Ducks (Photos included)

[Dbl]

Since it has been quiet lately I decided to find a few ducks. Nothing special here and the consumer grade lens is very evident, but here are a few. No flying shots, these guys were busy feeding.

I liked the tilted head on the hen on this one.

[jonny_redhorse]

Great shots Dbl!....you would have fooled me on the consumer grade lens thing!.....You did good!...wonderful color and clarity.......just shows that a person can get great photos without a bazillion dollar outfit...just a little harder that's all........got to sneak a little closer(put the sneak on em) to the subject.......take a little more time in photoshop(I do in my case anyway,most of my photos are not straight out of the camera)......again...nice photos....jonny

[Steve Foss]

I also believe this is a case where a "consumer" grade lens did a fine job. Outdoor Photographer magazine recently wrote an article that said today's consumer lenses have glass that gives them the sharpness of the professional grade lenses of just 20 years ago, and there was some phenomenal work done in the mid 80s with those lenses.

Only in the first image, and only then in the background, do I think I see jarring elements that may not be there with professional glass. The rest look quite sharp and are full of rich color and contrast.

Good job, DBL. I like the two drakes marching through the snow the best.

[Dbl]

The lens is definitely not sharp as a tack, especially at 100% and it has horrible purple fringing characteristics. To make matters even worse I shot with a 1.4 TC which really magnifies the issues with this lens. I was more or less doing some experimentation of different combinations to see what the lens was capable of.

The Quantaray 70-300/f4.-5.6 is pretty low budget (made by Sigma) but it does a good job on outdoor sports, where sharpness is not as noticeable as compared with wildlife. It is easy to see this when you look at all the details with birds, etc.

I decided to post these to encourage other people who are thinking of making the jump to DSLR but can't afford the higher end equipment to give strong consideration to buy what you can afford now, and if the desire is there to make upgrades when you can.

jonny, you are right, you do have to get a little closer and spend a little more time in Photoshop, but that is what makes it fun! A little hunting in the offseason

Steve, thanks for the kind words.

[WCS]

Sounds like the same Quantaray lens I use. Definitely not the best, but certainly not the worst. I would love to invest in a 100-400 Canon L-series lens, but I would then want a wide angle to match. Of course I still have my sights set on upgrading from my Digital Rebel D300 to a D20 or D30. That is starting to sound like a lot of money!

Those are some very nice photos by the way. It is very encouraging to see such good work done with similar equipment to my own. Thanks for posting.

[Steve Foss]

DBL, the purple fringing (chromatic aberration) is generally the biggest problem when shooting in contrasty situations where you've got a dark or medium subject against a bright light background. That's why it's not so evident in these shots. A robin on a branch in full sunlight with a bright blue/white sky behind it, though, and watch out.

Quantaray is the baddest of the bad when it comes to consumer lenses. They're very inexpensive, and in this case you get what you pay for. They are Black's Photography outlets' store brand, and Black's people push them above all others because they make the most profit margin on them.

Sigma and Tamron are generally a good bit better. But look at what a Quantary is capable of here in Dbl's shots when care is taken and there's some work done in post processing. I echo the philosophy that it's better to buy what you can afford and use the he!! out of it than stand back and not get into the hobby because those "pro" lenses cost too much.

The 100-400L IS is a peach. It's, as many of you know, my go-to lens for wildlife and many other situations. I also have a 17-40L. Those L class lenses are Canon's best line, and it shows. Those lenses cost about $2,000 for both, but for under $300 you can cover nearly the same range (18mm to 300mm) by buying Tamron or Sigma consumer lenses, and for under $500 you can get that range covered with Canon consumer lenses.

[Dbl]

Unfortunately I am very familiar with purple fringing, when you shoot this kind of lens you become very aware of those situations. The two drakes in the snow photo when looked at original size will make you cringe . That is one reason the backgrounds are what they are in each shot, low contrast.

Steve you could have not said it better about buy what you can and go from there! I was stuck with my lens and knew what I was getting, but it did not stop me from shooting. Eventually my lens buying addiction will finally get the best of me and 3 or 4 really nice lenses' will show up at my door, along with another body or two, and then........well it does get out of control.

[Steve Foss]

Hey Dbl, I figured you knew your onions on CA. But I always want to add explainers for the folks who are newer to the game. It's all good. And for those who don't know it, if you shoot in RAW mode and have Photoshop CS or CS2, you can correct for CA and some other lens deficiencies when you preview the image to open. Just one of the things RAW offers that jpeg doesn't.

[Dbl]

Here is what Steve is talking about. You can see in the high contrast areas the CA (purple fringing) is bad. The areas with little contrast don't exhibit this nearly as bad. This is the original with no post processing done. At smaller sizes or for web viewing you probably won't notice it. Make a 11" x 14" print and you will not be pleased. You will also notice the loss of detail when you begin enlarging the size, this is what the lower grade lens will give you.

My point is not to scare anyone from using these lenses, the above photos are fine for their intended use, and with an understanding of when it can happen you can reduce its effects, but if you are going to be printing large prints, or submitting for publication, you would be better off saving for higher grade glass.

