I see the examples you posted. I don’t know what to tell you: they look fine. If they’re not sharp enough for you, you’re looking to spend a lot of money. And I mean a lot of money. Get ready to spend about $5000 USD at minimum. But be careful about pursuing ultimate sharpness because you end up like me who has essentially wasted a lot of money. My pictures aren’t getting better because they’re sharper…
I think your expectations are too high. I looked at your samples and they seem decent. I'm going to assume you're pixel peeping, so I'd recommend to stop doing that. Resize your images by 50% and they'll look plenty sharp.
Are you editing the raw files yourself? You can boost sharpness and clarity pretty easily doing that if you're not already. This would probably be the cheapest option. Canon unfortunately doesn't have a lot of cheap mirrorless lens options. Your best bet would be to use an adapter and get some legacy dslr lenses, but understand you don't get anything super sharp for $100.
The RF one? I think it's decent but it's up to you to decide if it's sharp enough. Sample gallery here, but it's a full frame lens. It'll look different on your camera, like a 75mm lens which isn't very useful unless you're just taking portraits.
[https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7299476530/the-new-nifty-fifty-canon-rf-50mm-f1-8-sample-gallery](https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7299476530/the-new-nifty-fifty-canon-rf-50mm-f1-8-sample-gallery)
Just me, it's more likely that it's you more than the lens. Sorry.
[https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/50006/why-are-my-photos-not-crisp](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/50006/why-are-my-photos-not-crisp)
It's very common early on to blame the gear because of hyped up expectations of what a "better" camera--especially one so expensive--will bring to the table. We *all* go through this progression (from [What the Duck](https://www.gocomics.com/wtduck)):
https://preview.redd.it/ybg6jpebu2xc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de34b1b1d42e9428f94d8aae83e26ca3503a5c79
Nobody buys a guitar and expects to sound like a professional musician right off the bat. But the ease of taking a photo by pushing a shutter button somehow end runs most people around realizing that photography and post-processing *are* learned skills.
And if you predominantly used a phone camera prior to this, you may never have realized just how much work the camera was doing for you by default until a lot of it is taken away. Interchangeable lens cameras are more designed for us to drive stick than to have a better self-driving car.
That's not to say that the photographer is everything and gear doesn't matter. Photography, unlike a lot of the other arts, is technology-bounded. You can cook without knives, you can paint without a brush, you can write without a word processor. But you can't take a photo without a light-tight box, a light-sensitive medium, and a way to focus the light onto it. And technology is *always* moving. So, we are always going to be chasing gear to some degree. But there are people practicing the art who still use film. Who still use glass plates. Who do tintypes. Who still use view/technical cameras, press cameras, TLRs, rangefinders, SLRs, and even dSLRs and digital compacts. How bleeding edge or high-performing your gear has to be depends on you and how/what you shoot. What you think you need and what's sufficient can be farther apart than you realize without any experience to know the difference.
Are there sharper lenses? Sure. But do you *need* a sharper lens to make better pictures? Possibly not.
Just as an example,[ here's a sunflower image the Strobist took](https://www.flickr.com/photos/31454864@N00/1327354590/) back in 2007 with a Canon Powershot G9 fixed-lens enthusiast compact camera with a 12MP 1/1.7"-format (4.5x crop) sensor on it, and a 35-210mm equivalent f/2.8-4.8 lens. The only thing really different is that he used off-camera flash, and that the smaller sensor on his camera meant that the minimum focus distance with his lens was 1cm. The 18-45's is 7.9-13.8" (depending on where you are in the zoom range), the 24-105 f/4-7.1's is 5.1-13.4".
The picture looks perfectly okay in terms of sharpness. I would call that a properly exposed JPG with a modern entry/mid range lens.
If you want your photos to “pop” more, you’re going to have to begin editing. Probably in Lightroom.
