Sharp lens for Canon 600D??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography, Home and Portable Electronics' started by yosef019, Mar 17, 2014.

  1. yosef019

    yosef019 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080 ti
    Sharp lens for Canon 600D??

    i resently bought 55-250 f4 IS canon lens but its not sharp at all

    i want lens that worth pay/ put on 600D
    max 1000$
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2014
  2. Iggyblack

    Iggyblack Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,407
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    PNY GTX 960 1330/1790
    Depends on the focal length you want, if you want a zoom or a prime, etc.
     
  3. Mojojoe

    Mojojoe Member Guru

    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    :
    That lens should be more than capable of producing sharp images, I would say it is one of the better lenses in its class in that regard. If you see the same results using it on a different body it would suggest a defect in the lens. Do you notice any other image artefacts?
    Depending on the shot, the focal depth could be causing some areas to lose sharpness, but I assume you have already considered this. As they say a pictures is worth a thousand words, an example may be useful.
     
  4. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    Are you stopping down the aperture a notch or two when you get soft results? Every lens will be soft on full hole.
     

  5. Captain Oats

    Captain Oats Master Guru

    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte gtx760 2gb
    Ok, might not be what you're looking for but to get sharpest lens at reasonable price I'd look for a manual lens. After 1-2weeks of using you won't see the difference and with todays huge flash memory you can always shoot every pic in burst mode, first setting it at the right range of focus and adjusting manually by minimal amounts. Check it out if you're not afraid, it gives great fun shooting once you learn a bit and you can get solid lens really cheap eg. Samyang 85mm f1.4


    eDit: Just saw the 1k $ price target, now with that kind of money you can get a nice piece of glass eg. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L - perfect autofocus and nice sharpness overall.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2014
  6. yosef019

    yosef019 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080 ti
    whell i dont have money right now whell on videos i see only L 2.8 give best sharp images

    i shoot on low light

    and Samyang 85mm f1.4 <-- for low light beter than canon 55-250?

    here my images:
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...744.1073741868.100000600681889&type=1&theater


    this is not sharp https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...744.1073741868.100000600681889&type=1&theater

    So without zoom lens is the sharpest ones?
    less F stop is sharper too??
     
  7. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    Less f stop doesn't mean sharper. Manual doesn't mean sharper either. Can you post your "soft" photos on here, with exif? That would help to determine where you're going wrong. My guess is it's user error.

    Edit: Facebook will compress photos and make even the most pin sharp shots look quite bad. Post your photos here, at 1080p or so.

    Photography is all about light. I don't even bother going out when the light is crap. It's a waste of time. For the shots you're doing, I'd get a nice macro lens. The one I'm using is the Tamron 90mm macro lens. The detail of that lens is beyond anything I've seen in it's price range. Sure, it could be better built and have a faster AF, but for macro I never use AF, it's all manual.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2014
  8. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,604
    Likes Received:
    378
    GPU:
    GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
    Yep. That Tamron macro lens is sick. I can definitely recommend it.
     
  9. kanej2007

    kanej2007 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,394
    Likes Received:
    57
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 TI 11GB
    I used to own the Tamron 90mm lens with my previous Nikon D700.

    Apart from build quality and the lens barrel being external, the cost was cheap and more importantly the results were fantastic.

    There are other alternatives having inner focus, silent and better build quality.

    Sigma 100mm f2.8, Sigma 150mm f2.8 and Sigma 180mm f2.8. All are excellent lenses should the op want a macro/portrait lens.

    I've owned all of the above lenses and highly recommend any of them.

    Depends on what focal length the op wants. He didn't mention a prime or zoom lens.
     
  10. yosef019

    yosef019 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080 ti
    whell if i had money i woud buy a 180mm 2.8

    i just asking because all zoom-telephoto non L isnot sharp enoght for me
    so if i woud buy a 100mm / 200mm macros be beter sharp on portrait
    i shoot marcros - portraits - landscapes also i like shoot at night so i need one good lens for all
    dont see the 1000$ i dont have even a250$ now hehe but i want save money for good lens

    some times i need shoot something in distance like cow or horse and some times i need shoot macros from distance too le those bees

    i want pay for something usefull not half usefull
    i need choose betwen 70-200mm 2.8L to something in range 100mm/200mm L 2.8
    i so L version sharp so good
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2014

  11. kanej2007

    kanej2007 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,394
    Likes Received:
    57
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 TI 11GB
    Issue is the L version will not be in your price range accept for the 100mm f2.8 macro.

    Forget the 70-200mm f2.8L by canon as it's well over $1000.
     
  12. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    There's no way that non L lenses aren't sharp enough. I'm asking you again to post some of your pics here, with exif. A good photographer will get sharp results with pretty much any lens, including kit lenses. I'm 100% sure it's user error, you're not seeing up your camera correctly.

