60mm macro =poor sharpness

[robiss]

I just got a new Rebel XSi & 60mm Canon Macro USM...primarily to use for copy work. My anticipation was high, as I had heard many great reports on the 60mm macro...I must say, I was TOTALLY disappointed with my results...the 18-55 IS zoom that came with the camera, is comparably sharp...perhaps this lens is defective..??... I would appreciate any input.

Anyway... after getting what I considered poor results on some flash & outdoor shots, I decided to run a macro test...I set the camera on my Honeywell copy stand, & shot my first series of photos from about 12"...camera was set at "AV" mode, so I could bracket the aperture. The Rebel XSi set on 'auto' white balance, didn't recognize my 3200k light source, so I had to do these over...not sure why...that's another problem. I did 10 exposures: f8 thru f32 with auto-focus...then the same series w/manual focus...got same results with manual vs. auto; so my test shots below are the auto-focus series. Images in below link are unmodified...filenames give the aperture used on each shot... smaller apertures give WORST results..??

sure would like to hear some comments on this....do I need to crank up the sharpness setting to get better results..??..thankx... Rob

photo link: http://issystems.org/canon-test/

[Mark_48]

Your sharpest images were at f/8 and f/11. Beyond that you start to get lens diffraction which is explained in the link below.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml

The f/8 image looks pretty good and will probably be razor sharp with a bit of post process sharpening.

[TenD]

The ones at f/8, and f/11, even f/16 look pretty sharp to my eyes. A little unsharp mask and those will be razor sharp. Like Mark said after that you are losing to diffraction.

[Csae]

You don't even need to get f11, you are shooting a flat surface, your focal plane will cover it, even at f2 if you are doing your job right.

f4 / f5.6 would probably be sufficient, f8 if you want to hit most lenses sweet spot.

Beyond that, dropping to iso100 and having a higher shutter speed then 1/100th will be more helpful then any additional aperture gain.

You may also want to enable mirror lock-up, read up on it. A remote trigger, wired or wireless will also help.

Shoot Raw, and use a unsharp mask. And you'll get a very sharp picture.

These are the common steps to getting a very sharp picture.

[robiss]

I've done analog copy work for years...I guess I need to re-think a few processes...in analog, I would get a razor-sharp image FAR beyond what I'm getting here...I think these images really look quite poor; especially when viewed over 200%... I had a Sony H5 camera, with a zoom previously...and my copy results with that camera [with a +2 close-up adapter] were not much worse than what I'm getting with this new Canon system...THAT is what's disappointing...I guess I expected a startling difference.

You have been most helpful in answering my immediate question...which was a concern of a possible defective lens or camera..??... but it sounds like the consensus of this forum, is that these are typical results of what I should expect with these settings with this lens..??...I will try the raw/unsharp technique [any links?]...I often shoot a hundred images at a time...is this something I can do in batch processing..?? Should I be using the "sharpness" on the camera itself, or will I get better results doing this post=processing..??

Should the AUTO setting in white-balance recognize the 3200k light source..??...seems like it should, but maybe I need to go thru the manual again.

thanks so much for all your help...Rob

[adam75south]

looks pretty damn good to me. are you shooting raw or jpeg? someone on here did a comparison of the sharpness between a raw and jpeg(on an image that was shot with raw+jpeg) and the raw came out noticeably sharper than the jpeg.

download the trial of adobe lightroom(raw image editor) and give it a try. google for lightroom tutorials and you should be able to find some decent ones to get you started on the program.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

[Mark_48]

I played with your f/8 image in Canon's DPP. Simply applied some sharpening and at 200% it had excellent detail.
DPP can perform batch conversions of RAW and the processing that is applied to one image can be pasted with a "recipe" to multiple images. DPP is worth looking at if you don't have much else to work with and it came free with your camera.

This is tutorial on DPP.......
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1228&fromTips=1

[TenD]

Comparing the Xsi and the Sony H5 isn't a good idea. The H5 sharpened you photos quite a bit, where your Xsi leaves the photo neutral and let's you, the photographer decide how much sharpening to add. You can also shoot .jpg and have the camera add in the sharpening, and there are several levels of this sharpening available.

[robiss]

Comparing the Xsi and the Sony H5 isn't a good idea. The H5 sharpened you photos quite a bit, where your Xsi leaves the photo neutral and let's you, the photographer decide how much sharpening to add. You can also shoot .jpg and have the camera add in the sharpening, and there are several levels of this sharpening available.

I realize that... the "apples & oranges" bit... I'm gonna re-do the series, either later today, or tomorrow...using the RAW mode, with post-process sharpening...while I'm at it... I'll compare the on-camera sharpening tool, also. I'll post results, so all can see.

I appreciate the links... I have a nice photo utility by Photodex; which has a sharpening tool that I've had good luck with..since I'm familiar with that, I'll probably try that 1st...but, I especially want to try the DPP at some point, too.

thanks again...Rob

[michaelb]

The ones at f/8, and f/11, even f/16 look pretty sharp to my eyes. A little unsharp mask and those will be razor sharp. Like Mark said after that you are losing to diffraction.

Ditto.

