Shooting Film Digitally

Shooting Film Digitally
© 2007-2013 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.

The indomitable Nikon F4, available used today for less than I paid for my last CF card.

This free website's biggest source of support is when you use those or any of these links when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live — but I receive nothing for my efforts if you buy elsewhere. I'm not NPR; I get no government hand-outs and run no pledge drives to support my research, so please always use any of these links for the best prices and service whenever you get anything. Thanks for helping me help you! Ken.

Note: This article talks about shooting color print film and converting it to digital in an hour at Costco.
For serious photography, I use Fuji Velvia 50 slide film, and have it processed and scanned to digital at NCPS, who also does mail order. NCPS also develops 120, 4x5" and larger slide (E-6) and traditional black-and-white film, while Costco only develops 35mm color print (C-41) film. NCPS costs a little more than Costco, but can give even better results. Remember, most of this article is about free, but if you're willing to shell out a few extra dollars, go for NCPS if you prefer.
Shooting Fuji Velvia 50 and having the scans made at NCPS gives the same results as shooting an $8,000 Nikon D3X with 24MP.

July 2013   Better Pictures   Nikon   Canon    Fuji    LEICA   All Reviews
How to Shoot Film

Adorama pays top dollar for your used gear. I use these stores. I can't vouch for ads below.

Now that people are unloading their old, unused gear on me, and that I'm buying it because it's so darn inexpensive, I've discovered that digital minilab technology has made shooting film much, much easier than it was when normal people stopped shooting it in 2003.

Today I can drop a roll of color print film at my local Price Club (called Costco outside of San Diego), and go to lunch. By the time I return, I have a gold archival CD loaded with high-resolution digital images and a set of great 5x7" prints for less than what they charge just to make those same prints from other digital files.
Here's the breakout: a 24 exposure roll of excellent Fuji 400 film sells, with a coupon, for a dollar a roll in six-packs. No coupon? Then it's a whopping $1.33.
The processing is $1.59, the prints are 15¢ each and the CD with the scans is $2.99, or a total of $8.18. Costco has a coupon for $1.50 running through most of September, so that means the complete cost for processing, printing and scanning is just $6.68. Add the cost of film and you're into it for only $7.68, or 32¢ a print, including film, processing, printing and scanning. I usually get 25 frames, which at only an extra 15¢ a print lowers the average cost to 31¢ a print. If I was a big spender and shot rolls of 36, it would be even less.
You walk away with your images archived three and a half ways: digital files, negatives, archival Fuji Crystal Archive prints, and an index print. The prints alone from digital files cost 39¢ for a 5x7," and usually run a dollar if you still use dedicated photo labs.
They do this for us while we shop or have lunch. Do you have any idea how long it would take me to do all that scanning and archiving myself?
The CDs are very nice. They are now imprinted with thumbnails of all the images.

CD with JPG files and imprinted thumbnails.

How Good Is It?
The CD is great. There are various bogus files on it, which for all I know include editing software. I ignore them. All I do is copy the JPGs from the QSS_CD > DCIM > 100NORIT folder to my computer. It's not like the old Kodak Photo CD which used bizarre file formats; these are universal high-quality JPGs.
The files are 4.5MB JPGs at 3,089 x 2,048 pixels. File size will vary with the detail of the image.
How good are the scans? I was amazed when I compared the scans from a $5 Olympus Trip-35 I got at a thrift store to files from my Canon 5D and L series lens. The $5 camera was sharper in the corners, and the images only cost me 58¢ a piece, including the camera! See my report on the Olympus Trip-35 to see the examples.

Ryan Rockwell, photographed with the Konica Hexar on Fuji 400.

It looks great to me. This is as shot and as scanned, no exposure or color tweaks. I shot the Hexar at around f/2.8, so the background is completely out of focus. Digital compacts can't do this. Here is the original 4.5MB JPG from Costco.

Film is grainier than files from a digital SLR, but about the same as files from a compact digital. These film scans are actually much cleaner than compact digital camera files, since they don't have the excessive noise reduction that smudges over textures in compact cameras. I like my Grain Surgery plug-in for cleaning up grainy film like this. I ran the plugin at 33% on the full size scan, and then cropped, resized and resharpened it above. The original 4.5MB JPG is untouched.

So far my results have been contrastier than I prefer, with somewhat redder skin tones. I'm unsure if this is the way my Costco is calibrated, or more likely, simply my choice of film. I do need to try some Reala. I love the saturation.

Beach Towels at Costco, as shot and as scanned by Costco. (Hexar, Fuji 400)

The colors in this towel shot are almost scary. This is exactly as it came off the CD. I love it!

