I will do some more test with the focus when I get time.
Been out again today and think this is the best I am going to get with the combination of this lens, camera and myself. I will have to see if I can borrow a better lens and see if that has any effect. I could probably do with a bigger telephoto as the kit lens only zooms to 55mm.
These photos were opened and cropped with the Canon software.
This has been an interesting process and thanks for all the tips Peekayoh.
Focused on the wings 1/100 F13 ISO200
This is one of the large Dragonflys I mentioned earlier; it was harder to catch than the blue ones but kept comming back to the same place.
I sat ready and it would just cruse past so I lay down and eventualy it stopped and then the swans scared it away!
Male Orthetrum cancellatum - Black-tailed Skimmer
Focused on the body between the black and blue section 1/100 F13 ISO100
Last edited by Anthony; 07-24-2010 at 03:41 AM.
Bonzo, you're welcome I'm sure.
The last image of the damsel fly is much better which leaves much unanswered.
A new lens is always nice (not so nice on the pocket) and a longer lens will definitely help.
The lens you have may be good or not so good depending on which version you have.
Here are MTF's for the standard (left) and IS (right) versions .
As you can see the older version is pretty bad compared to the IS version which is very good.
Just remember that the longer the lens, the less DOF you will have.
Look at the DOF in the images Frank posted earlier.
Frank does a pretty good job with his cheap old 70-300mm and his shots illustrate the reduced DOF at those magnifications.
I do have the later IS lens; I am wondering if I should get something like the Canon 28 - 135 as it will still focus down to 0.45m and I would be able to fill more of the frame.
This lens does not get a great review but I am unwilling to put my self into to much debt
This means I could do away with the 18-55 lens and I am covered by my wide angle 10-22 and then from 18-135.
I would like a bigger telephoto but am not sure something like a 18-200 is such a good thing.
Anyway school holidays this week and I am child minding.
Took my 8 year old daughter out for a walk and in between the "how much further do we have to go" and the "I am hungry" we took a couple of photos.
This is one of her photos from an A650IS in full auto and saving as a jpg:
This is my version using the 500D in raw and converted to jpg on upload by Picasa. f7.1 ISO100 1/100 -It was a bit over exposed but picasa sorted that!
I could probably improve on the colours in post processing.
Don't do it.
As far as I can tell, the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS is a piece of s*** compared to the lens you have.
OK it's a bit longer but you will hate it.
Use what you have until you can afford something like the EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens.
Too much overexposure is a dynamic range killer and to be avoided.
Originally Posted by Bonzo
A small degree is tolerable and easily corrected in PP (post processing).
This is a screen capture of the RAW file displayed in Windows image viewer.
You can see it is quite over exposed; this is why I like to under expose my photos by 0.7 - 1.0
I suppose I could modify my camera settings and will have a look into that.
The reviews I read on the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS didn't go quite as far as you with their disaproval!
It seemed a useful zoom range but as you say I would be better off saving for the EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens as I can probably find more use for it.
I wonder if I can find anything else to sell on ebay
it actually exposed the subject perfectly. setting your exposure to -1EV is treating a symptom, its not a solution to your problem; which is incorrect exposure, (or interpretation of).
D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
Rooz, your post could have done with more clarification.
I believe you are saying that the Butterfly is the subject and, therefore, correctly exposed.
If the OP chose to spot meter on the Butterfly then that may well have been the intention.
In any case the OP is clearly not satisfied with the result and believes it to be overexposed, in which case his interpretation is that the flowers form an equally important part of the subject. Maybe Bonzo should have used matrix metering, assuming he didn't.
If the Butterfly is indeed correctly exposed then we can PP to leave it untouched and improve the rest.
I didn't have the time to respond earlier on this one but here it is now.
Originally Posted by Bonzo
I didn't actually read a review, I just compared some MTF's and concluded that the 28-135mm would be step backward.
I am not a Canon user so have no hands on experience with the lens, or any Canon for that matter, so anything I say about Canon must be viewed in that light.
These are the MTF's for your lens (on the left) and the Canon 28-105 and 28-135mm lenses. Measurements don't entirely coincide with focal lengths but are good enough to draw a conclusion.
The columns are a measure of lens resolution, the Blue being the one corresponding the the centre of the lens.
Nearly all lenses have better resolution in the centre than you see in the borders and this varies with different zoom settings.
You can immediately see that your existing lens has taller columns than the other two which indicates better all round resolution. The reason I say you won't like the 28-135mm is that you'll always be comparing to the one you have and find it disappointing by comparison. If you didn't have the 18-55mm to compare you might be happy, for a while.
The second and third columns are a measure of the border resolution, the closer they are the better. For instance, the 28-135mm at 70mm is pretty close across the whole optic which is commendable but, at around 1600 it doesn't come close to the 2000/1800 recorded by the 18-55mm at 50mm.