Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses-61/)
-   -   Sigma lens is dull? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses-61/sigma-lens-dull-195561/)

adamvk Jan 20, 2012 1:29 PM

Sigma lens is dull?
 
So as some of you might remember, 100% of my camera equipment was stolen a few months back, and insurance gave me 2 grand to buy new equipment. So I decided to switch to Canon, and I bought a 60D, A Sigma 17-50 f2.8 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/17-50...c-os-hsm-sigma), and a Canon 430EX II.

But anyways, since I've had the new equipment, I feel like my images haven't been as sharp or vibrant as they've been with the Sony a55 + the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 that I had. Is it the Sigma lens do you think? I feel like the images are usually sharp, they're just dull, and not very colorful. And when I try to put it more vibrance/saturation in Lightroom, it just looks bad. I feel like I just haven't gotten good images with the new camera yet. Are Canon lenses that much better? I'm honestly considering possibly dumping the Sigma lens, and buying a Canon 20 f2.8 in place of it. (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...20mm_f_2_8_usm)

Looking on Flickr, it just seems like Canon lenses just seem to be much less dull than Sigma.

Anyone want to shed light on the matter? Thank you very much!

Edit: Also, I should point out I even have a cheap Canon 50mm f1.8 lens, and that even looks better in most cases.

WCKSer Jan 20, 2012 1:56 PM

I have a Canon XSi with 2 standard kit lenses that came with the camera. My feeling towards this camera and lens combo is basically the same as yours, not very sharp and very dull color. I also have a Sony A200 with a bunch of Minolta beercan lenses which I think that it produces sharper and more vivid pictures than the XSi. Then one day I read a posting on the Canon 5D MKII which I also have, the poster complained about the dullness of the pictures until he went to adjust the setting in the user def. where he increased the sharpness to "7" and the saturation to "2" and the pictures become much better. I try that on the XSi and the results are very good and the pictures show a lot of improvements. On the 5D MKII, I don't own it longer enough to tell a difference since I only have it for about a month and have not had a chance to test it out much because of the weather.

Koolpc Jan 20, 2012 1:59 PM

But, one shouldnt have to set that in the menu surely? You spend x amount on a camera and would expect at least decent images

dr_spock Jan 20, 2012 2:27 PM

If you shoot JPEGs, you can find a PictureStyle or customize a PictureStyle to your tastes.

KCook Jan 21, 2012 12:03 AM

I made the switch from a Sony A200 to a Canon 50D to get more vivid color. Even if you are shooting RAW with Canon, try setting the PictureStyle on Standard. The Faithful and Neutral settings are definitely more dull than Standard. And Canon's editor, Digital Photo Professional, will show that difference. Adobe editors, maybe not so much.

Kelly Cook

corkpix Jan 21, 2012 9:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamvk (Post 1279679)
....I bought a 60D, A Sigma 17-50 f2.8, and a Canon 430EX II.

Very nice kit! Good luck with it.

Quote:

But anyways, since I've had the new equipment, I feel like my images haven't been as sharp or vibrant as they've been with the Sony a55 + the Tamron 17-50 f2.8
It is difficult to beat the Tamron 17-50mm, even if you are willing to
pay several times the price. The Sigma 17-50mm OS is also a fine
lens which is superior to the already excellent 18-55mm IS kit lens.
For a general purpose zoom lens, the Sigma is just about as good
as anything else available.





Quote:

Is it the Sigma lens do you think? I feel like the images are usually sharp
Sharp is good, especially from a large aperture lens like the Sigma.

Quote:

they're just dull, and not very colorful.
The Canon produces images that are quite faithful to the colour,
contrast and sharpness seen by the camera. Sometimes this is
not what the viewer wants to see. Many cameras, particularly P&S
cameras do quite a bit of processing on the recorded image. Colour,
contrast and sharpness are often increased. It is common practice
to increase these values to give your images more "Pop". I'm not
sure what that means exactly, but I suspect that it means more
pleasing to the majority of users.


Quote:

Are Canon lenses that much better?
I don't think so. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss etc make some very
good lenses that compare well with the Canon equivalents.


Quote:

Edit: Also, I should point out I even have a cheap Canon 50mm f1.8 lens, and that even looks better in most cases.
The nifty-fifty is a good sharp lens. It comes close to the more expensive
50mm prime lenses in image quality. The build quality and AF speed is
nowhere near as good.


If you shoot JPEG, try experimenting with the picture style, colour, contrast
and sharpness settings. You should be able to find a combination that is
more pleasing to your eye. If you shoot RAW, you will have more options for
experimenting. I prefer to shoot in RAW+JPEG. This gives more options for
post processing, but it does require more storage space (bigger card) and
slows down burst mode shooting.

Post a few of the images you are not happy with and a few from
the Sony for comparison.

adamvk Jan 21, 2012 2:23 PM

Yea, I suppose you all are right. It's just that I'm use to Sony which stylises a lot of the images. Canon is much more realistic. I usually try shooting in RAW+JPEG, I should just make a picture style with vivid colors.

TCav Jan 21, 2012 3:08 PM

FYI, I just read someone else complaining that his shots from his new Sony A35 weren't as vivid as the shots he used to get from his Canon dSLR.

Do with that what you will.

KCook Jan 21, 2012 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamvk (Post 1279842)
Yea, I suppose you all are right. It's just that I'm use to Sony which stylises a lot of the images. Canon is much more realistic. I usually try shooting in RAW+JPEG, I should just make a picture style with vivid colors.

As I tried to say, the PictureStyle labeled Standard should be fairly vivid to begin with. At most bump it's saturation +2, or you will be in clown color country.

The RAW conversion software certainly makes a difference. I get noticeably stronger saturation with Canon's own Digital Photo Professional than with the Adobe converters.

Kelly

adamvk Jan 22, 2012 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCook (Post 1279870)
As I tried to say, the PictureStyle labeled Standard should be fairly vivid to begin with. At most bump it's saturation +2, or you will be in clown color country.

The RAW conversion software certainly makes a difference. I get noticeably stronger saturation with Canon's own Digital Photo Professional than with the Adobe converters.

Kelly

Really? Interesting. I'm 100% Adobe Lightroom 3. Maybe I should look at using Canon's software for RAW conversion.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:31 PM.