I Want Sharp Image (New Camera or Macro Lens)

[margzxero]

I have canon 750D, I want a nice sharp/clear image of my jewelry, do I need to invest in macro or buy new camera.

Thanks

[ScottyP · Accepted solution]

By 55mm do you mean the 18-55mm kit zoom lens?  

A macro lens lens would be sharper and better able to shoot from up close. 

Are you using a tripod?  A good solid tripod would help immensely by letting you stop the lens down to f/8 or f/11 for more depth of field since on a tripod you are unconcerned with handheld camera shake and long shutter exposures like full seconds are possible. 

[TTMartin · Accepted solution]

---

@margzxero wrote:

I am a freelance product photographer but shooting a jewellery is very hard. I am planning to buy a Canon 5D or better invest in macro lens?

For Macro work the 5D would be a step backwards. The smaller the sensor the larger the depth of field. Going to a larger sensor just means having to use a smaller aperture to compensate for it. You gain nothing, but, a lighter wallet.

[ebiggs1 · Accepted solution]

Great, in that case go for the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens instead.

[ebiggs1]

"... if you can't get sharp and clear picture with a kit lens, you won't get sharp and clear pictures with a better lens, either."

OK, let's think about that statement.  All lenses and cameras have their limits we all agree.  But the limits of the 100mm f2.8 macro is going to be far better than any kit lens.  Not being able to get sharp photos with the kit lens could be the lens.  Even in a beginner novice's hands the 100mil is going to fair better.       A kit lens? I don't suppose you rely on the 18-55mm kit lens for your own photography?  To each his own, whatever works.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... if you can't get sharp and clear picture with a kit lens, you won't get sharp and clear pictures with a better lens, either."

OK, let's think about that statement.  All lenses and cameras have their limits we all agree.  But the limits of the 100mm f2.8 macro is going to be far better than any kit lens.  Not being able to get sharp photos with the kit lens could be the lens.  Even in a beginner novice's hands the 100mil is going to fair better.       A kit lens? I don't suppose you rely on the 18-55mm kit lens for your own photography?  To each his own, whatever works.

---

Here's those darn MTFs contradicting what you are saying AGAIN. You really should learn how to read them!

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

[ebiggs1]

You know you like to read. I suspect it's all you do but whatever you aren't reading and understanding. You glean what you want to.

I'll attempt to help you. The MTF chart doesn't always tell the entire story. Most MTF graphs are calculated rather than measured anyway. A while ago Photodo actually measured some MTF graphs. It showed that some lenses measured were almost true to the graphs, while others were way off. MTF graphs and histograms can give you helpful information, but there is much more to a lens than the MTF. Don't pay too much attention to MTF charts unless you shoot MTF charts for a living. How the lens performs, for it's owner in the field, is what really counts.

Tip:  It's much more fun the go out and shoot pictures than to sit in front of your computer and collect MTF charts.  Give it a go sometime.  You'll enjoy it.

[TCampbell]

I'ts difficult to compare dissimilar lenses based on MTF curves.  The charts alone are actually showin different data.

The first thing to note is that when comparing a full-frame lens to a crop-frame lens, the full-frame lens projects a larger image circle... so it's MTF chart hoirzontal axis represents a radius of about 22mm.  Meanwhile the crop-frame lens only has a horizontal axis that measures out to about 13.5.  That's nearly 10mm shorter.  

When using a full-frame lens on a crop-frame body, you'd really only want to compare the first 13mm worth of the horizontal axis. 

Secondly, Canon's MTF curves have lines of different color, boldness, and pattern to present the differnt types of tests.

But of note here is the use of the "black" lines vs. the "blue" lines.  The "black" lines represent the performance of the lens tested at whatever it's "widest" aperture is.  

In the case of the 100mm f/2.8 macro, that's f/2.8

In the case of the variable focal ratio 18-55mm f/4-5.6 lens, that's actually f/5.6.

To try to provide a different analysis, Canon's "blue" lines represent testing at f/8 ... the blue lines for both lens types are done at f/8.  

