View Full Version : Stopping (Down) to Smell (and See) The Lillies
I, like many of us, like to live on the aperture edge. Let's face it...we all love to shave that edge as much as we can and use the widest possible f/stop we can get away with. We're addicted to smooth bokeh and highly isolated subjects. But, when you you don't have the best glass (as is my situation) there's an important lesson to be learned...stop it down and your shots will be better. I really like the color and contrast of my siggy. But the sharpness always seemed a little off. Until I finally listened to that little voice in my head that knows better...and started shooting the lens at f/8 and f/11. Well, what a difference a few f/stops make...because at f/8 and f/11, this lens kicks it! Untill today, I was almost never shooting above f/6.3. Doh! Even long time shooters can be dopes! Well, check it out. These crush the other examples I've posted...
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/76118487-L.jpg
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/76118828-L.jpg
Nice results!
Shooting macro (ish), too wide is just too wide, even with a better lens.
aparmley
06-18-2006, 12:22 AM
I concur very nice images - F8-11 is hard to do even with a tripod and remote shutter release on slightly breezy days . . . But again, those are superb images.
Why, thank you fellas! It's nice to have a place to do a sanity check once and a while! :)
It's just the result of another crisis of faith (like we don't have enough of those around here!). Ever since I got my XT and the siggy, I been a little disappointed and I find myself counting the days till Photokina when hopefully Canon announces the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS. Then I'll be counting the days until Christmas when it will finally be available (or more likely, backordered till March :mad: ). And I spend a lot of time just staring at my camera thinking "...should I just buy the damn 24-105 already?...". But, today I decided to do more "testing" and stop the lens down...and I must say, I'm pleased with the results. So, now that the crisis is temporarily over, I feel free to go forth and shoot without the nagging gear doubts. I just have to be aware of, and work within, the limitations of the gear I have...which, in the grand scheme of things, ain't that bad...
cdifoto
06-18-2006, 01:03 AM
Those are some pretty sweet results. I'm the same way with my apertures - rarely ever more than a stop down from wide open. :eek:
Those are some pretty sweet results. I'm the same way with my apertures - rarely ever more than a stop down from wide open. :eek:Thanks Don!
My problem (and I know it's a problem) is that I never want to change a lens again. I would love a wide-to-tele lens that's fast and sharp...but I know I would need three separate lenes (plus a boatload of cash) to cover the range and have the speed and sharpness that I really want. Oh well...that's life!
cdifoto
06-18-2006, 01:47 AM
Thanks Don!
My problem (and I know it's a problem) is that I never want to change a lens again. I would love a wide-to-tele lens that's fast and sharp...but I know I would need three separate lenes (plus a boatload of cash) to cover the range and have the speed and sharpness that I really want. Oh well...that's life!
FWIW, I was wishing I had an all-in-one superzoom lens when I was at Disney. It was bright enough everywhere I went, except inside some rides, that I could have gotten away with the slower zoom, and a short fast prime for inside buildings.
mediyoga
06-18-2006, 03:32 AM
Excellent sharp images JTL. I also wish sometimes that I had a single all purpose lens like the sigma 18-200 on tips . Times are that one could live with a slow focus and zoom. but what the heck we will be filling our house with lenses. As it is I have so many camera bags for different occasions!
Krishna
hmm, i kinda went through the opposite. shot everything at small apertures and now i shoot almost everything at or near wide open (except super close up macros). i'm addicted to bokeh
that sigma's pretty impressive stopped down. it was the same reason why i was getting good results with the 28-135 - it was always stopped down (otherwise it's pretty soft).
i wish i had the spare dough to afford what i like to call an all-in-one lens (just like the all in one cameras). every now and then i'll go out not planning to shoot but want to have the camera with me just in case. but if i do bring it that's a 17-40, 70-200 f2.8, and sigy 15mm (always have that with me) just to cover the basics. since i'm already carrying that much i toss in the external flash and i've got a cumbersome kit. having a 18-200 instead of the 17-40 + 70-200 would just be a lot smaller and lighter, even with a 15mm, flash, + extension tubes, and it would fit in my smaller bag too. oh well, ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as that all-in-one lens is actually what i consider to be a luxury :eek:
aparmley
06-18-2006, 06:57 AM
Oh and looking at my lenses - 50 1.4, 35 2.0, 85 1.8 - ya - I'm pretty much addicted to F4 and larger. ;) Just thinking for moral support reasons I should chime back in and fess up to that.
