Looking for a sharp zoom *help? please?*

[canoli]

How about the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6? It's in your price range I think - about $400 USD.


I bought the 40D kid with the 28-135 and I liked it a lot. It's got a great (useful) range and isn't heavy. It doesn't
come close to the 70-200 in terms of sharpness (or any other attribute,
really) but none of the zooms under $600 can rival the 70-200.


The 28-135 is a good work-a-day lens. Using a tripod and
mirror-lockup, and the timer or a cable release, you should see images
that are acceptably sharp. It generally gets very good reviews for lenses at that price point.


Since I've never shot with the Sigma you mentioned, I can't compare it to the 28-135. But the 28-135 is a good lens. It seems to "accept" PP sharpening very well. A little bit of USM or Smart Sharpen and you can usually make an image snap.


Might be worth a look...

[Chuck Lee]

CAn you tell me is there a difference between the <span id="v4-1"]<span>Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical Lens and the one you've suggested?

ckw,


That's the lens. We just didn't go on and onand on and on with all the SP DII Asper etc.... stuff.


USM stands for "Unsharp Mask" and it is a sharpening technique that can easily be done from Photoshop CS# or even Elements.


In CS# it is under Filter/Sharpen you will see "Unsharp Mask" in the menu list. When you open it, there will be a preview box with a 100% zoom that has three settings "Amount, Radius, and Threshold" That is why I listed the figures as (200, .6, 0) Those would be the three values to enter. I find with my 40D that .3-.6 for the radius works really well. A threshold of 0 is fine because you are probably using ISO 100 and the image is clean. All that's left to do is dadjust the Amount. 150 - 300 are common values and you will see a big difference in the sharpness of you image.


That's why I'm saying you may want to hold off on replacing the Sigma 17-70 until you get a chance to work in a little sharpening. Is there anyway that you can post comparison images between you 60 macro and the Sigma 17-70 @60mm? Take two pictures of the same thing, both at f8. You may not need a new lens after all.


Last Note: As I said earlier, Lenses can vary in performance from copy to copy. I tested two copies of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII when I purchased it and the first one was absolutely terrible. It wasn't a focus issue, it was an optic issue. The lens was terribly soft, even stopped down. The second was very sharp and I'm happy to say still being used today. So, It may be that you do have a bad copy of the 17-70 and need to send it back to Sigma to have it adjusted.


Hope these things help,


Chuck

[peety3]

USM stands for "Unsharp Mask" and it is a sharpening technique that can easily be done from Photoshop CS# or even Elements.

Well, it stands for Ultrasonic Motor or Unsharp Mask, depending on the context. It took me a while to figure out Unsharp Mask, so I really struggled to figure out how a dose of focusing was useful in post processing...

[Chuck Lee]

Good One Peety3...........[]


Never crossed my mind. Not that it's much to cross! LOL

[clemmb]

The suggestion for the Tamron is a good one. I have both the 17-50 f2.8 and the 28-75 f2.8. Both about the same price and quality.The 17-50 min focuse distance is 27cm and the 28-75 is 33cm. Here is an example with my old XT, 28-75 @ 75 and 580EX fill, 50% crop.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/IMG_5F00_0020b.jpg[/img]


Mark

[Colin]

You mentioned that with the close quarters, you have trouble getting everything.


if I understand you correctly, I'd suggest looking at the wide angle stuff and maybe some extension tubes to get the minimum focusing distance down.


You might actually think about a couple of wide angle primes with an extension tube...

[Chuck Lee]

You mentioned that with the close quarters, you have trouble getting everything.


if I understand you correctly, I'd suggest looking at the wide angle stuff and maybe some extension tubes to get the minimum focusing distance down.


You might actually think about a couple of wide angle primes with an extension tube...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Colin, One of the problems extension tubes will cause is a big drop in dof (depth of field). When photographing models you really would rather have the inverse and the only answer there is a Tilt-Shift.