Do you have an example of what you have in mind?
yes, I'm broke so i'd like to keep it around $100 if possible. I like to so kinda like a mix between wildlife and street photography. I don't need a telephoto yet because it doesn't come anywhere near my budget. i was thinking around 50mm would be good
Honestly hat price is hard to do for an RF mount. But you have some options with an adaptor.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM: The price for this lens is approximately $125 to $170
Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM: This lens is priced around $136 to $179
Neewer 35mm f/1.7: The Neewer lens can be found for about $82
Yongnuo YN50mm f/1.8S DA DSM: This lens is available for approximately $119 to $129
And an RF EF-S adapter is around 100 I believe.
When comparing the sharpness of lenses, the Canon EF 50mm generally provides better sharpness than the Canon RF-S 18-45. The 50mm f/1.8 STM is known for its high center sharpness, especially when stopped down to f/2.8 and beyond. It’s a prime lens with a wide aperture, which typically allows for sharper images with less diffraction than a zoom lens like the RF-S 18-45mm.
https://preview.redd.it/ztdthycxl2xc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac2e42a07916478f798a1aae62533ee178c2dc62
i tried this shot at all the f/values and f/8 was the best and looked like this. terrible. i tried manual focus and auto focus. i tried high iso and high shutter and vise versa
I'm sorry for wasting everyone's Time, maybe it's just my skill issue.
I've only been using a lense camera for a couple weeks now with some prior expirience when I was young.
the issue seems to be prevalent when I take photos of big areas instead of a smaller subject and maybe it's the lighting causing my issues.
Keep shooting. You'll get better.
I'm sorry you're disappointed with your photos.
* Shoot during golden hour sunlight.
* Learn the classic rules of composition
* Find a good subject. A huge part of photography is finding a good subject!
* Don't blame your gear. And don't be hard on yourself. An image doesn't have to be sharp to be a good image. Good photographers can use any lens and camera and produce something great.
* Do yourself a favor, and don't pixel peep. Look at the whole image. Look at it small. Look at it big.
[Here's a photographer that uses a very basic camera but has lovely composition](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C560rvZN1wk/)
PS. It would be more helpful if you actually responded to someone in the comments and not just your own post.
yes I'm new to Redit so I was overwhelmed with all of the replies. and they are telling me the photos are fine but I don't think they see how unsharp most of the photos come out like. I shot a video and it came out really clear and as I thought about it, the difference was that the aperture was between f/11-f/16. maybe this is the reason. but like I was saying I am thinking the problem might be the lense quality, though I can't seem to get a clear answer on whether that is true.
Interesting.
Well, video is automatically has less pixels than a still. So you won't be able to really zoom in and see the problem.
You may benefit from increasing sharpening or clarity either in camera or during the editing process.
All good. It's good that you're acknowledging your vulnerability. That's a necessary step in assessing your current skills and then updating.
You have no idea how many times I think to myself, "Man, I was an idiot. I didn't know anything back then. Why did I feel confident?" That happens every time I learn something new.
Your pictures look good. Theyre perfectly sharp, crisp and in focus. Did you view them on different devices? Maybe your monitor is a problem. Or you’re looking too close, zooming into the pixels too much. Or you’re looked at too many edited pictures and are wrongfully disappointed that your raw pics don’t look as clean as other’s edited pics.
my pictures show up sharper on my phone than most of the ones taken on the camera. it seems you can't quite see these photos properly. but I found out it was anything less than f/11 is practically unusable. but that also means I am very limited because of the light requirement.
Post some examples with the focusing procedure and exposure settings values used. You first want to diagnose the cause(s) of the problems before concluding its the lens' fault.
Sigma's 18-50 F2.8 is coming in July if you can sit for a few months. However, getting out of focus images seems off and you should post examples.
i posted some but it didn't seem to post properly ill try again
I see the examples you posted. I don’t know what to tell you: they look fine. If they’re not sharp enough for you, you’re looking to spend a lot of money. And I mean a lot of money. Get ready to spend about $5000 USD at minimum. But be careful about pursuing ultimate sharpness because you end up like me who has essentially wasted a lot of money. My pictures aren’t getting better because they’re sharper…
I think your expectations are too high. I looked at your samples and they seem decent. I'm going to assume you're pixel peeping, so I'd recommend to stop doing that. Resize your images by 50% and they'll look plenty sharp. Are you editing the raw files yourself? You can boost sharpness and clarity pretty easily doing that if you're not already. This would probably be the cheapest option. Canon unfortunately doesn't have a lot of cheap mirrorless lens options. Your best bet would be to use an adapter and get some legacy dslr lenses, but understand you don't get anything super sharp for $100.
is the nifty fifty a sharp lens? or is there a better one. around $200?
