Looking for a sharp zoom *help? please?*

[Sean Setters]

USM? Unsharp Mask, right? (I'm thinking she might not know that.)

"Right" - Thanks for the cover brother. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

hehe...I was about to mention that, too.


As for my suggestion, the 70-200mm f/4 L is a fantastic zoom lens and very sharp. It is an "L" lens, though, but it's certainly not an unreasonable price. In fact, it's one of the least expensive "L" lenses there is. As long as you can use a monopod or tripod, you'd be good.

[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...

[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.

[Chuck Lee]

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.

Daniel, don't get me started again. You know darn well that putting extension tubes on a lense, regardless of its focal lens shortens it's depth of field. Of course it's a function of subject distance. That wasn't the point.

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

Do you have a link? I'd like to check that out.

[cmb]

Chuck, I have the G9 and love it, and your comment about the depth of field on a compact certainly makes sense, but it really doesn't match up to the 60mm EF-S on a 40D for critical sharpness.

[naero]

You wont find any zooms that can compete with the sharpness of the EF-S 60... I've got both the 60 and the 24-70L - and even though they cover the same range - I use the 60 for WAY more than just macro work...


I've heard some good words bout the tamron, if you're on a budget.

[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?