Welcome to the forum!

As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.

Lens Basics (formerly "Canon 6D vs. Canon 600D")

This may create a long thread, and the question(s) I have may be extremely basic, so I apologize on both.

I know some of the things that make a great lens - vignetting, chromatic aberrations, distortion, focus speed. I have read a few things about lens basics, lens designs, etc.

But what about color and color reproduction? What is the influence of the lens on the reproduction of the scene in front of you regarding color?

Is it more the lens, or more the camera, or 50/50? The reason I ask is in my earlier post, someone mentioned the lens I am using on my new Canon 6D, the Canon 24-105mm F4L IS, is not that wonderful of a lens. In this earlier post, I was writing about how I experienced no "wow" factor after looking at the images from my first job with the new camera. I still don't have that "Yessss, this is why I spent the money to upgrade!" feeling.

I'm still looking around at articles I've read in the past, but I want this forum's take on this.

Thanks - Dave

Comments

  • TrevTrev Moderator

    Dave,

    This may be counter-intuitive but a 'good' RAW file *should* look flat and lifeless, that's the aim of the game to retain highlights, shadows, etc. then it's up to you to bring out the best of the raw file, and this will not be done overnight, it's a learning process which you and only you can judge the end result.

    The only thing I would say though, you do need a good monitor, no use having spent $1000's on gear, PC/Mac only to have a cheap $200 monitor, you cannot judge a good print that way, well not easily unless you know how to make the image look so when printed it then looks good.

    Regarding the 24-105 f4 IS, I don't think it's not that wonderful of a lens at all, in fact I had one and it took bloody great shots, just not as fast as an f2.8 and it hunted a tad in low light, but it took great pics and it was really versatile with that extra reach of 105mm.

    Yes, lenses can and do affect colour results of an image, but, that's what you can fix by shooting raw. I cannot say which lens on the Canon range these days are 'great' with the one exception, the Canon 70-200 f2.8 MkII, it's an absolute gem of a lens, damn fast to focus, and it's a tad better than the Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 on the perspective side of things, you can obtain great bokeh a bit easier also. Just my experience with both lenses, in fact I still have Canon 1D MkIII's but I sold the 70-200 MkII much to my regret.

    In another thread re LR and presets, I said you could send me a raw file so I could maybe set up a generic import, then you tweak, and that offer still stands mate, so send a file you were 'disappointed' with and I will do a preset, but then a full edit to show you what you can achieve. email in other thread Dave.  :)

    Cheers,
    Trev.
  • OK, Trev, thanks for the input. When I get home tonight, I will send two RAW files, both taken under similar conditions: one with my Canon 600D with a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8, the other with my Canon 6D with the 24-105mm F4. I will also look not only for similar lighting conditions, but also similar focal length and/or F stop, if possible.

    And, thanks for the insight on the lens. I got it for a really great price brand new (split from its 6D kit and sold separately), wanting to upgrade my older Canon 28-105 mm F3.5-4.5 .

    I feel the need to be convinced as to why I upgraded, not just that the 6D is "almost" the latest and greatest from Canon.

    Dave
  • TrevTrev Moderator
    okie Dave,

    I won't get it until the morning now, as it's 12.12 am here and off to bed soon, look forward to the files. I can take up to 20Mb or so in email if you can send it that big, or upload to DropBox or MailBigFile or some other server I can download from.

    Cheers,
    Trev.
  • Mr_LogicMr_Logic Member
    edited October 2015
    One thing to bear in mind is what were you expecting? Full frame offers you a number of advantages - better ISO performance and shallower depth of field (all other things being equal!!) being the main two.

    So in low light, compare the two without flash. Compare them at ISO 12800 - that'll show you what the difference is. I was going through some old shots the other day - from EOS 350D era. I
    noticed that with low ISO, shots looked very good even back then, but
    the astonishing thing was how bad they looked even at 1600 ISO. We've
    gained that resolution and noise performance. Using that as a guide in
    your case, the resolution (18MP vs 20) is similar, just the noise that's
    really come on. And if you're running a low-ish ISO on both cameras,
    you won't see the difference. Using high ISO on the 6D should show you
    the difference clearly.

    You are actually negating some of the difference because of your lens setup. The Sigma's f/2.8 vs Canon's f/4 means similar DoF at a given equivalent focal length. You also get similar light performance, so you will end up with similar overall image quality. I am not familiar with the quality level on that Sigma lens, but my 24-105 is an OK lens. Which is to say that it takes a decent picture, but those shots don't have as much crispness or pop as the 24-70 f2.8 II delivers.

    However! When you upgrade lenses, then you'll start to see what the full frame gets you - 1.8 prime looks better on a full frame than a crop body, for example. There is more potential with the full frame body, but it's not necessarily realised by the current lens setup. That's not a problem, just you're doing this in stages, right?
  • Mr L - yes, I do have to think of those things. I do events, and a lot of them are in low light, mixed light, etc. I did by the 6D because it is touted to exceptional low-light performance, tied in with the better ISO performance.

    I'm not sure I follow why a full-frame sensor would give me a shallower depth of field, as I guess I don't quite understand how the size of the sensor relates to it. Unless of course the crop factor coming into play, but I will have to delve into the connection between crop/focal length/DOF.

    I need to use it more, that's all. AND, and this is a BIG and, I have to not be shy about using the camera above 1600 ISO. If I am hearing all the raves correctly, 3200 ISO should still be quite nice on a 6D.

    Yes, I am doing this in stages. I do this part time.

    Thanks - Dave
  • If you have only run your 6D at ISO1600, that is why you aren't saying 'wow'. Go and do some test shots at ISO3200, 6400, 12800. You will be amazed. 6400 is usable for wedding shots when necessary. 12800 has been known for some professional shots though it is not always spot on.

    In terms of DoF, in order to get the same field of view with the same focal length, you move closer so you change your distance to subject which changes the DoF.
Sign In or Register to comment.