DSLR 101

[ebiggs1]

Here is a sample of RAW and how it can help make your photos better. 

Normal RAW exposure.

Normal exposure jpg.  They look pretty close because you are looking at a computer monitor.  The RAW has been converted to jpg in post.  The original jpg was done by the camera, a 1Ds Mk III in this case.

However, suspose you got something wrong. In this case I under exposed it by 3 stops.  But it could be any condition.  WB, color balance, saturation, and on and on, etc.

Corrected RAW.

Corrected jpg.  But below lets look a little closer.

Especially check the shadows. Can you see the difference?  Need a better look?  OK, here is a 100% crop of that enlargment.

It should be blantly obivious that RAW is the way to go.  All else was equal. Same camera. Same lens. Same time of day. Same, same!

Get Lightroom................

[jazzman1]

While we're on the subject of lenses, I think my EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lll that came with my Rebel T3i is a decent lens for what it is.  It's main drawback for me is it does'nt have IS, or STM nor USM.  But otherwise the optics are not that bad....to me.  I get decent quality shots with it, not tack sharp, but acceptable.   Nowhere near as bad as most revews I've read about it.  It is a cheap build, all plastic, but it at least has a metal seat.   I would like a better quality of this range lens, was looking at the EF 70-300mm f/4-4.5 IS USM, till I can get the 70-200mm IS L.  Don't know if the sharpness and optics would be any better than my 75-300mm lll, than on the 70-300mm IS USM....the reviews on this lens is all over the charts also.  I can get a 70-200mm L for about the same price, but it lacks IS.  I'm not going to compromise here, I'll hold out for the 70-200mm IS L.

My 75-300mm kit lens has decent optics to me.  And the only benefit I may get in trading up is better build and quality.  Of coarse I'll also get IS and USM and that's the main attraction for me.  But just how much better sharpness I won't know till I test one.

[jazzman1]

How well would a 1.4 or 1.2 teleconverter work on the EF 70-200mm IS USM f/4L Lens.  I think I read they work better on Primes than Zooms.  If the performance is not good, I may look into a EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Prime.  In this case a EF 70-300mm f/4-4.5 IS USM, with the 70-300mm Prime lens and teleconverters, may be a better combination.   Maybe not just asking, this combination is more cost efficient.

[jazzman1]

Correction:

I meant EF 300mm L Prime.......not 70-300mm L Prime.

[ebiggs1]

WOW, I don't know if I can cover al that but here is my take on some of it.

If you get the 70-200mm f4, don't get a tele extender.  It won't work.  Thereis no such thing as a 1.2 converter?

Some body is going to tell you an extender will work but it is so poor, I consider it a no-go.

You really need to get over the sharpness hang-up.  It is a spec but it is just one spec.   It is no hard to make a sharp lens. It is difficult to make a good lens that meets all the criteria.  Not simply sharpness.  There is CA. Barrel and pincushion distortion.  All types and kinds of optical aberration.  The list is long.  

[ebiggs1]

I was trying to hold back and not burst your bubble but the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lll is not a very good lens.  I don't care how many letters it has after its name.

" t's main drawback for me is it does'nt have IS, or STM nor USM."

Actually that is not its "main drawback".  It is a lens that was made to satisify its market nitche for low cost.  If that is your criteria than you are right it is a good lens.

"And the only benefit I may get in trading up is better build and quality."

I am guessing, at this point, the only solution for you is experience.  You just need more experience.  Maybe that statement is true. Who am I to say.

[jazzman1]

Thanks about the teleconverter..  I thought there was a 1.2 and 1.4 teleconverter but guess I'm wrong.  Since you say this I'll let that Idea of teleconverters I'll let it go.  I thought you mentioned somewhere you had one.

I'm not hungup on sharpness, I just thought it was something to expect from the better lens.  If not, oh well.  But I've even heard you speak of sharpness on one of your pics you posted here.  Not a problem though, I'm still learning what's good and what's not.  If sharpness is not a quality we should look for, I won't.  And yes, I do know that a good lens is about more than just sharpness. 

It's Ok about repyling, take your time.  I had a bunch of thoughts today, I just wanted to throw at you. 

[jazzman1]

It's Ok burst ahead.  You won't hurt my feelings, it's not like the lens is attached to my knee.  I won't miss it when it's gone.   I thought it was as you said, and thought for the purposes it was designed for it was decent.  Soon as I find something to replace it I will.  Sometimes I think you don't understand where I'm coming from.