The 60mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used - it rivals any of my L's.

[robiss]

I just added some more test photos to my URL in my 1st post...all original photos are framed exactly as the first ones...but I cropped & enlarged this next series to 200%; these modified images were all saved to a 95% quality.

the photos have been grouped into the following categories:

AA= RAW image; no mod, just cropped & enlarged
BB= RAW image with a 10% 'sharpen' post-process
CC= RAW image with a 10%+10% 'sharpen' post-process[2-pass]
EE= large-fine jpeg +4 on-camera sharpen
FF= large-fine jpeg +2 on-camera sharpen
GG= large-fine jpeg +2 on-camera sharpen +10% post sharpen
HH= large-fine jpeg +4 on-camera sharpen +10% post sharpen

my initial finding, is that f/8 seems to be the 'sweet-spot' for sharpness ...the +4 on-camera sharpen +10% post sharpen @f/8, seems to give the best results; but this is with my hi-contrast engraving that I used for a subject...what might be best for an actual photo, with full-tonal range, will most likely be different.??

anyway....I look forward to your feedback...Rob

[michaelb]

"cropped and enlarged to 200%" - that sounds like a torture test for any lens. How big do your images need to be?

f/8 should be about the best.

[TenD]

200% will always introduce pixelation, but from what I see the pixelation is sharp at f/8. Try looking at 100%.

[Spookonthe8ball]

With the resolution difference of a H5 and a Xsi wouldn't the magnification ratio be off quite a bit between the two? Just asking a question here because I don't know the math involved. A 60mm macro lens like that would be cutting hairs at 1 foot of distance. Measured from subject to photo sensor, not the front of the lens. According to my calculations you would have a plane of focus = to 0.02 @f8 and increase to 0.09 at 2 feet. In my opinion live view manual focus @ + 10 would be about the only way to get a tack sharp image.

[robiss]

With the resolution difference of a H5 and a Xsi wouldn't the magnification ratio be off quite a bit between the two? Just asking a question here because I don't know the math involved. A 60mm macro lens like that would be cutting hairs at 1 foot of distance. Measured from subject to photo sensor, not the front of the lens. According to my calculations you would have a plane of focus = to 0.02 @f8 and increase to 0.09 at 2 feet. In my opinion live view manual focus @ + 10 would be about the only way to get a tack sharp image.

I tried the manual vs. auto focus comparision, & saw no diff... I just figured when shooting at f/8-11, that depth-of-field would make up for any minor difference... I haven't even tried my 'live view' function yet...I thought that was used primarily for exact framing..??

[Mark_48]

Kind of curious..... Early in the thread you had mentioned doing analog copy work. What were you using for camera/lens, film, and lighting?

[Spookonthe8ball]

I tried the manual vs. auto focus comparision, & saw no diff... I just figured when shooting at f/8-11, that depth-of-field would make up for any minor difference... I haven't even tried my 'live view' function yet...I thought that was used primarily for exact framing..??

I like to use the 10X zoom function on live view to manual focus. It makes it easy to get spot on.

[Gopher]

Ditto.

The 60mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used - it rivals any of my L's.

Ditto.

I'm unfamiliar with your setup but I'm guessing it holds the camera about 18" off the flat material. My macro experience is entirely photographing single little items like this (http://newport.smugmug.com/Weddings/Lori-Keith/Lori-Keith-The-Wedding-Story/LoriKeith0147-MG8334BL/135237565_UdKU9-L-1.jpg). Never an entire flat surface.

As I'm sure you know, DOF is *highly* dependent upon distance to subject. At 18 inches you couldn't even consider less than f8 without DOF messing you up completely. For a flat subject the distance from lens to center verses lens to outside edge would be quite a bit.

This is only a wild guess but I'd expect f18 or so to be needed to cover it all, or back off the distance some and use a center crop (simulating smaller sensor).

Also; the Sony likely has a lot of built-in noise reduction so taking a Canon shot and applying PP sharpening is the same difference.

Being completely ignorant about this subject, I wonder if there's a specialized lens that mitigates the DOF issue for flat surface copy work from that approximate distance. That's all pie-in-the-sky thinking but it should be possible.

[robiss]

Kind of curious..... Early in the thread you had mentioned doing analog copy work. What were you using for camera/lens, film, and lighting?

done most everything...in the USAF in the 70's, I copied maps w/8x10 view camera using carbon-arc lights.!!..but more recent work is typically w/Nikon 35mm + 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens...where extreme detail/enlargement was needed, I use 6x7 cm format w/Mamiya RB-67...I have the reverse-lens adapter, & bellows for the real close stuff... combos of film/light as needed...My current endeavor is copying historic photos of our local area for an upcoming web site.

[robiss]

I like to use the 10X zoom function on live view to manual focus. It makes it easy to get spot on.

yeh...I just saw that...what a great feature..!! As I said...I'm a newbee with this system...I appreciate these tips...Robt

[adam75south]

I like to use the 10X zoom function on live view to manual focus. It makes it easy to get spot on.

i've also found the camera's AF in live view(although very slow) is very accurate...i like it because you can see right away that it's AF is on.