Will a more expensive lens on my Canon 20D improve this pic?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: question about Canon focus points on viewfinder
Next: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
From: Charles Packer on 15 Jan 2010 08:26 I've been using an EFS 18-55mm lens on my Canon 20D for a specialized project ( http://cpacker.org/trees ). I believe this is the kit lens. Can I improve my images by moving up to a more expensive lens? I see chromatic aberration at the sides. An example is at http://cpacker.org/aa.png where there is obvious chromatic distortion of the white marker post. This image is a crop of the right lower corner of a full-size image. Online I see a Sigma 28-70mm DG for $100 and a Sigma 28-70mm EX DG for $350. On Craiglist somebody locally is offerring a Canon EF 28-70mm for $800. Would any of these make an _obvious_ difference in the example scene? -- Charles Packer http://cpacker.org/whatnews mailboxATcpacker.org
From: Martin Brown on 15 Jan 2010 09:26 Charles Packer wrote: > I've been using an EFS 18-55mm lens on my Canon 20D > for a specialized project ( http://cpacker.org/trees ). > I believe this is the kit lens. Can I improve my > images by moving up to a more expensive lens? > I see chromatic aberration at the sides. An example > is at http://cpacker.org/aa.png where there is > obvious chromatic distortion of the white marker > post. This image is a crop of the right lower corner of > a full-size image. The whole image looks a bit soft to me. Unsharp mask 3 pixels and 65% brings the image more nearly alive. Was it taken in mist or fog? > > Online I see a Sigma 28-70mm DG for $100 and a Sigma > 28-70mm EX DG for $350. On Craiglist somebody locally > is offerring a Canon EF 28-70mm for $800. Would any > of these make an _obvious_ difference in the example > scene? I'd try using a software fix for chromatic abberation first if I were you. The kit lens is never the greatest but if you specifically want a lens that will behave right at the corners at all lengths and apertures then you need to read the small print on reviews very carefully. BTW I liked the time lapse of the fall colours developing. Regards, Martin Brown
From: ransley on 15 Jan 2010 10:26 On Jan 15, 7:26 am, Charles Packer <mail...(a)cpacker.org> wrote: > I've been using an EFS 18-55mm lens on my Canon 20D > for a specialized project (http://cpacker.org/trees). > I believe this is the kit lens. Can I improve my > images by moving up to a more expensive lens? > I see chromatic aberration at the sides. An example > is athttp://cpacker.org/aa.pngwhere there is > obvious chromatic distortion of the white marker > post. This image is a crop of the right lower corner of > a full-size image. > > Online I see a Sigma 28-70mm DG for $100 and a Sigma > 28-70mm EX DG for $350. On Craiglist somebody locally > is offerring a Canon EF 28-70mm for $800. Would any > of these make an _obvious_ difference in the example > scene? > -- > Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews > mailboxATcpacker.org There are alot of sites that review lenses, if that isnt the newest kit lens than there are better but at what price, you recomend lenses that maybe no better than what you have. Looking at the photo, its bad and I mean your technique, that would improve your photo the most.
From: John McWilliams on 15 Jan 2010 11:34 On 1/15/10 PDT 5:26 AM, Charles Packer wrote: > I've been using an EFS 18-55mm lens on my Canon 20D > for a specialized project ( http://cpacker.org/trees ). > I believe this is the kit lens. Can I improve my > images by moving up to a more expensive lens? Yes. A fixed focal length lens will give the biggest improvement for landscapes for the buck. Dunno what your focus point was, but the crop is OoF or just mushy soft. -- john mcwilliams.
From: M-M on 15 Jan 2010 11:36
In article <iW_3n.24536$XU.19081(a)newsfe03.iad>, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > http://cpacker.org/aa.png where there is > > obvious chromatic distortion of the white marker > > post. This image is a crop of the right lower corner of > > a full-size image. > > The whole image looks a bit soft to me. Unsharp mask 3 pixels and 65% > brings the image more nearly alive. Was it taken in mist or fog? Manual levels adjustment to squeeze the histogram will also bring out the colors better. How do you determine USM 3px and 65%? Would it be the same if the image was higher resolution? I never know where to start with that. Also, I don't really see CA but perhaps motion blur? Or the resolution of the lens is at it's limit. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |