Calling all 135 f2L owners . . . HELP! [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

sboerup

7th of March 2006 (Tue), 21:56

I just recently acquired this manly beast of a lens, its awesome, and have some questions for you other users.

Upon initial review, all that I can say is WOW. Its a stellar lens. I bought of FM from one of the best FMers I've dealt with, its a UT01xx code, and he said that it jus got back from Canon for servicing (just cleaning while still under warranty). So, I was excited.

Upon review of some of my photos, I've noticed that f2 seems to be softer. While conducting a test, I can tell a great difference as I go up in 1 stop increments, and at f4-f5.6 its just amazingly sharp, while f2 & f2.8 just seem soft. I have only heard that this lens is tack sharp to begin with, and doesn't get better even stopping down, its just flat out awesome. So, I was initially dissappointed, so, tell me if you have had the same issues, and if I should consider sending it in to Canon for a reservice. Thanks

Test images were all done on a tripod, shutter release cord all at ISO 400.

f2 1/400s
http://i.pbase.com/g3/44/596944/3/56975781.f2.jpg

f2.8 1/200s
http://i.pbase.com/g3/44/596944/3/56975783.f28.jpg

f4 1/100s
http://i.pbase.com/g3/44/596944/3/56975785.f4.jpg

f5.6 1/50s
http://i.pbase.com/g3/44/596944/3/56975787.f56.jpg

f8 1/25s
http://i.pbase.com/g3/44/596944/3/56975788.f8.jpg

Oh ya, center focus used on 20D on the stripe of the football helmet, if this helps. Tried to make it a fool-proof test here.

jamiewexler

7th of March 2006 (Tue), 22:00

Sorry dude, mine's razor sharp at f2... Test here: http://www.bigredstudios.com/70135test/

mrclark321

7th of March 2006 (Tue), 22:11

Post some pics, mine is tac sharp also but at f/2 you have a very narrow DOF.
Make sure you have the shutter speed also :)

Dan

sboerup

7th of March 2006 (Tue), 23:24

Posted pics now, am I crazy or not?

chancellor

7th of March 2006 (Tue), 23:54

sboerup, the way you put your question " ... am I crazy or not?" puts us in a difficult position. If we say "No you're not", we'll onsult the lens, and if ... well you get the jist :D

Seriously, send it to Canon for calibration. From what I hear (never tried it myself) it will cost you about $100 to $200 including shipping.

Good luck.

jjonsalt

7th of March 2006 (Tue), 23:59

Sorry dude, mine's razor sharp at f2... Test here: http://www.bigredstudios.com/70135test/

Wow!great read.

sboerup

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 00:22

$100-200, no way if so, but man, it's sad its not as sharp as expected.

Dante King

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 01:14

what was the shutter speed? on these? i am guessing mirror shake. hope i am right as my 135 is razor wide open.

pturton

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 07:14

Here is a comparison that I did recently of the 35L vs the 135L wide open. DOF is small but both lenses did reasonably well IMHO.

Close subject @ ~2M:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4185809&size=lg

Distant subject @ 250M:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4192714&size=lg

Sean-Mcr

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 07:27

It's not mirror slap. It does look soft, but i do prefer real world tests for these type of tests, but that's just me

Mine is sharp (as sharp as i need it) wide open. But you can miss with a lens plenty of times before you nail it. Even shooting on a tripod you can be puzzled by what a lens comes up with. Take it out and do some real world tests before you make your mind up on it

F/2 http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/55437521

http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/55513164

http://www.pbase.com/sean_mcr/image/55277406

busterboy

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 11:04

It does look soft, but i do prefer real world tests for these type of tests, but that's just me

Same here, Looking at your test shots I admit it does look very soft..:confused:

Maybe it does need a trip to Canon..:(

My copy is razor sharp at f/2..:p

Example with his right eye as focus point..;)

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~tprocter/candids/matt.jpg

sboerup

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 13:01

Thanks for all your posts, I'll keep trying it. My main dissapointment is that I was expecting razor sharpness as EVERYONE has reported. I don't think i've fooled myself with this test, and with the other photos I've taken. Hrmmm, we'll see if its worth selling and just buying new from B&H. Then i'll have a warranty and what not. Anyone else, please help.