Last Light. (Hexar, Fuji 400) 6.6MB original

Last light looks great. I see none of the awful hue-shifted highlights so easy to get on digital cameras. Want to see detail from the old Hexar and the cheap film and scans? Have a look at Costco's original 6.6MB scan. The image above is also exactly as it came from Costco, except for resizing.

These negative scans appear to have better highlight blow-out handling than digital cameras.

Inside-outside shot with harsh subject contrast.

I'm not making this up. Here's a shot I made with and without fill flash. This is as it came off the CD, no twiddling with levels or color. This shot, without fill, looks perfectly natural. The fill-flash shot, not shown here, looked forced. Heck, I doubt I could have gotten this on a digital camera, although I didn't think to try. Next time I will.

These scans employ excellent auto white balance and exposure correction. Shooting negatives and dropping them off is like shooting raw and having the lab do all the color, WB and exposure corrections for you for free. Today's minilabs do some very clever things to alter contrast and color, so depending on where you go, you may be able to get a look you can't get any other way.

So far I haven't been geeky enough to run any serious tests. I've just been having a ball annoying my wife shooting with the Konica Hexar, which she hates because it looks old to her.

Film Types

I have not tried this with better, slower film.

I've only used the ISO 400 Fuji film I got at Costco.

If I got serious about this, I'd try my favorite color negative film, Fuji ISO 100 Reala.

Filing Digital Files

I copy the files from the CD into my computer and archive them in the same folders as my traditional digital camera shots. It makes no difference to me. I ingest them and they are treated the same way. If anything, it's easier to pop in a CD than to plug in a camera.

If I had no computer, I'd use the index prints included to sort, and then print from the CD at Costco's Kiosks.

I have a ball every time I order prints at Costco. Their kiosks make it easy to get exact crops to fit the prints to the paper sizes. I don't have to use a computer to get perfect crops and rotations.

Your Local Costco

I get different results depending on the Costco I try. Some gave lower resolution CDs depending on the original print sizes I ordered. At some Costcos you may need to ask specifically for High-Rez scans.

If you're not happy with what you get, ask, and if they're not making you happy, try another Costco or another lab. Just like everything in analog and film, everything matters. I'd try Wal-Mart, too, if I was near one.

I found that the Costco down the street from Nikon USA's headquarters in Melville, Long Island, NY also offers print sizes I can't get at my store in California. They offer 12 x 24" and 12 x 36" panoramic prints for $3.99 and $4.99. All the stores offer 12 x 18" prints for $2.99, my favorite print size.

Slides

Sadly, Costco doesn't run E-6, so my Velvia goes to a real lab.

Costco will scan my slides for 29¢ a slide, with no charge for the CD.

Unfortunately, the colors were great, but the resolution was sloppy. The images were 3,000 x 2,000 pixels, but appeared to be nearest-neighbor (blocky) upsampled to that size. This is a great way to scan for the web, but not for the serious stuff for which we shoot slides.

So where's the free part?

This system of having Costco process my film and scan it costs less per print than the cost of the prints alone. That's less than free!

Want a top-level professional camera? I'd suggest a used Nikon F4, which you can get for less than I paid for my last CF card, just a couple of hundred dollars. If all you've ever used are mid-level digital cameras like the D200, the no-holds-barred professional F4 makes my D200 feel like a toy.

Want a lightweight take-along? Get a used Nikon N75, or any of the great film classics. I got my mom a used N55.

Today the used prices of all film cameras are so cheap that it doesn't cost much more to own a professional flagship Nikon like the F, F2, F3, F4 or even F5 than it does to buy one of the dinky N-series film cameras. Only the F6 still costs real money as of 2008.

I've been shooting this film in an old classic Konica Hexar which is here at The Ranch, full report coming.

This makes you money. You could follow everyone else with all this digital madness of blowing four figures on even the cheapest mid-line amateur digital camera every year and a half, or spend a few hundred dollars on a timeless film classic and be set for a decade. Guess what: when you tire of the camera, your film classic will probably be worth what you paid for it, while your digital will probably be worth less than the film classic.

Even Cheaper than Free Solutions

This is cheap enough for me, and I like to see what I shot at 5x7."

If I was even cheaper, I could have them printed at just 4x6," or probably ask for no prints at all.

I ask for 5x7" because I prefer them. Depending on your Costco, I've seen scanned files come out smaller when I ordered 4x6" prints instead of 5x7."

The Full-Frame Advantage

You can read my Full-Frame Advantage article, but the real advantages here are for convenience, cost, ability to use any old film camera, and ultra-wide angle lenses which are not available for DX cameras.

