Moire...ugggggggggggggggggggg

[Mike Hollingshead]

I shoot in RAW. Trouble with test shots on this is it really likes storm conditions, yet not all of them. I think it likes strongly back-lit ones like the st logo...it had it on the right side and some in the clouds. I think it has ZERO to do with noise. It's not digital noise. I've read the shoot to the right thing and yeah, that can work in many cases to get the most info out of your pics. On many storms though you pretty much just have to shoot past the right unless you don't care at all about a foreground, or you happen to have alot of time to mess with filters. I don't feel exposure is the issue either. I figured more people had this issue with their rebel and kit lens but now I wonder, lol. I see fredmirand.com has some plug-ins for it but only PS 6 or higher, no elements. I guess I'll continue doing what it takes to get rid of it and mask it till I find my $1300 to plunk down on the 16-35mm L. If it happens then I'm going to go postal on the nearest canon dealer. Thanks for the ideas.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Mike sent me the full file, and I do not believe it is sensor noise. The only time you will get noise lined up like such is with banding. This will not occur on that sensor at ISO 100. After seeing the full image, it is my belief that the lens is just an utter piece of crap. There is haloing around high contrast areas, chromatic abberations around trees (blue tinge), mucho softness in the corners, and an overall cloudy feel to the un-post-processed image. My bet is the color bands are due to excessive post process minipulation due to the crapiness of the lens.

One last note.. sometimes your raw converter can have a significant impact on how your images turn out.. Canon vs PS vs Capture1 etc. It may be entirely possible that this won't turm up if you use an alternate raw converter and workflow process than with Canon's raw converter (which is generally regarded as slightly subpar to the others).

Aaron

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Thanks for looking at that Aaron. I guess the cost thing won't be such a big deal, compared to the time spent working on these files. I've been slowly getting sick of rescuing images and was just starting to think this was how RAW worked. I'm very very anxious to own real glass and the 16-35mm L is talking to me. It's saying, "I am gold, I will fix all your problems". One should ignore cost if they can I think. It's highly annoying having seem some rather crazy storms and having a bunch of garbage for original files.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

This leads me to another wondering. Anyone know of a 17-40 L, 16-35 L comparison? I wonder how much of a difference we are talking here. I'd really hate to spend $700 on a lens I wasn't happy with. I imagine if I wasn't happy with something like a 16-35 L then I should just stop shooting. I know of a 17-35L and 16-35L comparison where the new 16-35 blew the old lens away. Would really like to see the cheaper 17-40 in comparison with the 16-35.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

To be honest with ya... I decided on the 17-40 for a couple of reasons (this is how I justified not having the $$$ for the 16-35 in other words ; ) ). For one, even though 16mm would be nice... 1mm difference isn't going to be that big of a deal. On the long end, however, I often shoot 50mm of tornado and cloud features. Having 40mm instead of 35 on the long end will be quite helpful when things are a bit farther off. F/4 vs f/2.8 is the other debate. With the way sensors are going, I'll just crank the ISO up one more notch instead of flipping down to f/2.8. I haven't seen a comparison yet of the two lenses, although I would like to see one.

Aaron

 

[John Diel]

Mike,
I'm glad you and Aaron figured out the issue. Like I said before, I don't know much about the lens in question, but I know most low end canon lenses generally aren't very good. It's pretty bad when a third party lens gets rated better than your own brand for the basic lens.

John

 

[Greg Campbell]

Glad you and Aaron have it figured out.

about the crap kit lens. Is it any wonder that zooms have a bad reputation? :roll:

As always, it's the LENS that actualy takes the pictures. Despite what the ads say, the camera just shuffles film/pixels, meters the scene, and keeps things properly aligned.

The choice for me, zoom free! I've collected a weighty Canon FD library. T90, A1, AE-1. 20/2.8mm (in the mail), 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/1.2L, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 100/2.0 (in the mail), 135/3.5, 135/2.0 (soon!), 200/4, and growing by the week. Next up is a 200/2.8 (down to about $150 - the midrange primes are all around $50, unless extra fast or "L") and a Canon 2x converter for it.

-Greg

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Greg, I use to be zoom free... but not anymore. The key is that the zooms worth keeping just cost a crapload of $$$. My 70-200mm zoom is actually quite comparable to my 100mm prime which shocked the heck out of me.

Aaron

 

[Glen Romine]

Originally posted by Mike Hollingshead
Would really like to see the cheaper 17-40 in comparison with the 16-35.

Here is one:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...non-17-40.shtml

Haven't found any others in a quick search - but if his results are typical then for storm photography it may be a good deal - as the wide angle performance looked to be very good with the cheaper lens. I've almost convinced myself to buy this one as well - but haven't yet.

Glen

 

[Greg Campbell]

Originally posted by Aaron Kennedy
Greg, I use to be zoom free... but not anymore. The key is that the zooms worth keeping just cost a crapload of $$$. My 70-200mm zoom is actually quite comparable to my 100mm prime which shocked the heck out of me.

Aaron

Yea, I wouldn't mind some fast or "L" zoom action. At the moment however, the primo FD zooms are still quite spendy, and you can get a boatload of prime lenses for the same price. For now, if I need to quickly 'zoom' I just grab another body with the desired lens already attached.

-Greg