Is it me or the bloody lens!!!!!

Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Although i keep trying I'm constantly disappointed by my canon 28-135 is. Admittedly i am a poor man with not the most expensive kit in the world but it keeps my spark with photography going, well almost. I'm currently using a canon 50d which has a very low shutter count and its in immaculate condition and 9/10 has the 28-135 attached to it which although has a slight lens creep is in very good condition.
I'm trying to convince myself that its not me as i have had so many attempts with this lens and as per usual get disappointed when i bring the pics up for pp. Please see sample pic below and please give your views on what I'm trying to say.
I feel as though they are always very noisy although taken on a pod with IS off and iso set to 100.
They are never sharp and lack focus, although I often go on 'live view' set it to manual, zoom in and try and get the sweet spot. (not always)
And just generally lack zing.
This is straight out of camera no pp

jetjet (1 of 1) by box.photography@yahoo.com, on Flickr
 
Not really sure what the problem is! We all use PP to get the best out of our images, why worry about it?

It looks like you have used a ND filter in this pic, though. In my experience this filter will tend to multiply any other problems that you may have. Long exposures, poor quality materials etc never help........
 
Sharpness and focus.. difficult to say anything about the lens if you've an ND filter on the front - which is probably the weak link in the optical chain. Best I can say is "It's you" - but only for a poor choice of sample shot.
 
Yep ND filter used! Maybe its my processing then??
 
Alastair said:
Sharpness and focus.. difficult to say anything about the lens if you've an ND filter on the front - which is probably the weak link in the optical chain. Best I can say is "It's you" - but only for a poor choice of sample shot.
Click to expand...
Would a ND filter change the sharpness and focus that much? Yeah sure the colour but i didn't realise it would anything else?
 
Hi Rob

Try shooting without any filter on the front of the lens and see if you are happy with the results then...

You say you manually focus via live view - are you zooming in ? How do you know it's in focus (I know stupid question, but worth checking) ?

Are you shooting in jPeg or RAW ?
 
Bobby uk said:
Would a ND filter change the sharpness and focus that much? Yeah sure the colour but i didn't realise it would anything else?
Click to expand...

It can if it's poor quality - at the moment it's an unknown to those of us responding, only you can tell us what brand of ND filter itis. But regardless, if you want a serious response about the lens you need to reduce the irrelevant variables and provide a better sample without the ND filter. At the moment it's a bit like asking if it's your driving style or the engine, when you're dragging a plough on a chain from the back bumper.. ..
 
Think the 50D has the micro adjust facility, might be handy if you prove the lens is not focusing accurately
 
Looks sharp enough to me and no noise (noise isn't a lens problem anyway).

I think the "lack of zing" you're noticing is possibly down to two things - lack of contrast and a blue colour cast. The latter can be mitigated with white balance, either in camera or in PP (if you shoot RAW). Contrast can be fixed to an extent in PP but it largely depends on quality and direction of light.

Which brings me to a related issue: when was the picture shot and what were the conditions? From the direction of the shadows cast by the bolts, and the length of the shadows cast by the posts, I'm guessing it was shot not far off noon, and from the sky we can see I'm guessing it was a very clear day. This is a recipe for extremely harsh and unpleasant light which is probably causing a number of problems which may result in a subjective "lack of zing".
 
You don't mention the shutter speed? This was obviously a long exposure. Was it windy causing vibration of the tripod?
I'm guessing some form of camera shake there somewhere.
Have you tried really fast shutter speeds to see if that eliminates the problem?
 
try using a remote shutter release to stop any camera movement ?
 
Lack of sharpness (if that's the problem) can be caused by many things, but the combination of tripod, sand, and long exposure time is a prime suspect. Tripod needs to be standing on summat solid, even one mm of movement will soften the image. Wind vibration is another common problem, even if you can't see it.*

*To check for vibration, use live view, zoom the lens to max focal length, enlarge to 10x max magnification, and you'll see the image jiggling around in anything but very still conditions.
 
I think it is a matter of a number of small things
The lens is good enough for this sort of shot for a moderate priced zoom lens.
However...
the horizon does not seem horizontal ?
The Groins would look better if the perspective distortion was removed and they were upright.
The Blue cast is a long way off.
and the tonal range could do with a little adjusting to get the blacks black, but retain some tonality in the highlights. the mid tones need more separation.
The depth of field is a touch too restricted, I would have liked to see it fully sharp as far as the horizontal beam.

