Pixels..? blur..?

[eurotrash]

i am way too lazy to read all of this but ...I SPY A SENSOR SPOT!!!

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by sbug_adam

i use a 18-55mm lens that came with the kit. its not a bad lens but then again, its no 1500 dollar lens either..

Oh - that might be part of the problem. I've got a 50mm 1.8 that I'll be selling in the next few days for about $50 if you are interested ;) About the sharpest canon lens you'll get under $500.

[exposedmedia]

Originally Posted by GordonMcGregor

Oh - that might be part of the problem. I've got a 50mm 1.8 that I'll be selling in the next few days for about $50 if you are interested ;) About the sharpest canon lens you'll get under $500.

shameless advertising lol jk

[eurotrash]

Originally Posted by GordonMcGregor

Oh - that might be part of the problem. I've got a 50mm 1.8 that I'll be selling in the next few days for about $50 if you are interested ;) About the sharpest canon lens you'll get under $500.

the 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the 85 1.8, 50mm 1.4??

i mean i dont do the whole scientific nerdy lens tests so i dont know. if thats true thats news to me!

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by eurotrash

the 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the 85 1.8, 50mm 1.4??

i mean i dont do the whole scientific nerdy lens tests so i dont know. if thats true thats news to me!

No, probably not, if we want to be particularly picky about it - I was just advertising shamelessly ;)

But actually, I think it is pretty close - certainly a dramatic improvement over the 18-55 and any other zoom under $500 (how about that then ? ;) )

From PhotoDo ratings the 50 1.4 is better (marginally) and the 85 1.8 is worse (again marginally)


I don't really think the kit lens is the real problem here though (but I've never used one). It just looks like focus.

[Dave Cisco]

Did I miss where you told what lense you were using?

Never mind.............

[jeffkohn]

RE: too powerful strobes. If the strobes don't have enough power adjustment and you're already on the weakest setting, you could use a polarizer on your lens, which usually causes a 1-2 stop light loss. Or and ND filter if you have them. You may also want to experiment with different modifiers as some eat more light than others.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

RE: too powerful strobes. If the strobes don't have enough power adjustment and you're already on the weakest setting, you could use a polarizer on your lens, which usually causes a 1-2 stop light loss. Or and ND filter if you have them. You may also want to experiment with different modifiers as some eat more light than others.

You might want to be careful using a polariser for portraits though, the lack of skin and eye reflections can make people look quite dead (which can be interesting if you are aiming for that sort of thing)

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

What is the asa setting that you used? If the lights seam a bit overpowering dial down the asa a couple notches. I bet you shot over 100 asa.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

What is the asa setting that you used? If the lights seam a bit overpowering dial down the asa a couple notches. I bet you shot over 100 asa.

I know in the case I described, I was shooting at ISO100

The flashes were just far too bright for the room I was using them in.

[sbug_adam]

i was shooting 100.. i always shoot 100!

adam

[anorcross]

OK, so I did a diffraction test this evening with the 50 F1.4 and the 28 F1.8 on my 20D, and here are the results. These are 100% pixel crops, processed from RAW with minimal sharpening in ACR (level 25) and nothing else done to them. First, the 50 F1.4 at F8:

Next, the 50 at F16:

Next, the 28 at F8:

Finally, the 28 at F16:

While the differences aren't dramatic, they are clearly, not just marginally, noticeable. The F16 shots are perfectly usable, and would improve a lot with some usm, or viewed at a smaller magnification. However, Adam's example was a 100% crop, with, I think, not much PP done to it. I don't know whether diffraction effects are more pronounced on cheaper lenses, but if they are, I would expect to see an even more significant degradation with the 18-55 when going from F8 to F16. Gordon, I think you have the 1D MKII. Remember that has a larger sensor than the 20D with the same number of pixels, so diffraction effects set in at smaller apertures. According to the article I cited, you start getting diffraction effects on the 1D MKII at F12.7. So, I wouldn't be surprised if diffraction was at least partly responsible for the softness of Adam's image, but I'm sure you're right that it's not the main cause.