I'm going to be testing them against each other, but a $5,000 Nikon D3 or $2,500 Canon 5D should give a much cleaner, grain-free image than these film scans from Costco. Film isn't as clean as digital; digital sensors of the same size are more efficient with photons.

Recommendations

Try it. If you like it, I just saved you $5,000 for a Nikon D3, and a lot more from day-to-day as you print.

You do have to buy into being a Costco member for an annual tab. My wife is a member, so I married her so I could get in for free.

Not that this is the best solution for a serious pro, but it is a great solution for normal people who want to capture digital files easily and quickly. It's also a great idea for people who need handy digital files and want a film camera's flexibility and speed, but don't feel like throwing away a grand or more every year or so just to stay current.

There are other advantages, like never missing a new shot while looking at an old one on the back of the camera. No vacation nights wasted piddling on a laptop to download and organize everything. No wasting time with amateur DSLRs like the D300 and being able to step up to a battle-hardened F4 or F5 with their scaldingly fast autofocus and shutter release.

Want to hit the jungle for a year? If I was out where there was no electricity to recharge my digital camera batteries, the Konica Hexar (review coming) claims to shoot 200 24-exposure rolls on a single tiny, lightweight $2 CR2 throw-away lithium battery. I could jam my pockets full of film and a couple of batteries and hit the road for a long time without having to come up for air. The landmark Nikon F3 (or its little brother the FE or FE2) runs for a year or more on two tiny A76 watch batteries, which I buy over the Internet for 80¢ the pair. If I was in the woods, I'd drop a spare set in my wallet.

These examples are from just a few trial rolls of film I blew through a Konica Hexar I'm testing. Picking the good ones to show here, even I'm impressed.

I prefer Fuji Velvia for my landscape work, but for snapshots or budget digital, give this system a try.

I use Costco. Every other lab today offers similar services, although they may not be as good or as inexpensive. I've always been embarrassed when I paid extra for pro labs to process my negatives, and my pals got better results at Costco. It's inexpensive, and good.

Services for Pros

For slides, and definitely not inexpensive, I've heard from a friend who uses them that The Icon lab in Los Angeles will take your film and do everything.

If you're in LA, they'll send a courier to get your film, process it, scan it and put the images for you to see via the internet. You then tell them what to do with what: trash them, archive them, print them, drum scan them, or whatever. They even will take care of my least favorite aspect, storing it. They'll store it and index your film in their vaults for you.

Icon is a premium service not for everyone, but the great news is that even if you're out of LA and mail them your film, you can get the quality of film with the convenience of digital, so long as you're willing to pay for it.

The funny thing was that my friend who uses them explained it all this simply, but when I phoned them to confirm that I was putting up the correct link, they didn't quite see it that clearly. You'll haveto set up accounts and ask a bunch of questions to get it set up this smoothly.

Sunny México

You're even better off in México. A reader from Monterrey writes that the Costco there does this for 29.90MXN (~2.70USD) including development and cost of CD burning, also all done on Noritsu.

Down there one can buy a 4 pack of Fuji ProPlus 100 for 64MXN, and develop and get a CD with scans for 29.90MXN. The total cost per frame is then 1.28MXN which is 11¢ US. If you want 4x6 prints, you could add those for 1MXN per frame.
I wonder if I can do it online from the USA?

Help me help you         top
I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem.
The biggest help is when you use any of these links when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live. It costs you nothing, and is this site's, and thus my family's, biggest source of support. These places have the best prices and service, which is why I've used them since before this website existed. I recommend them all personally.
If you find this page as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a workshop you may have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.
If you've gotten your gear through one of my links or helped otherwise, you're family. It's great people like you who allow me to keep adding to this site full-time. Thanks!
If you haven't helped yet, please do, and consider helping me with a gift of $5.00.
As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!

Thanks for reading!

Mr. & Mrs. Ken Rockwell, Ryan and Katie.

Small Town USA

These photos are the result of my Nikon N-60 camera. 

The post immediately following this one contains more detailed equipment information, and a floral collection of pictures.  Enjoy.

by: Darryl T  

Nikon N-60 Camera & Sigma 210mm Lens

The pictures below were all taken with my newly acquired Nikon N-60 film camera and a Sigma 70mm - 210mm auto focus zoom lens.  Both were obtained from Ebay.  The film used was Fuji brand (available at Walmart for only $10 for a box of 4 rolls) 35mm, 200 speed film.  Feel free to download them as computer wallpaper or a floral screen saver/slide show.

  This is what the Nikon camera body looks like...

and this is the lens.

This particular lens can also be used with some newer versions of Nikon digital cameras. 

