The shots were taken with a variety of settings. Both of the iris pictures were taken using the camera's macro setting (with a bad crop job on the second)... the top shot is 70% of actual size; the second is 100%. My Baby is 50% 0f normal size and was taken with a shutter-priority setting of 1/160 of a second, f8, ISO 200. All three shots were auto-focused.I'm still not completely satisfied with this lens' performance, given the images aren't as sharp as one would expect... or perhaps demand... from a camera in this price range. I understand that telephoto lenses generally have a "softer" focus than a "normal" lens. So... it's with that knowledge in mind that I see a new lens in my future... more than likely a "standard" 50mm fixed-focal length lens.
Opinions, anyone?
I think those images are excellent for that lens and very good regardless - focused water droplets, nice bokeh.
ReplyDeleteThe large range EF-S lenses as you said will not perform like a prime or a more specialized zoom or Canon's L professional lenses per everything I've read. I had the 24-105L in my hands for 2 days and the difference is astounding for $600 more than the 28-135...
As far as the 50mm - I have the "cheapo" ($85) 50mm 1.8 and I am very pleased with what it does. The 50mm 1.4 for $300 something is no doubt much better but I think the 1.8 is a good place to start to see if that range is what you will use. That macro converter I have is a lot of fun on the 50mm.
I look at lenses and specs and reviews nearly every day...it is a problem :)!
Oh, beautiful flowers, so fragrant and beautiful. :)
ReplyDeleteHealth information & Humor & Fun World
Nice pics...that's the extent of my opinion on things I don't claim to understand.
ReplyDeleteThe subject matter on the other hand...
Nice car! She is aging well, isn't she?
At least I think so...
SN1
I have bifocals, so what is the issue?
ReplyDeleteBeautiful Iris!
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if it will ever stop being winter here so ours will think about blooming!
I saved the iris photo to my "potential art" file. Then I thought why not save the Hornet too.
ReplyDeleteMore thoughts I had...
ReplyDeleteWith the macro settings, the area in sharp focus is very small - depending on settings. And maybe some of your dissatisfaction is expecting the entire iris to be in focus? I have struggled with that concept as I don't have much macro experience and so have been experimenting with different settings - still not getting quite what I want, but I don't think it is a lens or camera issue - for me.
The other thing I notice is that "everyone else's" photos seem sharper than mine. I had the impression that my older point and shoot photos were also but spent some time looking and they were SO NOT... Got to thinking that I am super critical of my own stuff and focus more on the overall of others. Plus, with my stuff, I SAW in person what I photographed so am comparing a "mind's eye" memory with the photo - while with other's photos the capture is what I see and I'm not comparing.
...my $.02 :)!
I'm not a photo person, so I don't know much about lens stuff. But I think the pictures are great, if that means anything.
ReplyDeleteThank you all for your kind comments... especially yours, Ann.
ReplyDeleteI'll buy into the "we are our own worst critics" thing, fer sure. But I took a few more shots than just the ones posted here... and didn't like the detail sharpness in a couple of car shots I took at f22. EVERYTHING should be in focus using that aperture, no? Like you, I spend more time than I should reading lens reviews. My budget can't (or shouldn't) handle the stuff I'm lusting after... :-)
Everything "should" be in focus at F22, but if at f8 your shutter speed was 1/160, at f22, it was a lot slower or ISO went up or both...either of those might affect sharpness and/or noise.
ReplyDeleteThe ISO remained at 200, but the shutter speed dropped to 1/20th... so you're right. There COULD be some shake (or noise) therein, even though the lens is supposedly stabilized. Good point.
ReplyDeleteNo advice, good man. I still cut off people's head's when I click the shutter. My talents do not include photography.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced that digital photography is better than film. There are many advantages obviously but I’m not sure of the quality. Also I wonder if the LCD displays most of us use are distorting the edges. Good photo's though.
ReplyDeleteMacro photography - ah, my joy. I have a 35mm macro lens and it's a killer for close up work. The whole point to macro photography is to have a tight depth of field - so tight that the background is blurry.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of focal area you get is up to you and working distance.
That said - nice pics Buck. Keep working with the lens.
Daphne: You're a multi-talented woman, so one can overlook any lack of photographic skills. Easily.
ReplyDeleteDan sez: "I'm not convinced that digital photography is better than film."
You Luddite, you. :D
I'M convinced. You know I have a pretty decent film SLR... but I haven't put any film through it in nearly ten years. The quality one gets out of a DSLR these days is equal to or better than film, IMHO. And photo printers produce quality equal to or better than any commercial processing firm I've used... instantly.
Kris: This particular lens is merely adequate for macro work, not at all equal to a purpose-built lens. But we continue to keep on keepin' on. :D