I think its a natural thing coming from Point and Shoots that have lots of DOF and then moving to an SLR that gives you the choice. . . . Where I still have room to learn is getting comfortable stopping down a wee bit more to give myself the need DOF to get a nice sharp image of my subject all the way through and still get Bokeh. . .
mediyoga
06-18-2006, 07:23 AM
hmm, i kinda went through the opposite. shot everything at small apertures and now i shoot almost everything at or near wide open (except super close up macros). i'm addicted to bokeh
that sigma's pretty impressive stopped down. it was the same reason why i was getting good results with the 28-135 - it was always stopped down (otherwise it's pretty soft).
i wish i had the spare dough to afford what i like to call an all-in-one lens (just like the all in one cameras). every now and then i'll go out not planning to shoot but want to have the camera with me just in case. but if i do bring it that's a 17-40, 70-200 f2.8, and sigy 15mm (always have that with me) just to cover the basics. since i'm already carrying that much i toss in the external flash and i've got a cumbersome kit. having a 18-200 instead of the 17-40 + 70-200 would just be a lot smaller and lighter, even with a 15mm, flash, + extension tubes, and it would fit in my smaller bag too. oh well, ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as that all-in-one lens is actually what i consider to be a luxury :eek:
Is it worth it then ? the 18-200? Then would have 3 lenses to look after. In India the weather is tough on these. I have to use silica gel to keep it dry or use it often.
Krishna
Is it worth it then ? the 18-200? Then would have 3 lenses to look after. In India the weather is tough on these. I have to use silica gel to keep it dry or use it often.
Krishna
if you have two lenses that are light and smallish then at least IMO i think a 18-200 is pretty much unneccessary unless you find yourself often needing to go from very wide to tele in an instant, to capture the moment.
hmm, i kinda went through the opposite. shot everything at small apertures and now i shoot almost everything at or near wide open (except super close up macros). i'm addicted to bokehWell, you've built yourself a nice bag 'o gear there and definitly can shoot wider and sharper for it. I'm thinking with one or two days more serious practice, I'll be able to "shave the edge" a little better and consistantly with the siggy. I first had to learn to "accept" it for what it is before I could move past it...
Movin' past it now...until the next shot I'm not happy with for technical reasons! Or until the next time I'm forced to use ISO 1600!
That's life in the slow lane! :D
Here's another at f/11, but taken from further away at full tele (thus the slight flattening of the image and the lack of razor sharpness). It looks pretty good, but, this lens is definitely the tortoise and not the hare...plus, the bokeh suffers at smaller apertures, but...that's the price of addmission...
Now that I will keep it at f/8 and smaller for tight shots, everything should be o.k...
Slightly cropped on the right for better comp...
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/76224993-L.jpg
Full EXIF here:
[Image]
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Date Time = 2006-06-18 15:02:48
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 192
[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/200"
F Number = F11
Exposure Program = Manual
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2006-06-17 14:59:48
Date Time Digitized = 2006-06-17 14:59:48
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Shutter Speed Value = 7.64 TV
Aperture Value = 6.92 AV
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 200mm
Maker Note = 8284 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 3332
Exif Image Height = 2304
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 9188
Focal Plane X Resolution = 3954.233
Focal Plane Y Resolution = 3958.763
Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Manual exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal
24Peter
06-18-2006, 05:37 PM
JTL - they're beautiful shots. _It's the photographer - not the lens.
BTW - I did an in-shop test of the 24-105 f4 L at Canoga camera a couple of weeks ago. Took about 100 shots, half inside, half outside.
Pros - I could shoot 105mm handheld @ 1/15-1/30th w/good to excellent results; pretty sharp, fast-focusing.
Cons - price, price, price; not as contrasty as other L's I've tried.
If it was in the $500-700 range I would have bought it. Now I'm gonna wait to see if Canon introduces sensor-based IS.
Excellent sharp images JTL. I also wish sometimes that I had a single all purpose lens like the sigma 18-200 on tips . Times are that one could live with a slow focus and zoom. but what the heck we will be filling our house with lenses. As it is I have so many camera bags for different occasions!
KrishnaThank you Krishna! :)
I will say that the convenience of the 18-200mm (or should I say 18.4-183mm ;) ) is simply great. And it produces very good images. And most times, I'll feel I don't need any other lens. The price for not having to change lenses is sloooooooooooowness....and sometimes noooooooooooise...and marshmellow focus wide open...