Detailed item info

Product Identifiers
Brand	Nikon
Model	N60 Body Only
MPN	N60
UPC	018208017126, 018208098224
Key Features
Camera Type	SLR (Single Lens Reflex)
Film Type	35mm
Lens Mount	Nikon F
Focus
Focus Type	Autofocus, Manual Focus
Shutter
Shutter Speed	30 to 1/2000 sec
Dimensions
Depth	2.7 in.
Height	3.8 in.
Width	5.8 in.
Weight	20.32 Oz
Miscellaneous
Additional Features	Focus Lock

This camera and lens combination are fun to work with.  Until next time, happy shutter bugging.

by: Darryl T

Revisiting Film Photography

Article By Joy Celine Asto - www.lomography.com

Film as a photographic medium needs no introduction, but instead, a re-introduction in this time and age of modern photographic gadgetry. Forget about pixels, automatic exposure, and the so-called digital darkroom, and go back to the days of film rolls, trips to the laboratory, and actual photographic prints.

Before there were high-tech image sensors, Photoshop, and EXIF data, there were photosensitive plates, and eventually, photographic film. Back then, snapping photos meant taking consideration a lot of things: which camera to use, lenses to equip, film format, black and white film or color film, and so on. Not to forget the technical aspects as well, like setting and checking the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed before taking the first shot.

Some of these considerations have certainly been retained and made easier to calibrate in digital photography, leading to the shift from analogue to digital and the belief that film is dead. But, is it, really?

Photo by Joy Celine Asto. Nikon FE2 + Expired Fuji Superia 400.

A quick Google search of "film photography" will bring you several websites offering information, tips, and tricks for those still interested in the now specialized form of photography. Look for photographs taken using all sorts of film in various formats and you'll be amazed to find so many eye-catching ones. Online shops such as eBay are also stocked with vintage cameras and films (both fresh and expired), suggesting that there are still photographers buying, selling, trading, and using film cameras. Oh, and don't forget the numerous camera phone applications and image editing effects that mimic the hues and feel of film.

Then, there’s the long-running film photography movement called Lomography, where the quirks of film—overexposure, oversaturation, overlapping images, color shifts, grain, blur, and such--that many find unpleasant are often embraced to make photos more striking. Instead of high-tech cameras that produce near-perfect pictures, lomographers often use simple plastic cameras and vintage cameras; and instead of digitally editing the photos to sport a retro look or a vibrant hue, they use various films to achieve their desired effects.

What makes film appealing in an era where editing an image to perfection is almost paramount? Part of its charm is the element of nostalgia—there's something rewarding about going back to the days of loading and shooting a roll of film, taking it to the lab, and waiting for it to be processed and printed. Speaking of prints, many film photographers also opt to have their snapshots printed, because for them, one can only truly appreciate a photograph when comes in a tangible form.

Many also still value the timeless quality unique to film photographs; anyone who's been shooting with film will tell you that the photos have more depth and "personality" compared to the digitally snapped (and altered) ones.

So, where do all these lead us? It's safe to conclude that if you go to the right places, stumble upon the right websites, and meet the right people, you'll definitely see that film, while certainly facing a challenging time, is not yet dead. 

Article By Joy Celine Asto. Visit www.lomography.com for more information.

Is Film Truly Superior to Digital Photography?

By Rachael Towne on 28 Aug 2012

Since the dawn of widely available commercial cameras in 1999, long heated discussion has arisen over whether or not digital image quality is equal to what is produced by film.  So, is film truly superior to film?  The answer is yes… and no.

Film by lisbokt, on Flickr

Ways in Which Film is Superior to Digital
• Film is ultimately higher in resolution than digital. So, for making very large prints, film currently can’t be beat. This is especially true for photos which have a lot of texture that needs to be preserved, such as landscapes.
• Film produces a “first-generation” image in that it is a direct representation of the light that entered the camera, unlike digital.
• These days, even very high-end film cameras are usually less expensive or the same cost as a new mid-range DSLR, and will not become obsolete in only a few years time.
• The dynamic range of film, which is its ability to retain details in highlights and shadows, is greater. Also, it is much more forgiving of overexposure and will not blow out the highlights nearly as much as digital will.
• Film is more forgiving of subtle focusing issues.
• You can double-expose film, which is something that the majority of digital cameras simply can’t do.
• Film cameras don’t require nearly as much power to operate, so battery life is much longer than a digital camera.
• Shutter lag is very slightly less than in digital cameras. This used to be a bigger issue than it is now.
• While this is purely subjective, some photographers believe that film is a more “authentic” form of photography. However, the same line of thinking was prominent in the very early days of photography when painters complained that photography was lacking in creativity.
Ways in Which Film is Inferior to Digital
• Film simply takes much more work to create an image.
• Prints from negatives are completely the result of the skills and tastes of the person making the print. Unless you have the facilities to make the prints yourself, you will almost always end up with a result that you didn’t intend. This can basically ruin your image and render it useless to you. The exception to this is slide (transparency) film which is what most professional photographers once used.
• Storing negatives and prints, which all need to be laboriously hand-labeled, can end up taking up lots of space for the avid photographer.
• While it is possible to scan film into your computer and edit your images in software like Photoshop, there will always be some loss of image quality. This is true even if the most expensive professional scanner is used.
• While the initial cost of a film camera is indeed lower, the ongoing cost of buying and processing film will quickly add up to a very large expense.
• No instant gratification. You must wait until the film is developed to see your photos.
Now that we have gone over the various assets and deficiencies inherent in film photography, let’s do the same thing with digital.

Kodak slide 1 by M0les, on Flickr

Ways in Which Digital is Superior to Film
• Digital photography, for most applications, is much more convenient. You can shoot hundreds, or even thousands, of images and make prints that are a few feet on a side. Also, In this day and age with so much of our work being shared electronically via email and online galleries, digital cameras are ideal.
• The instant gratification of seeing your photos immediately after taking them is very fun for most photographers. Combining this aspect of digital photography with the ability to take as many shots as desired, since each shot costs nothing, can greatly speed up the learning curve for budding photographers.
• Digital cameras are usually lighter and a single memory card can store more photos than many rolls of film.
• It is easy to import your photographs into image editing software such as Photoshop, and there will be no loss of image quality from using a scanner. This also makes it easy to only print the photos you want from a batch, rather than having to print and entire roll of film horrid shots and all.
• EXIF data is recorded for each and every shot by the camera eliminating the need to record it by hand.
• Digital cameras are capable of higher speeds than film, so they perform better in low-light situations. Also, it is very easy to change speed on a digital camera whereas a film camera requires a completely new roll of film.

Nikon Buttons by foreverdigital, on Flickr

Ways in Which Digital is Inferior to Film
• Digital cameras do a horrid job of handling highlights sometimes and can cause an abrupt, rather than gradual, switch to white.
• While easy for film, long exposures are a real problem for digital. Digital image sensors have tiny bits of leakage which can add random white dots to your long-exposure photos. Also, long digital exposures can cause a noisier image than film. This can be countered to some extent by operating the camera at low temperatures, but this is not a shooting condition that can be controlled.
• You can lose years of photographic work from a computer crash if you haven’t backed up your files. While film photographers have lost their entire body of work in the rare house fire, this is much rarer than a hard-drive crash. Most people eventually experience a computer crash.
• Digital cameras are generally more expensive than film cameras.
• Most DSLRs save images in a RAW format. Since each camera manufacturer and model has its own RAW formats, storing your photos in this form is probably not a good idea since they will possibly not be readable someday. The JPEG file format is universal however and will likely be readable for years to come.
In conclusion, neither film nor digital is ultimately “better.” Each photographer must choose which photographic format that works for their application, budget and personal preferences. It is indeed ultimately the photographer and not the medium which defines what is quality. While the use of film has significantly declined due to the explosion of digital photography, it is certainly still has its uses and isn’t going away anytime soon.

Ehsan the Shooter! by Hamed Saber, on Flickr

Rachael Towne is a photographer and the creator of Photoluminary.

Improving Your Photos Skills

If you've been visiting this blog regularly lately, you're aware that I've been absent for the past 5 days.  My computer gave up the ghost, so I've had to replace it.  And, my oldest daughter gave birth to my grand daughter, "Emmelou Rose Fox", this past friday.  So, for a few days blogging took a back seat to the rest of  life.  With that explanation, here's today post.

The following tutorial on how shooting film can help you improve your digital photography was submitted by James Kerr of Sweet As Photography. An avid digital shooter he has recently been experimenting with film photography to help improve his results.

Olympus XA2 - The 35mm Zone Focus Camera I Use

Taking time out of your digital photography to shoot a couple of rolls of film can be a liberating and educational experience. Below are a few ways that digging out that old film camera from the attic can help you to improve the quality of the digital photographs you take as well as some of the benefits shooting film can bring to your photography.

Think Twice Shoot Once

Every few months digital memory cards get both bigger in capacity and cheaper in price. When shooting digitally we rarely have to worry about running out of memory. As a result it is easy to slip into the habit of taking (and keeping) many poor or below standard shots. In effect we can become lazy and fall into the mind set that if you take enough shots you’ll eventually get a good one.
When shooting with a film camera however you are restricted by the amount of frames in your film (typically 24 or 36 exposures). In addition you’ll want to avoid taking more than one shot of a particular composition due to the processing costs associated with film photography. As a result you will immediately start thinking much more before pressing the shutter release button.