Lord_Malone

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 13:27

I took some pictures with the 135L today. I think mine is sharp, but my eyes might be screwed up. I don't do lens test. I take real world photos, and if they look good to me then I consider my lens sharp. Once in a blue moon I might mount my rig on a tri-pod and shoot at different aperatures, or focal lengths if it's a zoom, to confirm variations in sharpness, but that's about it. But I'll pixel peep the shots I took today when I get home and see what's up, and then I'll post here. ;) Like Sean said you can miss with a lens plenty of times before you nail it... So true. I normally shoot in burst mode when not using a tri-pod. It's surprising to see how some images in a series appears soft in one shot and sharp in the next. It could be the result of the slightest movement by either myself or the subject. I'm also a lousy photographer.

busterboy

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 13:38

I'm also a lousy photographer.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~tprocter/email~animations/nono.gif... You know that isnt true Malone...http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~tprocter/email~animations/rant.gif

karusel

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 13:41

Sorry to start like this, but the way threads like these go, makes me annoyed.

In digital world image processing is paramount when comparing photos from different photographers/equipment.

A valid comparison photo (100% crop, naturally) would be:
a) shot RAW at ISO 100, more than adequate shutter speed, 1/250s, static subject, camera on tripod, remote release/timer and perhaps a mirror lockup
b) processed in the same program with the same sharpness settings (CS2?), no other adjustments except for white ballance

I can make one tomorrow.

Here, a bit imperfect shot, original was underexposed (ISO 200, f/2, 1/1000s, no tripod or anything but the 1/1000 ensured virtually no camera shake), I bumped up the EC in C1pro for .6 stops, which was the only adjustment I made. Sharpness is set to ZERO and USM was NOT applied, jpeg saved at 9.

Lord_Malone

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 14:21

Okay, so this isn't the most conclusive test of my 135L, but it looks good to me. I just stepped outside and took these shots real quick. In case you haven't noticed, it's snowing like crazy here. For the sake of comparison, the first shot was made with my 85L @ f/2.5 1/400 sec. ISO 100.

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8200/img21519xf.jpg

Yeah, I'm about as bad as Chancellor when it comes to shooting trees and twigs and sh!t. Now here's a shot with the 135L @ f/2 1/800 sec. ISO 100.

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/5582/img21562jj.jpg

Conclusion? Both those lenses look sharp to me. Maybe I trust my eyes too much. ;) I suppose I could post a 100% crop of some twig if you want.

Okay, here's a more tangible result. Some kid I shot today. I was aiming at his crazy spectacles using the center AF point. 135L @ f/2 1/80 sec. ISO 1600.

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/2047/img19546zq.jpg

Again, looks good enough for me.

karusel

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 14:28

Yes, crops please...

Lord_Malone

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 16:12

Yes, crops please...

Kid's head 135L @ 100% (RAW, WB adjustment, cropped, resized, converted)

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/818/img1954100crop4lk.png

85L @ 100% away from original focus point (RAW, cropped, resized, converted)

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/8559/img21513pb.jpg

135L @ 100% (RAW, cropped, resized, converted)

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/1982/img2156a4he.jpg

This isn't something I normally do, so let me know if these were decent places for me to crop the image.

Lord_Malone

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 16:41

Just took this shot from my living room with the 135L. Again, just checking out sharpness wide open. CA is clearly visible, but tolerable...

Tri-pod 135L @ f/2, 1/15 sec., ISO 100 (Large JPEG Fine version resized)

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6188/img2159jpeg9hx.jpg

RAW version, resized, converted

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/3306/img2159a3ni.jpg

100% Looks sharp.

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/5922/img2159b1ga.jpg

Visible CA, fringing around the earlobe and other places...

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/1505/img2159c3cc.jpg

pturton

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 18:08

A valid comparison photo (100% crop, naturally) would be:
a) shot RAW at ISO 100, more than adequate shutter speed, 1/250s, static subject, camera on tripod, remote release/timer and perhaps a mirror lockup
b) processed in the same program with the same sharpness settings (CS2?), no other adjustments except for white ballance

A 100% crop yes but not RAW and converted because not everyone uses the same parameters. By using in camera JPG L, everyone with the same camera can try to duplicate a test and have a standard that is quite stable. The only variance will be compression used if the tests are combined and saved for web in photo software.

Lord_Malone

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 21:16

Dante King

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 21:46

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8200/img21519xf.jpg

Again, looks good enough for me.

Damn first chancellor and now you with the stinkin' twigs!!!!!

Lord_Malone

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 21:58

Damn first chancellor and now you with the stinkin' twigs!!!!!