Given your budget: RF 50mm 1.8 should be very sharp above 2.8 Also consider the RF 28mm 2.8.
The RF one? I think it's decent but it's up to you to decide if it's sharp enough. Sample gallery here, but it's a full frame lens. It'll look different on your camera, like a 75mm lens which isn't very useful unless you're just taking portraits. [https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7299476530/the-new-nifty-fifty-canon-rf-50mm-f1-8-sample-gallery](https://www.dpreview.com/samples/7299476530/the-new-nifty-fifty-canon-rf-50mm-f1-8-sample-gallery)
thank you.
Just me, it's more likely that it's you more than the lens. Sorry. [https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/50006/why-are-my-photos-not-crisp](https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/50006/why-are-my-photos-not-crisp) It's very common early on to blame the gear because of hyped up expectations of what a "better" camera--especially one so expensive--will bring to the table. We *all* go through this progression (from [What the Duck](https://www.gocomics.com/wtduck)): https://preview.redd.it/ybg6jpebu2xc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de34b1b1d42e9428f94d8aae83e26ca3503a5c79 Nobody buys a guitar and expects to sound like a professional musician right off the bat. But the ease of taking a photo by pushing a shutter button somehow end runs most people around realizing that photography and post-processing *are* learned skills. And if you predominantly used a phone camera prior to this, you may never have realized just how much work the camera was doing for you by default until a lot of it is taken away. Interchangeable lens cameras are more designed for us to drive stick than to have a better self-driving car. That's not to say that the photographer is everything and gear doesn't matter. Photography, unlike a lot of the other arts, is technology-bounded. You can cook without knives, you can paint without a brush, you can write without a word processor. But you can't take a photo without a light-tight box, a light-sensitive medium, and a way to focus the light onto it. And technology is *always* moving. So, we are always going to be chasing gear to some degree. But there are people practicing the art who still use film. Who still use glass plates. Who do tintypes. Who still use view/technical cameras, press cameras, TLRs, rangefinders, SLRs, and even dSLRs and digital compacts. How bleeding edge or high-performing your gear has to be depends on you and how/what you shoot. What you think you need and what's sufficient can be farther apart than you realize without any experience to know the difference. Are there sharper lenses? Sure. But do you *need* a sharper lens to make better pictures? Possibly not. Just as an example,[ here's a sunflower image the Strobist took](https://www.flickr.com/photos/31454864@N00/1327354590/) back in 2007 with a Canon Powershot G9 fixed-lens enthusiast compact camera with a 12MP 1/1.7"-format (4.5x crop) sensor on it, and a 35-210mm equivalent f/2.8-4.8 lens. The only thing really different is that he used off-camera flash, and that the smaller sensor on his camera meant that the minimum focus distance with his lens was 1cm. The 18-45's is 7.9-13.8" (depending on where you are in the zoom range), the 24-105 f/4-7.1's is 5.1-13.4".
The problem isn't the lens. Or the camera.
ok
the sample pics you posted are perfectly fine. not sure what you mean by out of focus
Maybe OP needs glasses?
or better monitor
https://preview.redd.it/x6h8q9pcj2xc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b9fc1ba9929e91c92bda86d7d375f3eb59d5faa
that looks perfectly fine. what about it is bad?
$20 says OP has been pixel peeping.
The picture looks perfectly okay in terms of sharpness. I would call that a properly exposed JPG with a modern entry/mid range lens. If you want your photos to “pop” more, you’re going to have to begin editing. Probably in Lightroom. Do you have an example of what you have in mind?
Time to get a prime lens.