I do not think you have a lens problem, but you might have some lens drift if the anti shake was left on.
or perhaps there is some camera shake when you fired the shutter/wind.
But it is probably only marginal.
 
Right will try and sum this up as one post. The filter I used was a haida. As off info on pic link it was shot at f8 for 5 seconds with the Is switched off on a tripod using a remote shutter. Yes it was on sand but i do try to wedge the feet in and yes it was very harsh light. I always shoot in raw and as mentioned its straight from the card so there is no processing I.e straightened horizons. I don't remember it being to windy but there may have meen some movement. Obviously the idea of the slow shutter is to get the movement of the water hence the filter. Also not sure about the micro adjustment? As always thanks for the feedback guys
 
Therein is your issue. A RAW file that is a long exposure with no processing in harsh light..
Recipe for a lifeless shot.

Most RAW files look flat and lifeless, that why we must edit them. What do they look like once edited?
 
Can you show us a processed image? If you shoot in raw a straight JPEG conversation will be very bland as the whole point shooting raw is that you process it accordingly. Otherwise I can only echo what the others have said!

It might be an idea to show a range of different shots you aren't happy with.
 
Last edited:
Also all digital images require sharpening, at least those that come out of a camera with an anti aliasing filter.
 
Bobby uk said:
Right will try and sum this up as one post. The filter I used was a haida. As off info on pic link it was shot at f8 for 5 seconds with the Is switched off on a tripod using a remote shutter. Yes it was on sand but i do try to wedge the feet in and yes it was very harsh light. I always shoot in raw and as mentioned its straight from the card so there is no processing I.e straightened horizons. I don't remember it being to windy but there may have meen some movement. Obviously the idea of the slow shutter is to get the movement of the water hence the filter. Also not sure about the micro adjustment? As always thanks for the feedback guys
Click to expand...
Perhaps others will disagree but I don't think there's anything much wrong with the sharpness at all. I think we're getting distracted by all this stuff about wind and sand, etc.
I think the problem - the "lack of zing" - is principally down to harsh light and a white balance issue.
 
Also, do you do the JPG conversion in camera? If so, the camera applies its one-size-fits-all processing to the RAW file. This might not suit your images.
You can usually set a custom processing style for the jpg conversion so if the contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc that the camera applies by default are not to your liking you can change them. It will explain how to do this in your manual.
Far better to process RAW files with a proper editor like lightroom though.
 
I know lots will disagree but I've always thought there was something not quite right about 50D images - you could nearly always spot them in the birding threads.

With regards to this particular problem, I reckon the right answer is in this thread somewhere and most likely what @ghoti said. Photography is ALL about light and this could be technically soft as hell but if the light and composition are good it will look good nonetheless.
 
The 50d is a very capable camera, I still have mine despite going FF, and it gets very regular outings if I'm shooting sport.

I'd suggest maybe investing in decent lenses and perhaps Lightroom if you haven't already got it.
 
Did a micro adjustment tonight and although it took about 30 mins to get my head round it, it turned out to be ok and to my surprise the lens was spot on.
Im currently using LR5 and Elements 11. Think it might be my processing skills!!!!! Managed to get these with the same lens the other week.

zoo2 (1 of 1) by box.photography@yahoo.com, on Flickr

zoo1 (1 of 1) by box.photography@yahoo.com, on Flickr

zoo3 (1 of 1) by box.photography@yahoo.com, on Flickr

zoo (1 of 1) by box.photography@yahoo.com, on Flickr
 
Looks like there's not much wrong with the lens then. :)
It may be better or worse depending on opinion but I did a quick edit of the original image you posted, can send it by e-mail if you want ?
 
stu.artd said:
Looks like there's not much wrong with the lens then. :)
It may be better or worse depending on opinion but I did a quick edit of the original image you posted, can send it by e-mail if you want ?
Click to expand...
Your more then welcome to post it on here if you want?
 
The mouse/rodent in that image previously is great. Truth is with the first pic you posted it's not a very inspiring as it's a little challenging on the eyes.
 
I don't think he was after overall critique, just if the lens was sharp or not. A long exposure is a bad example to provide, but looks like the ND filter would be the issue if anything, causing the images to be a little 'soft' and maybe a little shake from the breeze over the long exposure. Which is why longer exposures are not a good example to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top