Results From A Recent Roll of Film

Get Back To Basics To Tune Your Photography Mind

Of course you may decide to shoot a few rolls with an old SLR camera however it is best to use an auto exposure 35mm compact camera. Such cameras usually only require the user to select maybe one of three focus zones (according to how far your subject is from the camera) and maybe the ISO.
Using a simple automatic film camera removes the need for you to make decisions before every shot about things such as white balance, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation etc. By being freed from such technical decisions you can focus all of your attention on two things: selecting a truly interesting subject and ensuring the composition is the most compelling.

Learn From Your Mistakes

By taking just one frame of each scene you photograph, when you get the prints back you will of course end up with some poor shots among the good ones. When sorting through vast quantities of digital images it is easy to forget to think about what went wrong with each of the rejected images as you continue to hunt for a better one of the same subject. Only having one frame for each composition forces you to think longer and harder about why the shot didn’t work or what you could have done better to improve the photograph.

Save Yourself Some Space

Shooting digitally you can quickly start amassing thousands of poor quality or reject photographs, that will never be hung up on your wall and will probably never escape from the depths of your computers hard drive. As a result of shooting film you’ll be taking fewer shots (hopefully of a much higher standard) meaning you should have less need for huge amounts of hard disk space.

Save Time With Post Production

As discussed above shooting with film should help you increase your ‘keep rate’, ensuring more of your images are perfect straight out of the camera. Perhaps the key benefit of this is that you will have to spend less time improving your digital photographs during post production.

Enjoy The Printed Images

When shooting film it is easy to forget all of the photographs you took on a film. Unlike digital cameras you can not immediately review your shots on the back of the camera. There is nothing quite like the excitement of picking up your film from the developing lab and having that first look through the prints. It is also nice to have physical prints of your photographs, something we as digital photographers rarely do.

Read more: http://digital-photography-school.com/how-shooting-film-can-improve-your-digital-photography#ixzz2b3rHwWWm

Photo Lens Comparison

By: Darwin Wiggett

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 vs Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

On full frame cameras the 24-70mm f2.8 lens is the go-to lens for travel, sports, wedding, street, and landscape photography. On cropped sensor cameras the equivalent focal length to a 24-70mm is roughly 17-50mm. This latter focal length gives you wide, normal and telephoto lens perspectives in a relatively small package that fits on cropped sensor cameras. If you are looking for a fast all-purpose lens for your Canon camera whether a Rebel, 20D, 30D 40D, 50D, 60D or the 7D, then you have four choices:

Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

• Image Stabilized
• Ultrasonic lens (no focus noise)
• UD glass
• internal focus
• close focus 0.35m
• filter size 77mm
• weight 645g
• cost $1200 CAN

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM OS

• optical stabilized
• hypersonic motor motor (HSM) – no focus noise
• internal focus
• two low dispersion FLD glass elements
• close-focus 0.28m
• filter size 77mm
• weight 565g
• cost $775 CAN

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC

• vibration compensation
• LD (low dispersion) glass
• internal focus
• close-focus 0.29m
• filter size 72mm
• weight 570g
• cost $579 CAN for the VC version and $450 CAN for the non VC version

There is also the Tokina 16-50mm AT-X 165 Pro Dx but I did not have an opportunity to test this lens.
A Bit of History

When I picked up my first cropped sensor Canon camera (a Rebel Xsi) I wanted a light, fast lens for hiking and backpacking. I tested out the Tamron 17-50mm lens (the f2.8 XR di II LD versionwithout the vibration compensation feature). I found it to be surprisingly sharp and I picked up a new one for a sale price of $350 CAN! It was perfect for landscape photography especially for me because I almost always use live view and manual focus on the Rebel to make landscape images. I owned the lens for a year or so and took many landscape photos with it in all sorts of conditions. It was a super performer for the price! But… be aware that the Tamron  lens is really lacking as an auto-focus lens. It was painfully slow to focus and was noisy when focusing. I tried using it with dogs and sports and it was not really suited for action photography.

©Darwin Wiggett - Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens

©Darwin Wiggett - Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens

And Then…

Sigma sent me their 17-50mm f2.8 lens to try it. I was incredibly happy with the Tamron in terms of sharpness and so my first tests were to see if my budget priced Tamron was as sharp as the more expensive Sigma lens. I did the standard tests in the studio using a lens chart to check sharpness at all apertures and at various focal lengths. And then I took the lenses out in the field and photographed the typical kinds of subjects that I shoot to see how the lenses performed in terms of contrast (snap) and colour rendition and also things like flare control and distortion. Rather than bombard you the reader with tons of detailed comparison shots the conclusion of all these tests was the same. Both lenses performed the same optically but with the nod going to the Tamron in the 17-35mm range at f2.8 (better edge sharpness).