    Btw, there's no such thing as a lens you described. You won't get good macro shots without a macro lens. And vice versa, you won't take many landscapes with a macro lens. Macro lens can be good for certain long focal length landscapes where you compress the background, but it won't be wide enough for typical landscape work. the landscape I'm talking about looks like this http://www.fotoaparat.cz/index.php?r=25&rp=62736&gal=photo

    You'll have to get multiple lenses. There's no perfect lens for all types of photography. If you want 1.4 or faster lenses, prepare to spend a lot of cash. Again, please post your photos so we can have a look and tell you where you go wrong.

    When shooting bees, and macro in general, you have to get close, there's no way around that. Here's a couple of my bee shots from last summer, you simply have to get close.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2014
  13. sirrith

    sirrith Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire 5850 1GB
    I don't think an L lens will give you what you're after.

    I think you just need to practice more.

    The 55-250 is a sharp lens. It is not the sharpest lens, but it is sharp.

    You aren't going to get any lens that will let you shoot at night. What you need is a tripod and/or a flash. Then you can use any lens you want.

    And in case you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I use a 5DIII with several L lenses and several non-L lenses.
     
  14. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    well, he really needs to go out there and shoot when the light is good. Tripod/flash will not be suitable for a lot of nature photography. I for one hate using flash for everything but macro. If the OP really needs to shoot in low light, turn the ISO up.

    But yeah, I do have to agree with you sirrith, it's not the gear, it's the photographer in this case.
     
  15. yosef019

    yosef019 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080 ti
    :rock:

    Here pics for this morning in Haifa
    is that sharp?
    with 55-250 lens LOL was hard

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     

  16. Glidefan

    Glidefan Don Booze Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,522
    Likes Received:
    51
    GPU:
    GTX 1070 | 8600M GS
    70-200L F4. I friggin love that lens. It's crazy sharp. I know it's not 2.8, but I have a 450D that doesn't have a bat-crazy high iso,
    but if you have stable hands you can use it in really low light as i have lots of times. And it's cheaper and lighter than the 2.8. If you don't need bokeh as thin as paper take a look at it.
    Oh and don't let it fall on your toe if you don't have shoes.

    P.S. They are not bad in quality btw. Except for the cockroach that made me want to punch the monitor.
    Don't expect the images you see if fashion magazines, those are made with medium format sometimes, expensive primes and unsharpen mask in photoshop.
     
  17. yosef019

    yosef019 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080 ti
    you have camera like my friend
    https://www.facebook.com/igor.pako.9?fref=ts

    whell now i saving money for good lens mean while i will shoot with 18-55 or 55-250 lens (canon cheap crap)
     
  18. eclap

    eclap Banned

    Messages:
    31,495
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Palit GR 1080 2000/11000
    so, exactly as expected. Just checked that pigeon photo. it looks alright, a tad soft, here's why.

    you're shooting it at 250mm with 1/100s shutter speed. That is not enough. Rule of thumb, you want to shoot at least around 1.6x of the focal length, so in this case we're talking 1/400s. 1/100 is NOT fast enough!
    You're shooting at maximum aperture. Every lens will produce slightly softer photos at full aperture. stop down to f/6.3-f/7.1 for 250mm, it will help.

    Other than that, I can't see much wrong with the pics, apart from your camera being set up all wrong. No lens will make your photos sharp if you do that. Save yourself some cash, learn to use the settings, learn to understand the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, iso.

    EDIT: the cat picture is alright, although you're using ISO 800 to shoot at 79mm with 1/320s. Here, you could have dropped iso to 400 and shoot at 1/160s for a better quality photo. You would have more detail from lower ISO and still plenty fast shutter speed for 79mm. The cat pic is sharp. Also, don't forget that every time you downsize a photo, you'll need to give it a bit of sharpening in photoshop. Not much, just a tiny bit. When you downsize a photo, you lose some detail and sharpness, so it needs touching up. It's not cheating, it's just what you do to have sharpness as it should be.

    You don't need to buy a new lens!

    Unless you want to shoot at f/4 f/2.8. then you can look into these Canon L lenses. They will set you back a lot of money though. Had a look at the cockroach pic, 1/200s at 250mm, again, even with IS it's borderline. with IS I would be aiming for 1/320s at 250mm. So yeah, stick with the gear. It's good enough for what you do.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  19. yosef019

    yosef019 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,129
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080 ti
    It was with flash so its auto go to max 1/200
    And biggest problem is min focus is 1.1 meter
     
  20. Glidefan

    Glidefan Don Booze Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,522
    Likes Received:
    51
    GPU:
    GTX 1070 | 8600M GS
    The min focus for the 70-200 is 1.2meters.
    And the 18-55 kit lens (2nd version) isn't bad btw for a kit. Would easily put it as a walkaround. Really light.
     

Share This Page