How much of a difference does a lens make

[Bv9]

Hi All

I am very new to photography so please forgive my ignorance! A few years ago I tried my hand at film SLR but soon lost interest in it due to the digital age. I have recently made the move from compact to D-SLR and wanted to go the Canon route so I could us my old film EF lenses. I went for the new entry level EOS 1100D body only, as it was in my budget and it had good reviews on picture quality etc.

The advise I need is how much will these lenses effect the quality of the photos as 95% of the pics I've taken are either overexposed or blurred. As I am a complete beginner I've been using the full auto, portrait and sports modes and all come out the same, over exposed with washed out colours. Is this down to a fault in the camera or could it be due to the lenses? I'm thinking about replacing the lenses but before I go and spend a small fortune I just want to make sure it would make that much of a difference

Thank you in advance for your help

[wavemachine]

A quality lens makes a massive difference generally sharper, better colour, suffer less from barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations (colour casting on edges).

Having said that it certainly would not cause blurring, over exposed shots and washed out colours, it could be down to the conditions you are taking your shots in i.e. low light etc or if you are shooting in situations that make metering difficult for the camera or putting it in a situation where it cannot select a fast enough shutter speed.

Could you upload some sample shots to give us an idea or post a link to some it is much easier for us to form an opinion if we can see the issues.

[rbarry]

Bv9,

Hi and welcome.

Alternatively, if you feel it may be an incompatibilty issue with the old lenses you have, (we don't know what lenses they are), why not buy a lens you know will be a good combination with your camera. The lens sold as a kit option with your camera is the 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 with image stabilisation. For the difference in cost you get a huge bargain with this option. In my opinion this is what you should have gone for; it's a good lens, not the best, but you can achieve some great results with it. You could look out for this lens as a second hand option, as owners will inevitably want to repalce or add to the kit lens for a better quality equivalent one.

But, there is another option that will be cheaper again, and give you really great quality. Its the canon fixed length (known as a "prime" lens) 50mm f1.8 (mk2). You can find this lens new for about £90.00 and it's an investment you won't regret. No other lens comes this cheap at such great optical quality.

Rick.

[jet_kit]

Hi and welcome to the forum.
There are subtle differences between lenses designed for film and those designed for digital, but they are not enough to warrant the kind of problems you're experiencing and, in fact most of the differences can only be detected under extreme magnification anyway.
I think Wavemachine is right, load up some pics so that we can see exactly what the problem is. However, my first thoughts are that the film lenses you are using may not be entirely compatible with the electronics in the digital camera body you've got. I'm no expert on Canon, but I'm sure there'll be a website out there somewhere that will tell you which lenses can be used on which bodies. That might be a start.

[Jeff Morgan]

Hi Bv9,

Don't go and buy lenses now, it is most certainly not the real problem. Wait until you know how to use the DSLR that you are still interested and will know what subject you need the lens for.

The DSLR takes some driving, it is not so simple as your old compact. You will need to learn not only the camera controls but technique as well. It now depends on how you like to study, classroom, book or personal instruction? A night school class, camera club or subscription to PhotoPlus ;-)

As stated above without images we can't really begin to help you, we need to see what you trying to do and where you are going wrong? As a first step to the blurry, is it that the subject is not in focus or that tha subject or camera is moving? You could try increasing the ISO to get a higher shutter speed or use a tripod, monopod or bracing your camera. Have you checked what shutter speed the blurred shots are?

The shots you say are over exposed, how do you know, is that from the histogram? Or are you just looking at the picture on the back of the camera? As you can see it is going to be slow and hard on line. Find out about exposure compensation and the Av or Tv modes of your camera.

Cheers, Jeff

[rbarry]

Just a thought, but the lenses you are using are switched to autofocus and not manual? That could explain why the majority of your images are blurry, apart from the odd few that are coincidently at the correct distance and aperture to give you the 5% return that seem ok. As Chris said, the issue of incorrect exposure could be a communication problem with the lenses you own and the camera body, as the fully automatic setting should do a reasonable job of exposing correctly.

As has been advised by others, you should publish some of the pictures you have taken as an example of how badly affected your images are. It's possible you have a faulty camera body, but highly unlikely. Why not go back to the shop you purchased the camera from and try another lens on the camera and take some shots? If the problem is still present, ask for their opinion.
It doesn't matter if you bought your camera on-line; you are a potential customer and they will invariably be willing to help you. If you can't get to a shop, another option would be to ask a friend or colleague with a compatible lens if you could try using it on your camera body.

Without a lens that can take images correctly, you don't have a functional camera. You have tried using the camera in auto mode which should give you consistant results, albeit without much creativity. Jeff gave you some good advice, however I don't agree with this quote :

"Don't go and buy lenses now, it is most certainly not the real problem. Wait until you know how to use the DSLR that you are still interested and will know what subject you need the lens for."

Here's why:
Don't just wait until you know how to use a DSLR. The very first thing you need to do is establish where the problem lies, is it you or the equipment? If it is the equipment you will soon become disheartened by carrying on with it. You will need an everyday lens that you'll use more often than any other. As a beginner, a good place to start is within the zoom range of the kit lens listed above. That's why the majority of the manufacturers sell this type of lens as a kit with a new camera body. There's no better way of learning how to use your new DSLR than getting out there and putting theory into practise. I don't think any new beginner knows what subject they need a lens for until they cut their teeth by practical use of the equipment and through experimentation.

I suppose it's fair to say that any advice given so far is merely conjecture, mine included, without some feedback from yourself. I urge you to respond sooner rather than later as internet forums are rife with false threads for the amusement of the perpetrator; it's called trolling. I'm not saying you are one, but the sooner you respond the sooner you'll find an answer to your question.

All the best,

Rick.

[Bv9]

Hi again, everybody!

Thank you so much for all of your replies, ideas, advice and suggestions. I've attached a few examples. They're all of my dog, as I thought she'd be a good place to start. They were taken on separate occasions, one with blue skies and sunshine and the other was overcast. All comments will be appreciated. Having read all of your valid replies I'm starting to think that it's down to me. I guess a new lens would improve things but not to the extent that I'm expecting. Looks like I need to get out there and practice

http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/856899810



Thanks again, everyone

[rbarry]

These images are not as severely flawed as I thought they would look from your initial post description. If you were to upload them to the webspace you have available on this site, it should be possible to view the exif data, which is a kind of technical finger print about how an image was taken.

The advice Jeff Morgan offered is certainly more apropriate than my own judging from the images I have seen on your Photobox site. I still advise you to experiment with your camera but continue with the lenses you have for now and get to know your new equipment. The internet, and this site is as good as any and better than most, is a mine of information. Photoplus magazine would suit your needs for learning more about your camera and look out for tips and tricks on this forum and the main website.

Enjoy your new hobby and keep asking questions.

Rick.

[jet_kit]

Hi,
I agree that the images are not as bad as I expected.
Generally speaking the exposures are pretty much as you would expect given the subject matter; the dog is black and that always presents a problem for a camera on 'Auto'. As you get more into photography you will move away from this setting and start getting a feel for dealing with this sort of subject matter.
As far as sharpness is concerned, I don't think it's equipment failure, or even your own. If you look at Pic No.3 for instance the autofocus seems to have picked up a strand of grass in the foreground and focussed on that, throwing your subject out.
In Pic No.4 the dogs face looks pretty sharp but the rest of his body is out of focus, this is a Depth of Field issue. At a given point of focus there will be a zone before and after that point which is acceptably sharp. This zone increases as the aperture gets smaller (bigger f numbers). The rule is that the distance beyond the primary point of focus is twice that in front. So, if you focus on something 2 metres away at the given aperture setting you may find it is acceptably sharp from 1.5 metres (500mm in front of the point of focus) to 3 metres (1 metre beyond). If you stop down (reduce the aperture size) this distance will increase.
I suspect what is happening here is that the camera is selecting a reasonable shutter speed of say 1/100 and then deciding to set the aperture at f5.6 (because of all the black it's encountering), at the distances you're focussed at this will be quite a shallow depth of field.
Stick with Auto for as long as you need to while you get you're head around things, but try going for a higher ISO setting, say 400 - this will result in much smaller apertures and a consequential increase in the depth of field, and a sharper doggie!
Keep at it, it will come in time.
Keep posting your pictures in the critique section and you will get no end of useful advice.
Good luck

[Bv9]

Thank you, jet_kit! This is great advice. You've made fell a lot better about it all. I did think it a bit of a tough subject for the camera to handle, all that black. I'll keep at and I'll try out your tip on changing the ISO. It's all a learning curve and everyone's advice so far has been great. I like the look that different depth of field gives to photo's so I'll be experimenting with that too

Rick, thank you for your tips and advice too. Re Photoplus mag, I've been a subscriber for about 4 months now and I love it. There is so much to learn but it's good fun

Thanks again, everyone for your help. I feel much better about my camera!!!