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 17-50mm lens at f14

But… the Tamron was terrible auto-focus performer! I’ve found that using live view at 5x magnification and manually focusing lenses gives me much sharper images than using auto-focus even in bright contrasty light. This result is consistent across cameras I have tried from the Canon 1ds Mark III, Canon Rebel Xsi and Rebel T2i, Canon 60D, Canon 7D and the Nikon D300s. On workshops and tours I often illustrate this to participants using their own cameras. To try it yourself, simply set your camera to aperture priority and use the smallest number on your aperture dial like f2.8. Use the center focus point on your camera and let the camera focus on a contrasty part of the subject. Now go into live view and magnify the area (e.g. 5x) where the camera auto-focused.  Switch your lens to manual focus and adjust the focus to see if you can get the image sharper than the auto-focus. Often you can easily improve on the sharpness. Check out the scene below. I had the Canon Rebel Xsi mounted on a tripod and the auto-focus was set to ‘one shot’ with the center focus point selected. I had the aperture set to f2.8 and let the camera auto-focus. Then I rephotographed the same scene using manual focus in live view.

The auto-focus test scene

Below are the results of the test using the Sigma 17-50mm lens at f2.8. The image is magnified to 100% view. The top photo is auto-focus, the bottom is manual focus in live view.

Sigma 17-50 at f2.8: top=auto-focus, bottom=manual focus in live view

The auto-focus on the Sigma/Rebel combo locked in really well. The manual focus is a tad sharper but not by much. Below are the results of the Tamron lens on the Rebel Xsi:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8: top=auto-focus, bottom=manual focus in live view

What can you say? The auto-focus on the Tamron lens is terrible! It is slow, it searches, it hunts, it creeps, it’s noisy. I have tested and tried several Tamron lenses (from their 70-200 f2.8 to their 10-24mm lens) and the problem is the same. If, like me, you mostly use manual focus and a tripod, then the Tamron is easily the best buy of the group (especially the non VC version of the lens) and optical performance is really fine. But if you want a sports, travel, portrait lens where you can rely on auto-focus, then I would pass on the Tamron. Also note I did not test the vibration compensation (VC version) of this lens, other reports on the web suggest that sharpness of the VC version is lower than the non VC version. Test before buying!

And so, after testing the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 against the Tamron lens, I decided to sell the Tamron and keep the Sigma. The Sigma was just as good optically (except at f2.8 where edge sharpness was lower) but it had fast and accurate auto-focus and it had optical stabilization for hand-held shots.

And So What About the Canon 17-55mm f2.8?

This is Canon’s flagship lens for cropped sensor cameras and numerous reports state that this lens is super sharp and an all around great performer but it comes at a high price ($1200 CAN). Is the overall quality and performance of the Canon worth the extra cost (more than $400) over the Sigma?

I took the two lenses out over a weekend and ran them through a few tests such as:

1. Optical performance (sharpness, vignetting, flare etc.)
2. Auto-focus tests
3. Image stabilization tests
4. Close-focus capabilities

Here is what I found:
Optical Performance

I compared the sharpness of both the Sigma and the Canon lenses using manual focus in Live View. When precisely focused I really could not give the nod to one lens over the other when it came to center sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures. But at f2.8 in the focal range of 17 to 35mm the Canon had significantly better edge sharpness than the Sigma.

Edge sharpness at 17mm at f2.8 (Sigma top, Canon bottom)

It’s easy to see here that the Canon lens is really good wide open even at the edges. The Sigma lens does not match the edge performance of the Canon until stopped down to f8! After f8 the two lenses perform equally well.

Another weakness of the Sigma Lens are fringing artifacts at the edges of the frame when the lens is shot from 17- 35mm in high contrast light. The Canon also suffers these effects but to a lesser extent.

Edge fringing at f2.8 at 17mm - Canon top, Sigma bottom

The fringing on both lenses is more controlled and equal once the lenses are zoomed out to 35mm or higher.
The Canon lens appears to be optimized for best performance in the aperture range from f2.8 to f8. Images at f11 are decent but less sharp overall and images at f16 or higher are terrible!

Canon 17-55 at f5.6 (top) and f22 (bottom)

I found that although center sharpness on the Sigma is as good as the Canon at f2.8 and f4 that overall image sharpness from edge to edge is best with the Sigma in the f5.6 to f11 range with good performance up to f16. The Sigma is better than the Canon in the f11 to f16 range and therefore is a better choice for landscape work requiring large depth-of-field.