So, we would now like to recommend a 24mm Tilt Shift lens. A used one can be had for around 900 USD. The only problem is that it is not anywhere near your budget.


Another option I have not seen mentioned is a P&amp;S camera. Due to the sensor size and very short focal plane depth, the depth of field is quite large. Does anyone know if a G9 would fit the bill?

[Daniel Browning]

Colin, One of the problems extension tubes will cause is a big drop in dof (depth of field).

I wouldn't put it that way. Focusing at a closer distance causes the drop in DOF. If you don't need to focus close, then the DOF will be the same with or without the extension tube. That's why I wouldn't say that the extension tubes cause a big drop in DOF.

When photographing models you really would rather have the inverse and the only answer there is a Tilt-Shift.

Tilt-shift is the a great option. Another great option is focus stacking. The free software for that is great.

Another option I have not seen mentioned is a P&amp;S camera. Due to the sensor size and very short focal plane depth, the depth of field is quite large. Does anyone know if a G9 would fit the bill?

Small sensors do not have any advantage when it comes to deep DOF. All larger sensor sizes are capable of the same deep DOF as the G9 by just stopping down. The difference in bellows factor is pretty small at the magnifications discussed in this thread (~10% change in DOF). There is no diffraction advantage with the G9 either. With a tripod and longer shutter speeds, the larger sensors will result in far less noise and more dynamic range.

Since the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is already under consideration, I would suggest looking at the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC Macro. It has 1:3 magnification which is a little better than the 1:5 on the Tamron.

[Jarhead5811]

What aperature setting are you using with your Sigma? If you stop down enough it seems like it would get to be more acceptable. Have you checked it for front or back focus?

[cmb]

Hi CKW, I also shoot with a 40D and also use the EF-S 60mm, which I agree is tremendously sharp. You are right, it can spoil you when it comes to sharpness. I bought the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 before I really knew what I was doing (not that I do now!), because it was inexpensive and received a lot of positive reviews. I would never part with it now and find that I use it very often, for all kinds of shooting situations. It is a perfect 'portrait zoom,' because it has nice bokeh (ability to generate a blurred background while the subject of interest is in sharp focus in the foreground) and the color saturation (at least on the 40D) is great....a tad toward the warm side, which personally, I like. A lot of people with "crop-sensor" cameras such as the 40D opt for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, because its zoom range "translates" on a crop sensor to a more conventional "all purpose zoom" range of roughly 27-88mm (wide angle-to portrait length). But it sounds like you are looking for a lens with specific qualities, not a general "walk around" zoom. The 28-75 equates to a 45-120mm in full-frame (i.e., 35mm film) terms, which is offbeat; not short enough to give a true wide angle view on the short end, and not long enough to give a true telephoto view on the long end. However-- and to me this is a big 'however'-- the 28-75 is made to cover a full-frame image circle, while the 17-50 is specifically dedicated to the crop format. In other words, you could use the 28-75 on a "full-frame" camera, such as the 5D Mark II or 1Ds Mark III, or a film camera. This means that on a crop sensor camera like the 40D, the 28-75 is utilizing the "sweet spot" (the center, and not the edges) of the image circle of the lens, which on almost all lenses tends to be the area of greatest sharpness. And, with regard to your close-up needs, it has a "macro" designation as well; although it is not a TRUE macro like the 60mm EF-S (which is capable of giving you 1:1 magnification), it gives you a 1-to 3.9 magnification, which is pretty good, and plenty in my experience for excellent close-ups of small objects. Think of it this way...it will give you a field of view approximately twice as wide as the 60mm at its widest zoom setting while being able to focus on objects as little as one foot away. If you think you need a still wider field of view, then go for the Tamron 17-50mm. I haven't used it so can't comment on how it compares to the 28-75 for sharpness, but the reviews have been generally very favorable. Another 3rd-party brand that gets very high marks for sharpness is Tokina; you might want to check out the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8. Good luck!


Catherine


Sorry if I've given you too much detail about things you may already know about, but I think you said you were new to photography....