Is this glass good enough for 50D?

Mangelwurzel

Mangelwurzel

Messages
518
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to upgrade body this year from my 450D to a 40D/50D.
Everything i've read about the 50D is you need sharp glass for the sensor.

Lens wise i have:
Sigma 10-20mm
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon 55-250mm IS

I've chopped and changed lenses over the last few months and settled for these 3 as they are well known for performance and sharpness at a budget. But are they good enough for a 50D? 'L' glass is seriously not an option for me at the moment.

My backup plan is a 40D. I'm not sure if i want to drop 2 megapixels as i tend to crop alot and shoot stock for Alamy but am willing to as i really need a better ISO performance body.
 
Having just checked the MTF charts for them, my opinion is;

Canon 55-250.....no
Sigma 10-20.......borderline unless stopped down
Tamron 17-50.....outstanding figures for a zoom...yes

Putting any lens on the 50D doesn't become worse than the 40D and it's simply that the extra resolution of the sensor isn't being given anything to capture so there's no (or little) benefit to having the extra pixels.
 
I have the 50D and those exact lenses apart from the Sigma. The Tamron is spot on IMO but the 55-250 isn't as good. It is still adequate but I'll be changing for a 70-200 F4L as soon as fund allow.
 
Canon Bob said:
Having just checked the MTF charts for them, my opinion is;

Canon 55-250.....no
Sigma 10-20.......borderline unless stopped down
Tamron 17-50.....oustanding figures for a zoom...yes

Putting any lens on the 50D doesn't become worse than the 40D and it's simply that the extra resolution of the sensor isn't being given anything to capture so there's no (or little) benefit to having the extra pixels.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that as the Tamron is next on my shopping list :naughty:
 
Canon Bob said:
Putting any lens on the 50D doesn't become worse than the 40D and it's simply that the extra resolution of the sensor isn't being given anything to capture so there's no (or little) benefit to having the extra pixels.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob, that makes a little sense to me.
I think the 40D might be the better option for me, and the bank balance.
I wonder why Canon ship the 50D with poor lenses :thinking:
 
This is a 100% crop from the Tamron 17-50 on the 50D, shot in jpeg, no processing at all.

eyes100.jpg
 
Mangelwurzel said:
I wonder why Canon ship the 50D with poor lenses :thinking:
Click to expand...

Adding quality glass would make the combo too pricey. 5D's used to ship with 28-135's as a kit. Not a bad lens per se but not what most would choose to stick on their 5D's.

Bob
 
sidxms said:
Ok canon bob while you are at it

My line up is again

Sigma 10-20
Canon 17-85
Canon 50mm F1.8
Sigma 24-70 F2.8
Canon 70-200 F4L IS

sid
Click to expand...

Sigma 10-20....as posted above.
Canon 17-85....not really
Canon 50mm F1.8....only beyond f/4 and even then it's marginal.
Sigma 24-70 F2.8...marginal when stopped down at the wide end, forget it at the long end
Canon 70-200 F4L IS...fine except wide open at 200mm

All based on my interpretation of course.

Bob
 
Many lenses will match the 50D sensor, just about, if you shoot at optimum aperture, and look only at the centre of the frame. Where all lenses fall down is at the edges and at lower f/numbers and it is there that even the best L glass will be found wanting. Needing L lenses on a 50D is not true; it's just that with really good glass you will be able to max out the sensor more often, and over more of the frame, at more apertures.

What is perhaps less well understood is that even lower quality lenses will always perform better with a high resolution sensor, like the 50D, than they will with a lower res such as the 40D.

You need to look at cascading MTFs, and if you take a 15mp sensor and a lens capable of delivering that level of resolution, the result will not be a 15mp image - probably about 12m, let's say for example. (Strictly speaking you can't do comparisons as simplistically as this, but it makes the point.) Likewise, if you put a lens with 10mp resolution on a 10mp sensor, you might get 8mp out of the other end. But if you put that same 10mp lens on to a 15mp sensor, you might increase the final resolution to 9mp.

Does that make sense? Like I say, you can't really put things like this - equating total sensor pixels to lens resolution - it isn't correct without at least some assessment of contrast, but it's the only way I can think of making the point ;)

So, if you've got the gist of this, if you take your existing lenses and put them on a 50D, you will get slightly more resolution than you would on a 40D. So that's a win. And then, if you put really high resolution lenses on a 50D you will see even more of what they can do. Either way, 50D images will show more resolution.

Edit: Sorry, crossed post with Bob and co. I really shouldn't make a cuppa inbetween!
 
OK i'm completely confused now, although i thank you all for taking the time to respond.

I'll try and put it into one sentance...maybe :lol:

If i took my 3 lenses (Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Canon 55-250 IS) and plonked them onto a new body. Would the 40D or 50D be better? :thinking::shrug:
 
Mangelwurzel said:
OK i'm completely confused now, although i thank you all for taking the time to respond.

I'll try and put it into one sentance...maybe :lol:

If i took my 3 lenses (Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Canon 55-250 IS) and plonked them onto a new body. Would the 40D or 50D be better? :thinking::shrug:
Click to expand...
Probably a good analogy would be putting wide low profile tyres on a Ferrari Dino and a Fiat Panda. Both cars would have improved cornering but, whilst the Ferrari would be flying, the difference in the Fiat would be less than spectacular.

To your question....
If you used the difference in cost between the 40D and 50D to upgrade a lens then the overall improvement would probably be greater.

Bob
 
Mangelwurzel said:
OK i'm completely confused now, although i thank you all for taking the time to respond.

I'll try and put it into one sentance...maybe :lol:

If i took my 3 lenses (Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Canon 55-250 IS) and plonked them onto a new body. Would the 40D or 50D be better? :thinking::shrug:
Click to expand...

