Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 6, 2005, 9:23 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

LARGE:Tamron 28-75 @ 51mm f/2.8
http://cjkcybermedia.com/tamronvscanon/IMG_2089.jpg

LARGE:Canon 50mmm f/2.8
http://cjkcybermedia.com/tamronvscanon/IMG_2096.jpg

100% Crop of above(28-75):


100% Crop of above(50mm)

Focal point being center point between the "Gucci" and 12 o'clock position.
lower half may look soft because of the large aperature and the fact that the watch was not perpendicular to the imager.

As far as the 20D being soft? Only if your not careful with aperature(2.8-5.6) and focus point, or slow shutter speeds and low ISO.

As far as the Tamron 28-75 XR DI ... proof is in the images... at f8 the comparison is virtually identical. I am hard pressed to guess most of the time w/o checking the EXIF
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 7, 2005, 12:08 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

lol ... this is the third time I've tried to reply to this, but the image was always a tiny bit too large.

There isn't anything wrong with the 20D with regards to soft pictures. The pictures SHOULD be soft without any sharpening. So, if you took the same photo in RAW mode and created a jpeg in EOS Viewer Utility with the sharpness turned off, the picture would be so soft it might even look blurry.

If you can't be bothered with post processing and want basically an expensive equivalent of a point and shoot camera, use jpeg mode (not RAW), set the in-camera sharpening to max (+2), contrast to +1 and color saturation to +1. If you want more control over the finished product, set contrast and color saturation to neutral and set sharpening to neutral, or maybe even to the lowest setting.

I took your image and applied USM in Photoshop to show that even though it was fairly sharp, it could really be improved.


Attached Images
 
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 8:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

How dare you alter my original art !!! Just kidding LOL :blah:

I did the same thing but wanted to post the untouched versions for comparison .... with a lil USM it is really too clode to call between the two and that says quite a lot about the tamron
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 9:46 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

Watch art!!

It looks like you have a pretty nice lens though. Tamron sure makes some pretty nice alternatives to Canon lenses.

An example like this one would be really nice to demonstrate the effect of varying degrees of sharpening. If something like a watch face were shot in RAW then showing the resulting pictures with sharpening off (it would be blurry), then at -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 then with using USM or sharpening software such as CSPro or Focus Magic.

This would really help others understand that no matter what lens is used the images out of the camera are supposed to be soft due to the AA filter and some sharpening needs to be used, with the amount determined by what the picture is of.

Some people don't want others to see pictures of them showing their wrinkles, while others feel they have earned them things and want to show them off. :lol: Industrial "art" like your watch face usually needs to be razor sharp.

Bob


BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 12:42 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I really like myTamron 28-75 f/2.8, surprisingly excellent and fast lens for a very resonable price.

Peter.

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 12:55 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

Seems like a very good value. Canon doesn't really have a lens in the price range that has comparable quality.

Bob
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 1:10 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:-)The Canon equivalent 28-75 F2.8 L has a USM drive and costs about 3X :-)

Lot of extra $ for the USM drive.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 8:57 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

Optically though the Canon 24-70 2.8L is a better lens, so you aren't only paying for USM. So, if you can afford the Canon and want the best optics then go for it. If you want great optics at a very reasonable price the Tamron is the right way to go.



Bob
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 2:26 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

There's a 3rd alternative as well: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470
... this is their newer revised DG (and not the DF) version
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 7:23 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

NHL I breifly owned the 24-70 (4 days exactly) but the autofocus sounded just horrible, zoom ring incredibly stiff, and the manual override drove me crazy lol It was a nice lense however in build and finish... but it was noticeably softer then the tamron wide open. That and the amount of $$ on those filters just turned me off, maybe i had a poor copy .. but I wasnt very impressed with the one I had.
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.