An amazing little lens

[DanK]

Yes on both counts: EF-S lenses can't be mounted on FF cameras because of the position of the rear element, and some of them are very good. The EF-S 15-85 that you use was my walk-around when I had only a crop-sensor body. I still have my EF-S 60mm macro, which is a very sharp lens and a superb bargain.

While I agree that these are good lenses, and the images you posted are very good at this resolution, the images aren't much evidence about the quality of the lens unless they are substantial crops. Downsizing to 1600 pixels on the long dimension will hide any number of sins. It takes substantial crops or large displays, such as printing quite large, to make many differences among lenses apparent.

[Tronhard]

Hi Binnur:

Yep, it's a seagull. I have to admit an embarrassing moment.

When I looked at its beak I through it had swallowed a cherry or berry, then for a moment I thought ALL the gulls in the area had done the same? Quickly however my brain and common sense kicked in and I realized that it was the bird's tongue! I was probably distracted by my studies, and by the way I passed!

What a beautiful bird and image, a seagull? I would clone the tiny bit of hair on top of the head

[Tronhard]

Hi Dan:

Well, since you ask about the crops, here is the original one of the cicada, I am not sure if that qualifies as significant enough for your purposes...
The original shot (below) was taken with a Canon 60D and was hand-held. Dimensions: 5184x3456, 72 DPI, f9, 1/160, ISO 200, 85mm. The file size was 4.66MB
The cropped version came out as 2106 x 1186 (to approx. a proportion of 16x9), being approx 14% of the area of the original image.

I didn't do a lot with image in PP except crop, auto lighting, and some simple sharpening to overcome the AA filter.




I agree with what you say about output, and here we come back to my recurring theme of horses for courses... Like ANY process, the factor defining what is done and how it is accomplished must be the output. That defines many of my photographic decisions, like how I crop my images. Personally I don't produced hard copies, I produce images for digital display on large HD monitors that will be my picture frames. Someone else may want to produce anything from a thumbnail for social media or a wall mural, and they will make their decisions on (among many other things) the bodies and lenses they use.

Really, from the start my theme has been that for ME, the 15-85 EF-S is a great lens and has produced some very satisfying images for me. That lies outside composition and settings, I am just talking about optics here. I am confident I can produce inferior images on the most expensive equipment money can buy!

Yes on both counts: EF-S lenses can't be mounted on FF cameras because of the position of the rear element, and some of them are very good. The EF-S 15-85 that you use was my walk-around when I had only a crop-sensor body. I still have my EF-S 60mm macro, which is a very sharp lens and a superb bargain.

While I agree that these are good lenses, and the images you posted are very good at this resolution, the images aren't much evidence about the quality of the lens unless they are substantial crops. Downsizing to 1600 pixels on the long dimension will hide any number of sins. It takes substantial crops or large displays, such as printing quite large, to make many differences among lenses apparent.

[bnnrcn]

Are you kidding Trev , that doesn't look like a toung


By the way ,I didn't know you were studying. I'm glad that you passed. May I ask what you studied?

Hi Binnur:

Yep, it's a seagull. I have to admit an embarrassing moment.

When I looked at its beak I through it had swallowed a cherry or berry, then for a moment I thought ALL the gulls in the area had done the same? Quickly however my brain and common sense kicked in and I realized that it was the bird's tongue! I was probably distracted by my studies, and by the way I passed!

[Tronhard]

I am told that, from the photo, that IS in fact a tongue.

However, in the spirit of schientific accuracy I did some research and came up with this article, that seems to debunk both the cherry and tongue theories!
https://www.scienceworld.ca/why-do-s...ot-their-beaks

My step daughter tells me the whole thing is a sign of "Old Timers' Disease!"

Are you kidding Trev , that doesn't look like a toung


By the way ,I didn't know you were studying. I'm glad that you passed. May I ask what you studied?

[Cantab]

I am confident I can produce inferior images on the most expensive equipment money can buy!

Me too!

The kit lens with my 60D was the 18-200 EFS. It's turned out to be my most frequently used lens unless I set out with one of my more specialized purpose L lens.

For my purposes, I've been happy with the results of the 18-200 but you've got me thinking that I should compare the technical review results for the 18-200 and the 15-85.

[Tronhard]

Dan never replied to my response to his query about quality when cropped. What do YOU think of the lens resolution, considering the before and after crop images?

you've got me thinking that I should compare the technical review results for the 18-200 and the 15-85.

[RandyRFJP]

I am told that, from the photo, that IS in fact a tongue.

However, in the spirit of schentific accuracy I did some research and came up with this article, that seems to debunk both the cherry and tongue theories!
https://www.scienceworld.ca/why-do-s...ot-their-beaks

My step daughter tells me the whole thing is a sign of "Old Timers' Disease!"

Years ago, while taking an undergrad Animal Behavior course, I learned that the red spot is a target area on a adult gull's beak that young gullls "know" to peck at in order to get fed by the adult. I don't remember if the behavior is innate (i.e, present at birth) or learned (i.e., acquired through learning, including "trial and error"). Also, I don't think that the bottom mandible of the beak is translucent enough for the the tongue to "show through" it.

[DanK]

Dan never replied to my response to his query about quality when cropped. What do YOU think of the lens resolution, considering the before and after crop images?

Showing the original image makes the crop more informative. I had good experiences with my own 15-85. I do print A4+ / 13 x 19, so in general, I don't find on-screen images all that informative, but given how severely cropped yours was, it is telling.

[Cantab]

Dan never replied to my response to his query about quality when cropped. What do YOU think of the lens resolution, considering the before and after crop images?

I'd be happy with the resolution on the cropped version. But I need to do an optical/financial calculation to see if it might be worth hunting for pennies in my piggy bank to add the 15-85 to my arsenal.

[Tronhard]

Hi again Binnur:

I was studying for my final exam to become an ITIL Expert. ITIL is a framework for service management developed by the UK government but is now the de facto standard for managing IT services. There are only a few thousand ITIL Experts in the world, and to get to that level is about $20,000 worth of training. I passed that exam (my concentration was worth it) and then my company, which had funded my training, promptly made me (and about 35% of the staff) redundant! Still, as I have always maintained education is one of those things people can't take from you.

Are you kidding Trev , that doesn't look like a toung


By the way ,I didn't know you were studying. I'm glad that you passed. May I ask what you studied?

[Tronhard]

I think you might agree that there are definitely great EF-S lenses that can render sharp images, and some EF-S lenses get a bit of a bad rap.

Showing the original image makes the crop more informative. I had good experiences with my own 15-85. I do print A4+ / 13 x 19, so in general, I don't find on-screen images all that informative, but given how severely cropped yours was, it is telling.

[bnnrcn]

Sorry to hear what they did to you Trev, unfortunatelly business world is cruel

Hi again Binnur:

I was studying for my final exam to become an ITIL Expert. ITIL is a framework for service management developed by the UK government but is now the de facto standard for managing IT services. There are only a few thousand ITIL Experts in the world, and to get to that level is about $20,000 worth of training. I passed that exam (my concentration was worth it) and then my company, which had funded my training, promptly made me (and about 35% of the staff) redundant! Still, as I have always maintained education is one of those things people can't take from you.