|
Cougar281 Registered: Aug 19, 2005 Total Posts: 51 Country: United States |
Ok, this has been driving me crazy for some time now, both with my 350D and now my 30D. Sometimes I can get nice, sharp pictures like the ones I posted in the "Wildlife" section, which where pretty good with a 70-300, and I've gotten some nice images with the rebel and a (rented) 100-400L, but more often than not, I get pictures like the one below (the only "good" lens I have is the 28-135 IS USM). In this image, I was using my center AF only, the kitten was stationary, as was I, flash fired with a shutter of 1/250. AF the bottom line of the AF box, if drawn further left and right, would go through the center of the kittens eyes (the box was almost exactly centered between the eyes). The problem, as you can see, is that the kittens nose/face/eyes are not in focus, but it appears as if the fur on the kitten's back is more in focus. To tell the truch, I don't think I've ever gotten a good image with the 28-135 (I was VERY dissapointed with at least 95% of my honeymoon pictures, all of which where taken with the 28-135, and regretably, only jpegs exist; From now on, especially with the "discovery" of LR, I'm shooting RAW only). Even landscapes where out of focus. I would think that once it gets out past 50', into the "infinite" range (of the 28-135), that the focus would be less sensitive than inside 50'. The thing that threw me for a loop with the Rebel, is a while back, I had my hands on another Rebel; I took two pictures of the same subject, at the same ISO, same sutter speed, same everything except the body, and the image from the other Rebel, while still not "razor sharp", was noticably better than the one from my Rebel. The lens has been to Canon twice; Once to CA and once to NJ. The first time they supposedly replaced the IS assembly (and introduced dust into the lens while it was there), and the second dime I think they said nothing was wrong. |
|
AGeoJO Registered: Jul 08, 2003 Total Posts: 9735 Country: United States |
Your lens seems to be backfocusing. The front paws of the kitten seem to be sharper hence in better focus than the target. I am not sure whether you focussed and recomposed or not but using a 28-135mm lens with a fairly small aperture, you should not have any issues with this technique like you would with a fast lens at a large aperture. The bottom line is, it looks like you have to have the AF of the lens calibrated by Canon |
|
Cableaddict Registered: Jun 10, 2008 Total Posts: 3704 Country: United States |
What AGeoJO said. |
|
Cougar281 Registered: Aug 19, 2005 Total Posts: 51 Country: United States |
I just shot a few with the 28-90 F/4-5.6 III kit lens I have (came with my old Rebel T2 which died), and they came out a little better, but not great. The right plane appears to be in focus, just not all that well when zoomed in. That lens may just not be all that high quality, though. I just printed an 8x10 and 5x7 of one of the pictures taken with the 28-90, and they look pretty good there (despite the fact that my Laserjet 4550 is NOT a photo printer |
|
AGeoJO Registered: Jul 08, 2003 Total Posts: 9735 Country: United States |
Cougar 281, |
|
Cougar281 Registered: Aug 19, 2005 Total Posts: 51 Country: United States |
I haven't gotten a chance to do the AF test on the 28-135 yet, but I picked up a 50mm f1.8 at a local shop yesterday, and WOW.. I got a few SHARP images (far shaper than any I've gotten from the 28-135). Main drawback I can find is at f1.8 or so, the focus plane is VERY shallow. I'll post back when I do the AF Test with the 28-135. |
|
orangefirefish Registered: Jul 31, 2008 Total Posts: 2175 Country: United States |
Cougar281 wrote: |
|
15Bit Registered: Jan 27, 2008 Total Posts: 1589 Country: Norway |
My 350D front-focused quite annoyingly when i got it. Took a while (and buying a 50mm F1.8) before i diagnosed the problem as not being either me or the autofocus just missing the target. Sent it back to canon and they tweaked it under warranty. The autofocus is still crap, but now when it hits, it hits. |
|
Cougar281 Registered: Aug 19, 2005 Total Posts: 51 Country: United States |
orangefirefish wrote: |
|
trumpet_guy Registered: Jun 23, 2006 Total Posts: 3111 Country: United States |
This could very well be a body calibration problem, but to be sure it would make |
|
orangefirefish Registered: Jul 31, 2008 Total Posts: 2175 Country: United States |
Is your subject moving? If you are shooting with wide apertures in one shot, and your subject shifts slightly forwards or backwards, then you could experience some issues. |
|
Cougar281 Registered: Aug 19, 2005 Total Posts: 51 Country: United States |
In the images I've posted, the subjects where stationary at the time; Here are two from my honeymoon (as another example), taken with the Rebel and the 28-135 @ 28mm, ISO100 1/200 f/9. One's not bad, although I wouldn't call it great, but the other is horrible. |
|
Cougar281 Registered: Aug 19, 2005 Total Posts: 51 Country: United States |
AGeoJO wrote: |