Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Lens comparisons
Oct 21, 2017 09:36:52   #
tarsen Loc: Minneapolis MN
 
I have taken pictures with two lenses I have. A Tamron 17 to 50 2.8 without image stabilization and a 18 to 50 Canon kit lens with stabilization. I have two pictures of the same fall leaf and find the image from the Canon to have more detail than the one from Tamron. There is a major difference in price in these lenses and I thought the Tamron would produce better results. Both images at AV 4.0.

Does the image stabilization produce the better results. Here are the images. I am not sure why the EXIF data is not with the image.

Tamron lens
Tamron lens...
(Download)

Canon lens
Canon lens...
(Download)

Reply
Oct 21, 2017 09:42:14   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
First it would be good to shoot them at the same focal length. I'm also not sure the aperture is the same. Neither appears blurred, so it has nothing to do with image stabilization. The only thing that I can say is that the Tamron seems to have more chromatic aberration, but until we have images that are more identical (including exposure) it is hard to say more.

Reply
Oct 21, 2017 10:06:56   #
lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania
 
kymarto wrote:
First it would be good to shoot them at the same focal length. I'm also not sure the aperture is the same. Neither appears blurred, so it has nothing to do with image stabilization. The only thing that I can say is that the Tamron seems to have more chromatic aberration, but until we have images that are more identical (including exposure) it is hard to say more.

The exif in the downloads show the Tammy shot was at 17mm 1/200s, the Canon at 21mm 1/160s; both at f/4 which I would think would be way too large an aperture to get good focus across the leaf. I think all that can be said based on these is that the Canon at 21mm produced a better image at close focusing distance than the Tamron did at 17mm.

Reply
 
 
Oct 21, 2017 11:22:03   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
A rather unscientific comparison as already noted by others. In "your hands" since a tripod was not used, yes, the IS-enabled lens clearly makes a difference. There's nothing in sharp focus in the top leaf .... If attempting a valid comparison, it also would have helped to create a valid comparison if you'd set your focus points on the exact same areas of the leaf ...


(Download)

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 06:07:04   #
cthahn
 
You can not compare something when they are shot at different exposures and size.

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 06:30:05   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
tarsen wrote:
I have taken pictures with two lenses I have. A Tamron 17 to 50 2.8 without image stabilization and a 18 to 50 Canon kit lens with stabilization. I have two pictures of the same fall leaf and find the image from the Canon to have more detail than the one from Tamron. There is a major difference in price in these lenses and I thought the Tamron would produce better results. Both images at AV 4.0.

Does the image stabilization produce the better results. Here are the images. I am not sure why the EXIF data is not with the image.
I have taken pictures with two lenses I have. A Ta... (show quote)


DIY comparisons are very difficult to do well. The pros use lots of equipment and exacting standards when comparing similar products. That's why I rely on multiple reviews and comparisons before buying anything.

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 08:00:51   #
EoS_User Loc: Oshawa, Ontario Canada
 
tarsen wrote:
I have taken pictures with two lenses I have. A Tamron 17 to 50 2.8 without image stabilization and a 18 to 50 Canon kit lens with stabilization. I have two pictures of the same fall leaf and find the image from the Canon to have more detail than the one from Tamron. There is a major difference in price in these lenses and I thought the Tamron would produce better results. Both images at AV 4.0.

Does the image stabilization produce the better results. Here are the images. I am not sure why the EXIF data is not with the image.
I have taken pictures with two lenses I have. A Ta... (show quote)


The EXIF data clearly shows that the exposures are different. This affects detail as well.

Data from Tamron Lens
Data from Tamron Lens...

Data from Canon Lens
Data from Canon Lens...
(Download)

Reply
 
 
Oct 22, 2017 08:37:34   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
You need to shoot both at the same exposure and most importantly at the same focal length. There is often a large difference in performance in a lens between its extreme wide setting and somewhere in the middle. For comparison shoot both at 18mm, or at 21mm, but not one at 17 and the other at 21.

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 10:17:11   #
tarsen Loc: Minneapolis MN
 
When I looked at both images I zoomed in almost as far as possible (using Preview) and I find the Canon lens to have much more detail than the Tamron. Is that a valid assessment of these pictures? Maybe I should re-shoot with all the same including the light.

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 11:56:03   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
tarsen wrote:
When I looked at both images I zoomed in almost as far as possible (using Preview) and I find the Canon lens to have much more detail than the Tamron. Is that a valid assessment of these pictures? Maybe I should re-shoot with all the same including the light.

Rather than how, let's ask what you're trying to do?

Reply
Oct 22, 2017 13:33:42   #
bcrawf
 
The difference is not in IS. You've probably metered the two exposures differently, since the two images do not include the same matter. In one image, for example, the leaf occupies a much greater proportion of the field, so, if you were not spot-reading it for exposure, the leaf may have played a greater part in determining exposure, making it appear lighter on the surround (with is higher in value).

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.