50D would show better resolution.
 
Canon Bob said:
To your question....
If you used the difference in cost between the 40D and 50D to upgrade a lens then the overall improvement would probably be greater.

Bob
Click to expand...

Aye. Although my weakest link seems to be the 55-250. I really can't afford a 100-400L and a new body in one year :lol:

I thankyou Bob and HoppyUK, you've given me much to think about :)
 
While we're on the subject of mega-resolution - pretty much of levels unheard of previously - it is relevant to point out that unless your technique is immaculate, with high shutter speeds and IS etc working flat out, you are not going to see the full level of sharpness, regardless of the lens.

Edit: sell your 55-250mm to me Mangelwurzel. You really do need an L ;) (Actually, I do want that lens! PM me if you upgrade any time soon :) )
 
I brought my Siggy 10-20 from my 400D to my upgraded 50D and I'm still getting superb results from it. But, I do tend to have it stopped down to F8 ish.

HTH

Pete
 
As your upgrading for better ISO performance maybe this quote from DP Review is relevant:

"Finally let's take a look a the raw output of the EOS50D next to the ten megapixel 40D. Removing any in-camera noise reduction and processing the images using Adobe Camera Raw (without NR) gives us the nearest thing to a 'level playing field' for assessing the relative noise levels of the two cameras' sensors. Despite the fact that the 50D is the newer camera it shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise than the 40D. Considering the 50D's much more tightly packed sensor (4.5 MP/cm² vs 3.1 MP/cm² on the 40D) this comes hardly as a surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect Canon's engineers to overcome the laws of physics."
 
Mangelwurzel said:
Aye. Although my weakest link seems to be the 55-250. I really can't afford a 100-400L and a new body in one year :lol:

I thankyou Bob and HoppyUK, you've given me much to think about :)
Click to expand...

Maybe not but you could sell the 55-250 and add the difference between the 40D and 50D and get a very good 2nd hand 70-200mm f/4 L :thumbs:
 
out of interest i'll put my list up and see
other then the others posted above i've got
Tokina 10-17mm Fishey f3.5-4.5
Canon 70-200f2.8

Not that i think its worth upgrading ot a 50D but you never know might get another bonus soon so.... :)
 
Some very interesting points raised :thumbs:
hmmm lots to think about for when I upgrade.
 
Interesting points being made here

Just to add, I think its unreasonable for me to upgrade my lenses as the next best ones literally cost the moon (£700 for the standards ones and more for a decent big zoom)

I guess I need to look noise handling on th 50D. On the 400D, anything above 800 shows up noise but the images are still usable.

I'm hoping to gain upto three stops really on the 50D, so hopefully noise will be similar at 3200 to 400 on the 400D.

I'd also like the nice high res screen on the 50D and the top screen for info. Hmm....
 
peppyuk said:
As your upgrading for better ISO performance maybe this quote from DP Review is relevant:

"Finally let's take a look a the raw output of the EOS50D next to the ten megapixel 40D. Removing any in-camera noise reduction and processing the images using Adobe Camera Raw (without NR) gives us the nearest thing to a 'level playing field' for assessing the relative noise levels of the two cameras' sensors. Despite the fact that the 50D is the newer camera it shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise than the 40D. Considering the 50D's much more tightly packed sensor (4.5 MP/cm² vs 3.1 MP/cm² on the 40D) this comes hardly as a surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect Canon's engineers to overcome the laws of physics."
Click to expand...


But the 50D ships with some noddy settings set. Turning these off improves the performance considerably. In real terms I'm finding my 50D better than my 40D


edit: Here we go - found the gen from CT
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113186
 
peppyuk said:
As your upgrading for better ISO performance maybe this quote from DP Review is relevant:

"Finally let's take a look a the raw output of the EOS50D next to the ten megapixel 40D. Removing any in-camera noise reduction and processing the images using Adobe Camera Raw (without NR) gives us the nearest thing to a 'level playing field' for assessing the relative noise levels of the two cameras' sensors. Despite the fact that the 50D is the newer camera it shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise than the 40D. Considering the 50D's much more tightly packed sensor (4.5 MP/cm² vs 3.1 MP/cm² on the 40D) this comes hardly as a surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect Canon's engineers to overcome the laws of physics."
Click to expand...

That quote implies that the 50D has more noise than the 40D, but I don't think that's the full story. Further on in the DPReview test, the conclusion is that at lower ISO the 50D is actually better than the 40D for noise (as Canon claims) but at higher ISO (800 and above) it is slightly worse. That's what they are referring to in that quote.

The 50D seems to have got a bit of a reputation for noise, and I kind of get the impression that DPR were on a bit of a mission to prove that more pixels is usually a bad thing in terms of noise. It's one of their hobby horses. But the truth is that the 50D is better for noise at all commonly used ISO settings, and of course it always has 15m pixels. All in all this is a pretty extraordinary performance, as many folks on here are finding - especially birders, who really exploit the 50D's amazing resoltion potential and push it to the limit with very sharp state-of-the-art lenses (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4) and heavy crops.

The other point thing which doesn't help the 50D's reputation is that there are some auto image processing settings that do increase noise, and which are enabled by default. So if you don't turn them off and then go looking for noise, you will surely find it.

And finally, there is another question which I've yet to hear a definitive answer for, and that is, if you have the potentially 'noisy' presets enabled, are they indelibly embedded in the Raw file, or can they be disabled in post processing? I find it hard to believe that they cannot be disabled, at least in Canon's own DPP Raw software, but I've yet to have that confirmed. I think someone here was going to check it, so apologies if I've missed that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top