When you compare those, you can see the EF-S lens is taking a hit beyond the 10mm point... where the macro is still performing fairly well.

This still doesn't work around the notion that one is a 55mm lens and the other is a 100mm lens (so that changes the angle of view and camera position.)  Again... comparing dissimilar lenses via an MTF chart is something that sould be done with caution.

[TTMartin]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

To try to provide a different analysis, Canon's "blue" lines represent testing at f/8 ... the blue lines for both lens types are done at f/8.  

When you compare those, you can see the EF-S lens is taking a hit beyond the 10mm point... where the macro is still performing fairly well.

This still doesn't work around the notion that one is a 55mm lens and the other is a 100mm lens (so that changes the angle of view and camera position.)  Again... comparing dissimilar lenses via an MTF chart is something that sould be done with caution.

---

Yet, the hit the STM lens takes beyond 10mm still performs as well as the macro, since it actually started with better image quality than the 100mm Macro prior to that point.

Also the EF-S 18-55mm IS STM is not a Macro lens so its image plane isn't as flat, which is the reason for the fall off. That's a plus for a true Macro lens and a negative for the kit lens.

But, the days of kit lenses are junk throw them away they aren't worth using are long gone.

Canon's entire STM lens line has image quality that matches that of older L lenses. And Canon's newer L IS II lenses are all unsurpassed in there image quality.

So DiverHank's point that if you can't get sharp photos with an STM kit lens is certainly valid. And throwing money at it the problem which isn't a gear issue and buying new gear isn't going to help get better photos.

edit: the tests where some MTFs weren't as accurate as others related to comparing MTFs from different manufacturers. Comparing Canon MTFs to Canon MTFs do tell the story. And yes you do know how to read them including the difference in image circle size.

[jrhoffman75]

Just so we don't loose sight of the OP's issue, here is the question and examples from the other post she made.

http://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-Rebel/Canon-750D-Noise-Product-Photography/m-p/207342#U207342

[diverhank]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

Just so we don't loose sight of the OP's issue, here is the question and examples from the other post she made.

http://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-Rebel/Canon-750D-Noise-Product-Photography/m-p/207342#U207342

---

Thanks for posting this...she does a better job than I had envisioned but still the fundamental problems are still there...1. lighting is not that great, 2. focus was off - the focus was on the metal behind the diamonds and not on the diamonds and 3. f/22 is not as sharp due to diffraction.

Perhaps with improved techniques, she may benefit more with a better lens.

[John_SD]

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

 

...2. focus was off - the focus was on the metal behind the diamonds...

---

Diamonds? Come on, dude, look at the setting. When the glue dries out, the zirconia will drop out one by one, like teeth out of an old man's head. 

[ebiggs1]

"... she may benefit more with a better lens."

Funny how others are told how well they can do with kit lenses.  Yet for themselves they don't tend to use them?  Just saying not aimed towards anybody.

"... the focus was on the metal behind the diamonds and not on the diamonds..."

This could easily be made a whole lot better with focus stacking in PS.  Shallow DOF will always be a problem no matter "L" or not.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... she may benefit more with a better lens."

Funny how others are told how well they can do with kit lenses.  Yet for themselves they don't tend to use them?  Just saying not aimed towards anybody.

---

There are many people here that like the EF 24-105 f/4L IS kit lens. I personally don't think it's that great.

I also carry and use the EF-S 18-135 IS STM and EF-S 55-250 IS STM kit lenses that came with my EOS 7D Mk II along with the EF 100-400 L IS II for that camera. 

This is in spite of owning 'better' constant aperture f/2.8 lenses that cover those focal lengths. For me the more compact size, lighter weight, and outstanding image quality of the STM lenses, outweighs any benefit of an f/2.8 lens. The 7D Mk II has such good high ISO performance, I don't worry about having to bump up my ISO a little to compensate for the variable aperture. But, then again, I'm out actually out in the field taking photos, not just sitting at my computer or occasionally going out on my porch to take photos.