Help with next lens upgrade (inexpensive)

[patrickdio]

I've recently just been getting back into photography and one thing I've noticed, and a little jealous of, from looking at other peoples photos is the sharpness of their captured images. In the past I would just assume the photographer was using a really good (and expensive) camera to take such sharp pictures but lately I've been surprised to see that some of these images were taken with entry-level DSLR's.
I, too, have an entry-level DSLR but my photos have never had the fortune of being so sharp!
Is a kit lens really that bad relative to the more expensive lenses?

For an inexpensive upgrade, would a 50mm 1.8 have a significant improvement in sharpness?

I use a Sony Alpha A330 with 18-55 kit lens.

Thanks,
Patrick

 

[bazooka]

If you know the limitations of your lens, it is possible to get such sharp images. Of course, a prime lens like the 50mm will always be sharper across the range of apertures than your 18-55 set at 50mm across the same apertures, but the 50mm at 1.8 won't be as sharp as your lens @ 50mm and f/8.

So a new lens may or may not help you... it depends on what your lack of sharpness is caused by. Any chance you can post some images that you are not happy with and LINKS to images that you admire for their sharpness (you cannot embed photos in your post that you don't own, but links are fine)? That would help us determine if it's a limitation of your lens or if it's a problem with how you're using it.

 

[Overread36]

Part of the sharpness is going to be the optics, how good they are will define the quality of light which reaches the sensor. Now most kit lenses, esp those sold with entry level DSLRs are not always the best in a manufacturers lineup and are more budget friendly than high quality.

A prime lens, even a cheaper one, can make a big difference as it offers a simpler optical formula than a zoom, which means that there is more ease at making a higher quality grade of lens and thus some can run at a reasonable price. A 50mm f1.8 is often a strongly recommended beginners prime lens because most of the manufactures have a cheap version which is, maybe a little light on the build quality, but which has quality optics inside.

I would expect you to, at a technical level, see sharper shots from a prime over a zoom.

However we also have three other factors to consider:

1) Is the prime the right one for you - is 50mm the kind of range that you find yourself wanting/using the use of more so than others - is it a key working focal length for you? If its not a key working focal length then, no matter the quality, if its not suited toward your style of photography it will fast become a paperweight.

2) Shooting method - choosing the right aperture, shutter speed, ISO and lighting can all make big differences to the image quality that you end up working with. Furthermore support items like tripods, flashes and monopods can make big differences again.

3) Editing - whilst all the magic starts in the camera, photography isn't a one part process; its two parts of shooting and processing to get the final photo and whilst editing won't be saving duff shots, it will help to polish what you do capture; to best present what you've taken in the greatest possible quality.


So as well as considering the lens itself, which certainly can bring optical improvements, also consider getting some pointers on your shooting - to see if there might be a few things you can do to increase the quality of what you currently produce.

 

[KmH]

Because the anti-aliasing filter in front of virtually all digital camera image sensors diminishes lens focal sharpness, to one degree or another depending on the camera make and model, all digital photos need to have some amount post process sharpening applied.

As mentioned above, photographer skill and knowledge also play a part in how sharp a final image is, or isn't

 

[patrickdio]

If you know the limitations of your lens, it is possible to get such sharp images. Of course, a prime lens like the 50mm will always be sharper across the range of apertures than your 18-55 set at 50mm across the same apertures, but the 50mm at 1.8 won't be as sharp as your lens @ 50mm and f/8.

So a new lens may or may not help you... it depends on what your lack of sharpness is caused by. Any chance you can post some images that you are not happy with and LINKS to images that you admire for their sharpness (you cannot embed photos in your post that you don't own, but links are fine)? That would help us determine if it's a limitation of your lens or if it's a problem with how you're using it.

Alright, thanks. Give me a few moments to find some good examples. Its been a few months since I've last looked at my photos.

Part of the sharpness is going to be the optics, how good they are will define the quality of light which reaches the sensor. Now most kit lenses, esp those sold with entry level DSLRs are not always the best in a manufacturers lineup and are more budget friendly than high quality.

A prime lens, even a cheaper one, can make a big difference as it offers a simpler optical formula than a zoom, which means that there is more ease at making a higher quality grade of lens and thus some can run at a reasonable price. A 50mm f1.8 is often a strongly recommended beginners prime lens because most of the manufactures have a cheap version which is, maybe a little light on the build quality, but which has quality optics inside.

I would expect you to, at a technical level, see sharper shots from a prime over a zoom.

However we also have three other factors to consider:

1) Is the prime the right one for you - is 50mm the kind of range that you find yourself wanting/using the use of more so than others - is it a key working focal length for you? If its not a key working focal length then, no matter the quality, if its not suited toward your style of photography it will fast become a paperweight.

