need some help

[Scuba]

I need some help on upgrades. Currently I have a Canon xsi w/kit and canon 28-200 3.5-5.6. I am wanting to upgrade in sharpness and quality. The 28-200 is what I use most of the time but as I have been getting better I am frustrated with the sharpness and am spending a lot of time sharpening up images or even sometimes just are not even fixable. So I am playing with the idea of selling every thing and getting a 60d and a 50mm 1.4 or keeping my body and getting 2 lenes probably 50mm 1.4 and either a wide angle zoom or maybe 28mm 1.8. I mainly do nature shooting. I looked back and a lot of my images were taken at 28mm. I am worried if I get the 60d and only have a 50mm I would be too restricted. Any input on these two options or have any other ideas?

Thanks!
Steve

 

[bazooka]

Here's my advice.... keep the xsi for now. Upgrading your body isn't going to help your sharpness noticeably unless you spend big bucks for a full frame. Because your 28-200 has over a 7x zoom range, it's going to be soft. It's a cheaper lens designed to be a do-all lens, but the fact is that you can't have everything. You trade convenience and/or price for quality.

My advice, sell the lens and get a 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) tamron. This will cover your wide range and allow you to get your landscapes (assuming that is included in your nature category). It's not super-wide, but it's wide enough. If you can get it used locally, that's what I recommend. It's a sharp lens as long as you don't shoot it it's extremes (applicable to most lenses). Surprisingly, I found one for around $400... Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di LD II Lens + UV Canon | eBay I have no experience with the seller so don't click buy just because I posted a link. This is just to get you started.

Let me say that the 50mm 1.4 is an incredibly sharp lens. It's the sharpest one of the 7 or 8 lenses that I've owned. However, on a crop body, it is tight.

For an affordable high quality zoom, see if you could fit the Canon 70-200 f/4 into your budget. Used they are around $550. Be careful though, there is a batch that focuses behind the subject (one of which I had). If you get one, check it when you get home to ensure that the focus is accurate. You might also see what Tamron and Sigma have available in the tele-zoom line up.

 

[Scuba]

thanks for the advice! yeah I have figured out that the 28-200 was soft due to the range it has. I picked up this equipment when I was working at Circuit City when they closed for a great price and I have learned a lot with it, but it is time to move to better stuff that will allow me to learn more and get even better. Oh yeah and i did mean landscapes in there with nature. I just want to get faster and sharper equipment so I can experiment with some different things such as anything indoors or low light. I have been also looking at the tokina 11-16 and the canon 17-40.

 

[KmH]

Improving image quality is more often a matter of upgrading the photographer's knowledge and skill, than upgrading the equipment.

However, better lenses do produce sharper images, if they are used properly.

Camera bodies have less negative impact on image sharpness. In other words, don't expect a different camera body to have much, if any, noticable effect on image sharpness.

 

[Scuba]

I totally agree, just because someone has expensive equipment does not mean they will take good pictures. However, I believe I have reached the capabilities of my current lenses and possibly the body. I don't believe this to be a user skill issue. Sure I have plenty to learn, but I would say I know enough to say that. The lenses I have are cheaper intro level lenses and are just not sharp. This is why I am considering a prime lens or two. Primes are very sharp and also require more skill in composition.

 

[analog.universe]

If your aim is critical sharpness, stay away from the 28mm 1.8. I owned one and it really didn't cut it for me. The Canon 17-40 is wicked sharp though, as is the 17-55 2.8 IS, but the latter is an EF-S lens, not sure if that matters in your upgrade path. The Tokina 11-16 is great, but does exhibit some lateral CA, as Tokina's are famous for. Not hard to clean up, but you do have to clean it up...

 

[bazooka]

Also, in case you are shooting RAW, keep in mind that you would still benefit from applying sharpening in post. If shooting jpg, disregard as sharpening is applied by the camera's software.

 

[KmH]

But, JPEG sharpening is applied globally to the photo, and the amount of sharpening can be adjusted to at least a crude degree with picture control settings in the camera.

Some additional local sharpening usually can benefit a JPEG made in the camera.

 

[bazooka]

Certainly, but my point is that he might be experiencing softer than expected images if he is shooting RAW and not sharpening.

 

[orlovphoto]

A) shoot RAW always and use Lightroom - never over-sharpen but arrive at a perfect set of numbers for the percent and pixel size for various subjects (products, people, landscape) and ISO combos.

B) Get the best camera and lens you can afford - lens being more important as it not only produces the picture but is also the part you can re-use later. DO get a full-frame camera - you will never look back. Avoid off-brand lenses as they are not only not as good as the name brands, but also drop in value when you buy way more than good glass (I can still sell my 24-105 for $900-1000 and I got it for $1200).

C) No camera will take good pictures for you, but if you are good a camera CAN ruin it especially in today's splendid world of digital wonders when you are stuck with ONE sensor for every single image you'll take with that camera... Think about it, sensor does matter.

Above all - good luck

 

[Scuba]

ok not sure why I never got my email updates for this thread I thought it died.

Anyways, yes I am shooting in RAW and I do sharpen in either lightroom or photoshop. That is the problem my images require so much sharpening time which is why I know I need better equipment.

orlovphoto - you say go full frame...I would love to but at this point I don't even have enough to pick up a 5D mkII. I guess I could try and pick up a 5D mkI. That would still clearly be an upgrade from my rebel xsi but comparable to the 60D would it still be better. (No I am not considering the megapixel difference). It would certainly help with lenses not dealing with the crop factor.

 

[jaomul]

Might be worth looking at an EF35 f2 also. It's Sharp and not as tight as the 50 but not to expensive

 

[Scuba]

Good call on the 35. That would probably be better on a crop then the 50. Of course now I am looking at the original 5D trying to compare to the 60D.

Anyone have some input on going for a used 5D original vs the 60D?