I was not even aware of CA issues until I started shooting digital. It may have always been there with film but were processed out, I'm not to sure. Any thoughts Steve, or anyone else familiar with this problem?

[Steve Foss]

Here is a technical defininition of chormatic aberration and what causes it: Chromatic aberration or "color fringing" is caused by the camera lens not focusing different wavelengths of light onto the exact same focal plane (the focal length for different wavelengths is different) and/or by the lens magnifying different wavelengths differently. These types of chromatic aberration are referred to as "Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration" and "Lateral Chromatic Aberration" respectively and can occur at the same time.

Dbl, the above types of CA can occur with film or digital, and are basically a lens function.

Purple fringing, however, while caused by the lens, is generally a digital phenomenon that comes about because the lens is CA prone. While some CAs can show fringes of purple, other colors are involved too. In purple fringing, it's just purple and it generally is more widespread along contrasty edges throughout the image. If it's not a RAW image and you don't have the post processing software to kill the CA, the only way to get rid of it once it's there is to painstakingly clone it out with post processing. The more a person sharpens, saturates and heightens contrast in pp, the more easily purple fringing is seen. At low resolutions and small sizes, as Dbl has pointed out (computer monitors only resolve to 72 dpi, usually) it's not as big a problem. But printing decent enlargements gets tough, and many publications will dismmiss images out of hand when they find out they've been shot with a CA-prone lens. I believe that the better the digital sensor, the less serious purple fringing becomes. For example when I upgraded from the original Digital Rebel to the 20D, and continued to use the CA-prone 18-55mm kit lens, noticed a lot less CA in situations where, with the Rebel, I'd have gotten a lot of it. With my Canon 100-400L IS and 17-40L on the 20D, I get none, or so little I can't see it even on big enlargement.

One reason digital users seem to see CA more frequently than film users is because purple fringing is more a digital issue, even though general CA happens in both mediums, and because it's now the photographer in charge of processing his or her own work. When you put up an image on the screen and pop it up to 100 percent, lens deficiencies can become glaring.

If you have a lens prone to CA and can't afford to upgrade, try to use the lens in situations that are kinder and gentler. Soft, diffuse lighting generally gives you a more compelling image, anyway, and many CA issues disappear in that type of light. I know we can't choose the light when we go shooting in our spare time. Low light, or rather, low angle light like that seen in early morning and evening is gentler light as well.

[Dbl]

Thanks Steve, that makes sense. I have shot some of my older manual lenses with my *istDS and not noticed the CA that is prevelent with the above mentioned lens. We do get what we pay for.

Dan

[WCS]

Thanks for the great explanation Steve! I had never heard of CA before, nor had I noticed it in my own photos. Now it jumps out like a light bulb. Learning seamingly small things like that definitely helps to make us all better photographers.

[mcary]

I like the mallards. I wouldn't have noticed that you were using a consumer lens had you not said. I had nice access to mallards in my area about a month ago. Keep up the good work! Mike

[buzzsaw]

Gee, I guess I should start selling pictures after looking at those.

[Dbl]

Thanks Mike for the compliment. You have a very nice gallery. The Teton shots bring back good memories of a vacation a few years ago.

Dan

[floating minnow]

Very nice Michael!

[Steve Foss]

Hey mcary, welcome to FM. Nice to see you here. If you're heading up Ely way in the future drop me a line if you'd like. Always nice to compare notes.

[mcary]

Steve,

I'll be sure to do that. I usually try to get up that way at least a couple of times a year. I checked out your site about a week ago. Great Images! I'm waiting to get the 100-400 L that you mentioned. Appears to be a very versatile peice of glass. I know a wildlife pro down here that uses the same lens. I noticed that you have your HSOforum listed in your signature. Do you know the rule on that? Thank for all the compliments (I'm new to the whole photography thing)! Buzzsaw, I haven't sold any yet so don't quit your day job Later, Mike

[buzzsaw]

I make too good a living to quit my day job, I'm not sure I could ever do it as more than a serious hobby that brought in some hush money. The ONE guy in this state that has my attention as far as serious respect is Bill Marchel. He has a portfolio I admire.

I've been able to recently photograph the Great Horned Owl in Eagan, the Owl nested in Eden Prairie etc...

[Steve Foss]

Hi Mike:

Thanks for the kudos. Carving a secondary living as a photographer on top of a full-time job isn't easy, but it's been a lot of fun, and my work is getting recognized now, not to mention I'm getting some clients scheduling photo tours. The site has been revamped and updated since you saw it last.

The other pro I imagine you're talking about probably is Mike Furtman. The 100-400L is his go-to glass as well as mine. We've both experimented with the wonderful Canon supertelephoto primes, but until that kind of money becomes available, I'll be sticking with the 100-400L.

Links have to be approved individually by admin. You can use the "conact us" link to ask for approval. Generally, business links need to be sponsors on FM.

[knoppers]

nice pictures DBL, ducks are great this time of year. I liked picture 3 so much, its now on my desktops wallpaper.

[Dbl]

Enjoy, #5 is on mine.