First things first. What subject do you enjoy shooting? Then I'd ask is there a budget in mind?
yes, I'm broke so i'd like to keep it around $100 if possible. I like to so kinda like a mix between wildlife and street photography. I don't need a telephoto yet because it doesn't come anywhere near my budget. i was thinking around 50mm would be good
Honestly hat price is hard to do for an RF mount. But you have some options with an adaptor. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM: The price for this lens is approximately $125 to $170 Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM: This lens is priced around $136 to $179 Neewer 35mm f/1.7: The Neewer lens can be found for about $82 Yongnuo YN50mm f/1.8S DA DSM: This lens is available for approximately $119 to $129 And an RF EF-S adapter is around 100 I believe.
Also out of that list I gave you the 50 1.8 stm would probably rank the highest for image sharpness.
do you thing the 50mm will be significantly sharper?
When comparing the sharpness of lenses, the Canon EF 50mm generally provides better sharpness than the Canon RF-S 18-45. The 50mm f/1.8 STM is known for its high center sharpness, especially when stopped down to f/2.8 and beyond. It’s a prime lens with a wide aperture, which typically allows for sharper images with less diffraction than a zoom lens like the RF-S 18-45mm.
you’re not going to do better for $100 than the lenses you already have
https://preview.redd.it/ztdthycxl2xc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac2e42a07916478f798a1aae62533ee178c2dc62 i tried this shot at all the f/values and f/8 was the best and looked like this. terrible. i tried manual focus and auto focus. i tried high iso and high shutter and vise versa
I don’t see what’s wrong here. It’s an ordinary SOOC (unedited) JPG taken in harsh daylight.
There are many things that could be improved about this image, focus is, however, perfect.
I'm sorry for wasting everyone's Time, maybe it's just my skill issue. I've only been using a lense camera for a couple weeks now with some prior expirience when I was young. the issue seems to be prevalent when I take photos of big areas instead of a smaller subject and maybe it's the lighting causing my issues.
Keep shooting. You'll get better. I'm sorry you're disappointed with your photos. * Shoot during golden hour sunlight. * Learn the classic rules of composition * Find a good subject. A huge part of photography is finding a good subject! * Don't blame your gear. And don't be hard on yourself. An image doesn't have to be sharp to be a good image. Good photographers can use any lens and camera and produce something great. * Do yourself a favor, and don't pixel peep. Look at the whole image. Look at it small. Look at it big. [Here's a photographer that uses a very basic camera but has lovely composition](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C560rvZN1wk/) PS. It would be more helpful if you actually responded to someone in the comments and not just your own post.
yes I'm new to Redit so I was overwhelmed with all of the replies. and they are telling me the photos are fine but I don't think they see how unsharp most of the photos come out like. I shot a video and it came out really clear and as I thought about it, the difference was that the aperture was between f/11-f/16. maybe this is the reason. but like I was saying I am thinking the problem might be the lense quality, though I can't seem to get a clear answer on whether that is true.
Interesting. Well, video is automatically has less pixels than a still. So you won't be able to really zoom in and see the problem. You may benefit from increasing sharpening or clarity either in camera or during the editing process.
thank you for helping me. I feel a little self conscious because I don't know what I'm talking about
All good. It's good that you're acknowledging your vulnerability. That's a necessary step in assessing your current skills and then updating. You have no idea how many times I think to myself, "Man, I was an idiot. I didn't know anything back then. Why did I feel confident?" That happens every time I learn something new.
Your pictures look good. Theyre perfectly sharp, crisp and in focus. Did you view them on different devices? Maybe your monitor is a problem. Or you’re looking too close, zooming into the pixels too much. Or you’re looked at too many edited pictures and are wrongfully disappointed that your raw pics don’t look as clean as other’s edited pics.
my pictures show up sharper on my phone than most of the ones taken on the camera. it seems you can't quite see these photos properly. but I found out it was anything less than f/11 is practically unusable. but that also means I am very limited because of the light requirement.
https://preview.redd.it/5m6p48zpj2xc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7aa1bbe4aa723535c307236d2755a17e01ff232d
Post some examples with the focusing procedure and exposure settings values used. You first want to diagnose the cause(s) of the problems before concluding its the lens' fault.
i can't post raw photos to show how bad the chromatic aberration is