But, I can live with it...now that I've re-learned a lesson I already knew! :D
JTL - they're beautiful shots. _It's the photographer - not the lens.
BTW - I did an in-shop test of the 24-105 f4 L at Canoga camera a couple of weeks ago. Took about 100 shots, half inside, half outside.
Pros - I could shoot 105mm handheld @ 1/15-1/30th w/good to excellent results; pretty sharp, fast-focusing.
Cons - price, price, price; not as contrasty as other L's I've tried.
If it was in the $500-700 range I would have bought it. Now I'm gonna wait to see if Canon introduces sensor-based IS.Thanks Pete! :)
It may be the photographer...but da photographer be needin' da light, mon!
I've heard many a folk (some here...you know who you complainers are! :D ) say the 24-105 is not that contrasty. And, I am a contrast freak, so maybe it's not a good fit for me. I'm shutting up and waiting for the Canon 18-200 and hopefully it focuses faster, has the extra stop on the tele end and is sharp at f/3.5. Then I will be as happy as one can (because, there's always something to complain about ;) ).
Now, what's this about sensor-based IS? Do you know something that we don't? I haven't had time to hang with the local camera geeks or badger the Canon rep at B&H...but I haven't heard that Canon even has it on the drawing board...but we can hope, I guess...
24Peter
06-18-2006, 08:54 PM
Thanks Pete! :)
Now, what's this about sensor-based IS? Do you know something that we don't? I haven't had time to hang with the local camera geeks or badger the Canon rep at B&H...but I haven't heard that Canon even has it on the drawing board...but we can hope, I guess...
No - total speculation on my part given what Sony, Pentax and KM have done.
aparmley
06-18-2006, 09:18 PM
No - total speculation on my part given what Sony, Pentax and KM have done.
True the market is heading that way - Think Canon will eliminate the need for its IS lenses - the big sellers? ? ? hmmmm me thinks no.
I think its a natural thing coming from Point and Shoots that have lots of DOF and then moving to an SLR that gives you the choice
i think you hit the nail on the head there. well, at least that was the case for me. got used to having everything in the shot come out focused so that's how i was shooting when first started using the dslr.
I think its a natural thing coming from Point and Shoots that have lots of DOF and then moving to an SLR that gives you the choice. . . .
i think you hit the nail on the head there. well, at least that was the case for me. got used to having everything in the shot come out focused so that's how i was shooting when first started using the dslr.I would strongly agree with both of you...
But truth be told, it's many a lower-cost lens that's simply not sharp at wide apertures. You get what you pay for. My lens may say 3.5-6.3 on the barrel, but for most situations, those apertures are simply not usable. It's not a DOF thing, it's an optical sharpness thing.
I know that a high-quality, fast lens would let me have my cake and eat it too...shallow DOF and razor sharpness in the zone of focus...but, I'm unwilling to change my habits, so I accept what I can do with what I have...which I think is fine...
At least that's my story today! :D
noyjimi
06-20-2006, 07:26 PM
Nice images there, JTL. Did you use ACR? If so, how did red look in the histogram (with no auto exposure adjustments)?
Nice images there, JTL. Did you use ACR? If so, how did red look in the histogram (with no auto exposure adjustments)?Nope...shot it JPEG. Is there something I should look for in the red channel? I would be happy to do test shots with the lens and post them if you want see something specific...
And, thanks for the compliment! :)
noyjimi
06-20-2006, 08:26 PM
Nope...shot it JPEG. Is there something I should look for in the red channel? I would be happy to do test shots with the lens and post them if you want see something specific...
And, thanks for the compliment! :)
I wondered about it because when I shoot reddish flowers and birds and don't pay extra attention, I tend to blow out the red channel bigtime. On the 20D, only luminosity is displayed but that's not a real excuse. Your exposure looks great - I was just curious about the red channel in the histograms.
I wondered about it because when I shoot reddish flowers and birds and don't pay extra attention, I tend to blow out the red channel bigtime. On the 20D, only luminosity is displayed but that's not a real excuse. Your exposure looks great - I was just curious about the red channel in the histograms.Thanks...by habit I underexpose everything a little. Been doing it since the day I got my first SLR and I've always gotten a positive response to my images...
I must have read a hundred times that brighter photos look better and people like them better, but I have never found this to be true as a general rule.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.