Sigma lens at f16 top photo, Canon lens at f16 bottom photo

The Sigma lens also records images with more contrast and ‘pop’ and with a more accurate colour cast than the Canon lens which tends to record scenes flat and washed out and cool in colour tone.

Sigma lens top photo, Canon lens bottom photo

Sigma lens top photo, Canon lens bottom photo

In numerous tests I found this same difference in contrast and colour between the two lenses. All comparisons were shot at the same exposures, white balance etc. The Sigma lens simply had a more pleasing rendition of scenes for my tastes.

As far as flare is concerned it depends. Sometimes the Sigma gave more flare (e.g. at 17mm) sometimes the Canon was more prone to flare (e.g. at 28mm).

Auto Focus Tests

I tested both the Sigma and the Canon lens for accuracy of auto-focus vs manual focus in live view and both lenses returned similar results. Live view gave slightly better results for both lenses. Only in dim light did the auto-focus capabilities start to falter.

With action sequences of people running, cars on the highway and moving dogs, I saw absolutely no difference in the ability of the Sigma and Canon lenses to track focus. As well, with static subjects both lens were zippy and fast to auto-focus and for me they seemed matched in their abilities.

Image Stabilization Tests

Handheld images using auto-focus and image stabilization (Canon) and optical stabilization (Sigma) returned fairly similar results but I got a slightly higher percentage of sharp shots in the 1/15th to 1/30s range with the Canon lens. So nods in this department to Canon.

Close-focus Capabilities

The clear winner in this category is the Sigma lens. Not only does it focus closer (see images below) but when photographing close subjects (e.g. head and shoulders or closer, the Sigma is significantly sharper at all apertures than the Canon lens. The Canon does not seem to like close subjects and optical performance really suffers. This is not a good lens to use for close-up work!

sigma at closest focus at 50mm

Canon closest focus at 55mm

Sigma close detail sharpness at f8

Canon close detail sharpness at f8

Conclusion

Which lens you choose all depends on your budget and on your needs. If want the best overall optical performance for your dollar then the  Tamron SP AF17-50 f2.8 Xr Di II is a fantastic buy! Although I did not this test the lens directly against the Canon lens, I think it is just as sharp at all apertures but it costs almost 1/3rd the price of the Canon lens! But the Tamron is not a lens to buy if you rely on auto-focus. This is a good landscape lens when used on a tripod and focused manually in live view. But do not try action photos with this lens or you’ll be disappointed.

If you want a lens with good all around performance at the a reasonable price, then the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens might be the lens for you. The Sigma is as good as the Canon lens in terms of auto-focus, it’s a sharp as the Canon lens when stopped down to at least f5.6 and it is a much, much better lens for close-up subjects. As well the contrast on the Sigma lens is snappy and the colour rendition is accurate. The Sigma is a better landscape lens than the Canon because it has better performance in the f11-f16 range which are apertures often needed for depth-of-field. Also the lens is the lightest of the bunch. I would recommend this lens for nature and generic photography.

If you want to photograph people, sports, or action or hand-held street photography where  wide apertures like f2.8 or f4 are regularly used then the Canon 17-55 f2.8 lens lens is the best choice. It’s sharp edge-to-edge when wide open (with little fringing), has great image stabilization and zippy auto-focus. The drawbacks are its heavier weight, poor close-focus performance, flat contrast and cool colour rendition and large price tag.

In short, none of these lenses are perfect but some work better for some purposes than others. As always try before you buy but hopefully this review will help narrow your choices.

©Darwin Wiggett - Sigma 17-50mm lens at f11

Photo Collage

More, Film vs Digital

Film Photography Resources

There is a glaring omission in digital photography that hasn't been overcome yet. For the most part, every digital camera is the same as every other in its class/price-range. With very few exceptions, within the budget of the average consumer there are three choices: point and shoot cameras, "prosumer" cameras, and SLR cameras, and that's all. Do you want a swing-lens panoramic camera? Good luck. Do you want a square format camera? Keep dreaming. Like many things in life, for most people photography is more than just the end result. The enjoyment of the process itself is a crucial element. Do you miss viewing a square frame through a TLR's waist level finder, or the distinct look of a swing lens panoramic image, or the slow shutter low light abilities of a 35/1.4 on a rangefinder body? Someday the research, development, and production costs for digital cameras will drop to a point where products can be created for such niche markets. But for now, you are out of luck. This, in and of itself, is enough reason for many photographers to stay interested in film cameras and photography. Via the Film Photography forum on photo.net, as well as the various film photography articles and Filmtown Column, we are keeping the spirit of film photography alive.

This article courtesy of: Photo.net