regular lens that came with camera and the good lens.  My photo teacher emphasizes on investing on good lens if you want better pictures.  Anna

[Marc Schultz]

You are right Anna. It is like buying a Ferrari and never filling it up with high octane gas as is recommended for peak performance. The idea being, if you don't give it the best gas, it can never perform the best way it was designed to. Same with digital SLR cameras. If you don't feed them good, sharply focused light, then they can never take a sharp picture is my experience. Sorry for the funny analogy, but that is the simple basis of it.

[canon]

No there is no filters used on this shot. Moving from unsharp to softness in images is ofcourse something I havent
yet been aware of and I can only thank you very much for your advises. And yes, I am now considering a new
and better lens.

Arronkok, if you havnt seen it yet, Marc posted an adress for rental of equipment, incase you havnt picked it up
here it is:-

Pro Center, Ltd.
718/4 South Sathron Road
Soi Suan Plu
(Corner of Soi 9 Suan Plu opposite Thai Immigration)
Sathorn, Bangkok 10120
Tel. 02-679-3077-8
Fax. 02-287-2259

Have a nice day all.

[David Salmanowitz]

As to which lens to buy from your listing of the L series 135mm, 200mm, and the 70-200mm zoom I would go with the zoom, and if possible spend the extra $ for the IS (image stabilization) version. The 135mm is fast as it is f/2.0, the 200mm is f/2.8, and the 70-200mm is f/2.8 as well. For specific applications the 135 and the 200 might suit your purpose better, but the zoom gives you a wider range and the IS enables you to get away without using a tripod in many instances where if there was not IS your shot would be blurry at slower shutter speeds. Though when possible a tripod is always a welcome addition. A drawback to the zoom would be more weight and a bigger size, but one can't have everything. I would love to have a macro zoom lens from 50mm-200mm, but the piece of glass that would be required for that lens could be the size of a bus, and the price would give heart seizures. BTW, some companies zoom lenses that cover a very wide range have a sweet spot but lose sharpness around the edges. Years ago zoom lenses were not in the same league as prime lenses, now in many instances they are.

[aaronkok]

I need to try out those lenses :P I'm a bokeh freak, and seeing pictures from the 135L is just out of this world. I can't afford putting in a 85L

the 70-200IS would be also too expensive and not to mention heavy.  I'm planning for a general travel kit of 28-80L, 50 1.4 & 135L and maybe a 1.4xwith a 5D.

anyway this is OT.

Thanks for the address and i probably will drop by as it's just opposite my house in sathorn.

[anna]

Dear David S. I've been reading the exchanges between you guys on the lenses on a daily basis as I am planning to buy a zoom as well - 70-200 with IS.  The information you all posted have been helpful and I'm making notes.  I thought Marc S.'s analogy on "good lens is high octane to a Ferrari" is neat but David, you beat his analogy.  I let out a roar of laughter (nonstop) when I read your "glass lens the size of the bus and the price to cause heart seizures".  Your sense of humor, guys, bring lightness to an otherwise sometimes-too-technical photography terms.  When I opened the package weeks ago from Amazon containing 20D Canon and the 24-70 f/2.8 lens, my family aptly named it Twenty Pounder.  I have to shift it from one shoulder to another on photo trips because of the weight.  But after seeing the images with SLR and good lens, I wondered why it took me so long to switch from my old G5. Definitely, Twenty Pounder is worth the weight.  I am opting more towards the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS but I have to double check the price first lest my husband has heart seizures! Again, thanks for the valuable information and the laughter! anna

[yish]

zoom lenses are never sharp too many moving bits. perhaps try a non zoom lens they have a sharper focus less moving bits...

[Marc Schultz]

To make a statement that "zoom lenses are never sharp" I think is extremely misguiding to readers of the Forum. Nowadays, some zoom lenses are extremely sharp and in many cases (with regards to the higher quality zooms) are as good as primes as David noted.

The following link is to a short article by Michael Reichmann on the Luminous Landscape web site in regards to the newer Canon 70-200mm L IS Lens.

He is regarded as a knowledgeable expert when it comes to professional photographic equipment reviews and almost everything I have read by him I have found to be quite accurate and informative.

What is key about this article in regards to the topic being discussed here is written in the first 3 sentences of his article.

He once wrote somewhere before the release of the IS version that the 70-200 zoom (referring to the older model of this lens) is one of the sharpest lenses ever made for 35mm SLR cameras, but I am not able to locate that article right now.

What is interesting is that he usually provides test photographs and field tests to backup his conclusions. The only issue is that sometimes his field tests are based upon only one isolated set of circumstances in which case other's results generally may be different:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml