They Don't Make 'em Like They Used To

[freddy333]

I have been spending alot of time trying acclimate myself with my new Canon 400D & 55-250 lens. After shooting several hundred rounds of a variety of inside, outside, near, far, nature, people, insects, watches & just about everything in-between, I am getting a handle on the combo's abilities & limitations. While the Canon zoom lens is very good (a huge improvement over Canon's more expensive 75-300, which the 55-250 replaced), I feel it is lacking a bit of the clarity, focus & color saturation I was accustomed to with my old Contax SLR film camera with its Planar (Zeiss) 1,7/50mm lens. Of course, a good part of this dissatisfaction is due to my shooting everything with a zoom lens instead of a non-zoom (presently, a zoom is all I have available since my A80 is back at Canon for repair & my Lumix has been back-ordered until the end of next month (obviously, the Lumix is quite a popular camera)).

So, I borrowed a friend's Canon EF 50mm f1.4 lens, which comes pretty highly rated, & compared its output (mated to my 400D) to what I was getting with my 55-250 zoom. The results, in a word, was 'no contest' in favor of the challenger. The EF 50mm f1.4 outclassed & outperformed the zoom lens in just about every parameter, including, what, for me, is the most parameter of all - emotion. The EF 50mm f1.4 just produced better pics, which, in turn, produces more emotion. Simple as that.

Now, this is not really a complaint against the 55-250, after all it is a double-duty lens (wide angle & tele-photo) & I am sure the Canon macro lens (which still has not arrived) will improve things immeasurably. But, in the interim & being the natural tweak (modder) that I am, I decided to see if there was a way to improve on the 55-250 & get results closer to what I got with the EF 50mm f1.4.

As those of you who have been following my previous Where's the Beef? thread know, I have been playing around with my Contax's Planar lens. A handful of hand-held shots taken with the Contax's (Zeiss) Planar 1,7/50 lens held up in front of the Canon produced some very promising results

And Pug's recommendation of reversing the lens for macro use likewise produced some brilliant, if limited images

So I have been trying to figure out how to have my cake & eat it too. And I finally found a way to fix the Planar lens onto the 400D body in a safer, more permanent fashion so I can then concentrate on composing pictures instead of concentrating on holding the lens in front of the camera (without ramming the metal bits on the lens mount into the delicate innards of the 400D) & just snapping a bunch of quick pics in the hope that at least 1 of them caught the right image at the right place in the frame.

I am pretty amazed at how well the images through the Planar look

And here are a couple of pics of my chs GMTIIC, courtesy of the Planar

As I only just got everything together, it will take a bit of time to find the Planar's sweet spot with the 400D, but I am pretty enthused based on what I got so far.

[redwatch]

Wow Freddy! Fantastic results!

Also, with the cannon 50mm prime lens, you will always get some pretty sharp shots. I just ordered the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 DX lens for my D40 and I expect to get the same results (based on 100's of reviews and forums that I have been reading all week).

I love the Planar though! Did you manufacture a mount adapter, or does such an adapter exist?

[Pugwash]

Also, with the cannon 50mm prime lens, you will always get some pretty sharp shots. I just ordered the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 DX lens for my D40 and I expect to get the same results (based on 100's of reviews and forums that I have been reading all week).

The Canon f1.4 was the lens I really wanted after borrowing a friend's for the weekend. The f1.8 was the one I could afford.

[Pugwash]

As I only just got everything together, it will take a bit of time to find the Planar's sweet spot with the 400D, but I am pretty enthused based on what I got so far.

You can't beat good glass.

You know I like what you've been doing recently, so I won't repeat it here, but it's obvious you had hit the limits of your point and shoot and a DSLR was possibly the smartest move you could have made. As always, I eagerly await more.

[jeff g]

Me too.

[redwatch]

Me three! Keep up the great work Freddy! I've been really enjoying your compositions!

[Toadtorrent]

Keep up the good work. There is no substitute for good glass. The first time I submitted images to a magazine for publication, the editor wrote a very nice letter back (awesome considering the magazine!!!) saying he liked my images and composition and they were the type of images he would publish BUT, he could tell I was using a consumer grade lens and told me to start shooting with professional grade glass and resubmit images.

A few thousand dollars later invested in 2 lenses, and magazines started taking my work. Consumer zooms are too soft, low contrast, all the things you're noticing as bad.

Your eye and composition sense really need the DSLR to open up the creative world for you and bring your options to the next level.

[freddy333]

Thanks All.

Did you manufacture a mount adapter, or does such an adapter exist?

I used dial dots, but I found (& ordered) a few adapters & will use whichever works best.

You can't beat good glass.

You know I like what you've been doing recently, so I won't repeat it here, but it's obvious you had hit the limits of your point and shoot and a DSLR was possibly the smartest move you could have made. As always, I eagerly await more.

Thanks, Pug. Based on some of the brilliant pics I have seen that were taken with phone cameras, I am not sure that my old A80 p&s was limiting me. At least, not creatively. If anything, its automated functions & ease-of-use freed me to be more creative, allowing me to concentrate my efforts on composing rather than the mechanics of picture-taking. Kind of like how a modern car allows the driver to concentrate on driving instead of having to think about how to vary his fuel mixture when going uphill or how to modify the ignition's advance when accelerating or how to apply the front & rear brakes in a progressive manner to stop the car smoothly. A modern car, like a p&s camera, takes care of many of the incidentals so the 'driver' can concentrate on driving.

But, having said that, I have always been conscious of the fact that the resolution of my A80's pictures were borderline, its puny 1.5" (low resolution) LCD viewer a bit handicapping (although its movable screen was sometimes a big aid) & its limited 3x optical zoom was only just usable. So, for wristies or simple shots, I still think a p&s is the way to go. But, for more complicated compositions, I agree - an SLR is definitely the way to go.

Your eye and composition sense really need the DSLR to open up the creative world for you and bring your options to the next level.

Well, if nothing else, the quality of my pics is better with an SLR.

[ubiquitous]

...but it's obvious you had hit the limits of your point and shoot and a DSLR was possibly the smartest move you could have made.

I agree. There's only so much that a P&S can allow within it's limits. You open up a lot more flexibility with an SLR...

[Toadtorrent]

Well, if nothing else, the quality of my pics is better with an SLR.

It's going to be very hard for a consumer zoom to compete with good prime. Even the Nikkor E-series 50mm 1.8's will be better than a wide range consumer zoom in terms of picture quality. Creative control with the zoom will be there, but images will be soft, low contrast, slow lens, vignetting is an issue, etc...

I hear you though. I have great glass and experience using my SLR...but have been using my G9 for almost everything recently...and the G9 because of limitations on filters, poor low light performance, etc is not that great for shooting watches. Shooting outside is great however.

[redwatch]

...and the G9 because of limitations on filters, poor low light performance, etc is not that great for shooting watches. Shooting outside is great however.

Poor low light performance? I haven't had any issues with my G9 in low light. I do have to use a tripod though to keep it still for the longer shutter times. And as for filters, just get the lens adapter and you can get tons of filters for the G9.

ie:

[Toadtorrent]

Poor low light performance? I haven't had any issues with my G9 in low light. I do have to use a tripod though to keep it still for the longer shutter times. And as for filters, just get the lens adapter and you can get tons of filters for the G9.

Hi Red,

If I'm shooting with a tripod on manual in low light I get fewer problems, but it doesn't work for portrait work indoors. I'm comparing it to when I use a D200 which I've shot with many times which can achieve very usable results even at iso 3200. The G9 at >= ISO 200 is extremely noisy...pretty much any P&S for that matter.

Having to carry the lens adapter around with the extra bulk makes me want to go for the extra performance of a DSLR instead of the G9.

[redwatch]

That is definitely true. The extra bulk does make it a bit of a pain to carry around! I understand what you are referring to now. As for the D200, the higher ISO capabilities are fantastic. And the D3 it out of this world! ISO 6400 no problem!