[ebiggs1]

I still don't think you understand.  Sharpness is important.  To some people it may be the most important spec. However it is just one spec in a whole slew of them for a lens.  Sharpness is all I ever hear you talk about.  Pretty easy to draw the conclusion that is the criteria you use to judge a lens' ability.

I do have a tele converter(s).  I have 5 or 6 of them to be more accurate.  I have 1.4x, 2x and evan a 3x!  The 1.4 does indeed work very well on the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L on a 1DMk IV.  It will "work" on a f4 version but it will not work well.  The term "work" is subjective.

Just to add more confusion to this, when considering how wella lens performs, you must take into account the camera.  A tele converter will work better on a 1 series than it will on a Rebel for instance.

"If sharpness is not a quality we should look for, I won't."

You know this is ridiculous.  The reason I suggest to you that there are other specs than just one.  I am hoping you are advancing.  Maybe, not at the pace I am thinking?  "I am guessing, at this point, the only solution for you is experience.  You just need more experience."

[jazzman1]

Yeah, right now sharpness is one of the things I'm looking for in a lens.  I really don't know how to explain this to you but yes, sharpness in a lens is very important to me.  It does'nt mean I don't know about the other things that go into a quality lens.   But softness is the one thing that jumps out at me in my pics that bug me to no end.   I get barrel distortion alot with my SX60 HS 65X Zoom Camera when zooming out into it's farthest range.  I've learned to back off to less than 800mm with that camera to avoid barrell distortion.  I've learned things to do with that camera to get decent pics.  I have to since the lens in it is fixed and I can't change it for a better one.   It's a defect that that model camera has in it's lens I can do nothing about.  I rarely get barrell distortion with my 75-300mm lens I'm using with my 60D.  I see different distortions in my pics with my 75-300 but none show up in every pic, other than softness.  I shoot alot of pics with this lens furthest range.   I like to shoot the buildings Downtown that I can see from the park accross the river.  It's appox. 5 miles or more away but it's a lovely scene I've been trying to capture ever since I started going to the Park to practice my shots.  I also like to shoot the many boats and ships that are all over this river, all around town on the water.   The fishing boats that come into port everyday with their catch.  Alot of times the boats and ships are far away, a 1/2 mile or more.  And it irks me to no end when my 75-300 starts to falter at sunset, when the light starts to drop.  It does'nt do well in less than bright light.    I really like to capture those beautiful scenes on the water around sunset, but I'm limited to the short comings of this lens.  My 24-105 L is the best lens I have and I'm satsified with most of the pics I take with it.  My 75-300 kit lens has it's issues but the main one that bugs me the most is it's softness at it's furthest range.  I hope you hear me well....the thing that bugs me most about this lens is it's sharpness.  Not that it's cheap, not that it's plastic, not that it has no IS nor USM or STM, it's the softness at it's farthest range that bugs me most.  I know it's a cheap lens and I want to get rid of it soon as I can, but till then it's all I got.    I'm only using these two lens.  Because sharpness is the thing that bugs me most about this lens does'nt mean I don't know it's not a quality lens.  Does'nt mean I'm not aware of it's other issues.  And yes,sharpness is the most important thing i'm looking for in a lens to replace this one.  I will also look for the other things that go into a good lens.  But sharpness is high on my list looking for a replacement, no matter how well built, how much it cost, and other specs that peeps, as well as you,  judge quality in a lens.  That's me Biggs, that's how I see it.  I rally don't see the issue you're creating here  .  Of coarse I want it to be a quality lens in all the other characteritics that go into a quality lens.  Otherwise why do you think I want to make f/4 L's lens the foundation of my lens collection.  And I also think my 75-300mm lens is a decent lens for what it was made for and it's price, I'm not going to apologise for that statement.

[ebiggs1]

"That's me Biggs, that's how I see it.  I rally don't see the issue you're creating here"

And that is great.  I am, at your request, trying to educate you about cameras and lenses.  If you have found one you like and it works for, I have no issue.  More power to you and good shooting to you.

I am by no means an authority on lenses.  It isn't for me to decide if it is right for anybody.  Everybody is different and we all have different requirments.  Whether it is a tight budget or unlimited one.  Eventually water will seek its own level.  Always does!