2) Shooting method - choosing the right aperture, shutter speed, ISO and lighting can all make big differences to the image quality that you end up working with. Furthermore support items like tripods, flashes and monopods can make big differences again.

3) Editing - whilst all the magic starts in the camera, photography isn't a one part process; its two parts of shooting and processing to get the final photo and whilst editing won't be saving duff shots, it will help to polish what you do capture; to best present what you've taken in the greatest possible quality.


So as well as considering the lens itself, which certainly can bring optical improvements, also consider getting some pointers on your shooting - to see if there might be a few things you can do to increase the quality of what you currently produce.

1) Hmm, good question. A 50mm would not be the perfect lens for my kind of photography but with its budget price I think it may be good for now. My ideal lens would be anything wider than 50mm. To be honest, I want a wide angle for landscapes and also a standard range for family photos and multi-purpose. In simpler terms, if I had a choice between getting a wide angle or a 50mm at the same price, then I would first get the wide angle and the 50mm in the future. But I don't think there are any budget wide angle lenses, that I know of.


I think I may have to go on a photo expedition just to see where my skills are at and to get some new photos for examples. My head is spinning from trying to sift through all my old photos.

 

[patrickdio]

Can harsh light like the afternoon sun make photos seem less sharp?

 

[Overread36]

What we tend to see sharp as is mostly where we get strong contrast boundaries between different surfaces/textures/colours. So a high contrast scene, like one lit by strong sunlight, would have more chance of appearing sharp than one lit with a very hazy light, where the contrast differences become much less well defined.

 

[patrickdio]

What we tend to see sharp as is mostly where we get strong contrast boundaries between different surfaces/textures/colours. So a high contrast scene, like one lit by strong sunlight, would have more chance of appearing sharp than one lit with a very hazy light, where the contrast differences become much less well defined.

Is it possible that the eye is taking in too much light and sharpness is affected? Isn't this why people wear sunglasses?

My inquiry has switched from lenses to the workings of the human eye haha. I think I need to learn more about light and its qualities.


Here are some quick examples of the style of pictures I want to be able to create: De Vetpan studios · Portfolio, and also: Colors of a summer by *bettytox on deviantARTHow do they get such colour and sharpness?

I need to run some errands right now but I'll try and get some more examples later.
Thanks!

 

[Overread36]

Having targets that you want to meet is good indeed, but first and foremost we need to see some examples of what you can currently produce as chances are you're probably making a slip up in one or two areas which is holding you back. With some specific examples we can move on and identify where the weaknesses are and also then progress on and try and fix things before we need to specifically look at a new lens.


As an aside though the kind of pics you're linking two would suggest that a 60-100mm macro lens would suit your needs for such photos - whilst most macro lenses are also good primes for regular use such as portraits.

 

[patrickdio]

Alright so here's an example of a picture I took today under harsh sunlight.
Hmm the photo is not uploading; it says 'undefined'. Do you know what the problem could be?

And what I like about those examples I linked to previously is the lighting specifically. I'm more of a landscape kind of guy. Is that washed out effect called cross-processing?

There seems to be a 30mm f2.8 Sony Alpha lens on sale for $219 CAD in my area, do you think this would be a good compromise?

 

[dxqcanada5]

The Sony 30mm f/2.8 macro lens is very sharp.
Sony 30mm f/2.8 DT macro ( SAL-30F28 ) - Lab Test / Review - Analysis

The Sony 18-55mm is not bad either ... though fixed focal length lenses are easier to correct, so they tend to be higher IQ.

 

[dxqcanada5]

Sony Alpha Lens Tests (APS-C)

 

[patrickdio]

Just waiting for my example pics to upload.
Sorry for my late replies and vague answers. I've only recently gotten back into photography and the information and questions in all your posts were more then enough for me to start researching and reach information overload.

So to summarize what I've been researching:
1) Is there is a significant difference in the kit lens to the other budget lenses
2) Is there a specific aperture and/or focal length that a particular lens is most sharp?
3) What does my original photograph have to look like in order to create the pictures I want in post-processing?
4) The different kinds of light during the day and how those various kinds of light affect the post-processing possibilities.
5) Light in general. e.g. angle.
6) What lens focal length would suit be best?

 

[dxqcanada5]

The lens makes a difference in image sharpness.

A-mount lens database (lenses for Minolta and Sony DSLR cameras)

The quality of the image itself ... is the sum of many different aspects.

 

[patrickdio]

The lens makes a difference in image sharpness.

A-mount lens database (lenses for Minolta and Sony DSLR cameras)

The quality of the image itself ... is the sum of many different aspects.

I'm looking specifically at the budget lenses, i.e. $300 or less. Wondering how big the difference in sharpness is for these inexpensive lenses.