There weren't any ducks!

chancellor

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 22:00

Better thab damn ducks :D

Dante King

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 22:13

you guys need to get the L owners stick and twig club going!! :):):):)

chancellor

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 22:18

Much safer with this freakin' bird flu :D

PetKal

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 22:22

Same here, Looking at your test shots I admit it does look very soft..:confused:

Maybe it does need a trip to Canon..:(

My copy is razor sharp at f/2..:p

Example with his right eye as focus point..;)

That's one very nice shot, Busterboy !

PetKal

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 22:30

Just took this shot from my living room with the 135L.100% Looks sharp.

Never mind "sharp", it has to be unless the lens copy is NFG.
What impresses more are fine colours.....that's where the pedigree of quality lenses comes out. The elephant photo showcases that well.

(BTW Lordy, please try to desist the urge to share with us your winter landscaping photography....that photo genre may not be your speed ;))

Lord_Malone

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 23:03

(BTW Lordy, please try to desist the urge to share with us your winter landscaping photography....that photo genre may not be your speed ;))

Yeah, scenery is definately not my speciality, but those were just some quick snapshots from outside my front door to illustrate a point. I'll try to stay in my lane and stick to people photography. ;)

karusel

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 06:43

A 100% crop yes but not RAW and converted because not everyone uses the same parameters. By using in camera JPG L, everyone with the same camera can try to duplicate a test and have a standard that is quite stable. The only variance will be compression used if the tests are combined and saved for web in photo software.

Good thinking, but sadly, you're pretty far from nailing the point. Do you really think having default parameters on either: 1Ds, 1DsMKII vs. 5D, or D60 vs. D Rebel or 20D would yield comparable results? 5D's default jpeg processing varies quite dramatically from that of 1Ds. Just lurk around the web; images from 1Ds (mark II or not) seem very soft compared to those of 5D, not to mention 20D, I'm sure everyone can agree to that, it's even on dpreview's site in the review of 5D.

RAW converter evens those differences out at least sharpness wise. I see no reason why one converter would sharpen (or soften?) images when sharpness (USM) is set to zero and if no (or minimal) contrast/brightness/saturation settings are altered, we get comparable images from any Canon camera capable of shooting RAW, I think.

pturton

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 09:54

Good thinking, but sadly, you're pretty far from nailing the point. Do you really think having default parameters on either: 1Ds, 1DsMKII vs. 5D, or D60 vs. D Rebel or 20D would yield comparable results? 5D's default jpeg processing varies quite dramatically from that of 1Ds. Just lurk around the web; images from 1Ds (mark II or not) seem very soft compared to those of 5D, not to mention 20D, I'm sure everyone can agree to that, it's even on dpreview's site in the review of 5D.

Guess you missed that I said, "By using in camera JPG L, everyone with the _same_ camera can try to duplicate a test ".

You had mentioned using RAW and CS2; not everyone owns CS2.

karusel

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 09:57

I'm not sure how I missed that, but there it is, sorry. :o

I think any RAW converter would do, provided you set sharpening to zero.

Also, I think mine and Lord Malone's 100% crops compare quite nicely.

busterboy

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 11:00

That's one very nice shot, Busterboy !

Why thank you Peter...:D

Sorry I havent no ducks or twigs but I will try harder...;)

gmen

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 11:21

For all you duck lovers out there...

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/quack.jpg

With the 135mm f/2L - handheld at 1/160s, f/2 at ISO1000 - the point of focus is the duck's left eye.

Time to quack on.

---- Gavin

sboerup

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 12:16

Now that Duck is sharp, wow, makes me jealous. Well, after some more testing, even flash photos yield nothing better. I guess I can post this on the biggest lens dissapointment board. Not sure if to sell and get a new one, or revert back to a 70-200 2.8 if I can't even get sharp pictures even at 2.8 with this lens. I'll give it a weekend testing: 1 wedding, engagement photos and a concert. Hopefully it will redeem itself.

busterboy

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 12:39

For all you duck lovers out there...

With the 135mm f/2L - handheld at 1/160s, f/2 at ISO1000 - the point of focus is the duck's left eye.

Time to quack on.

---- Gavin

That duck is very sharp Gavin..:D

But no twiggs..:(

gmen

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 12:50

That duck is very sharp Gavin..:D

But no twiggs..:(
:lol: I'll find twigs... might have to wait until tomorrow though!

---- Gavin

gmen

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 12:52

I'll give it a weekend testing: 1 wedding'Testing' at a wedding? Hope it's not a paid gig! ;)

---- Gavin

DavidEB

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 13:20

f2...

sboerup

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 13:21

Testing meaning i'll give it its first "real world" uses. I can still get results at f4 that would be remarkable, but, to give "real world" results, yes, you would have to use it at some event and not just enjoyment.

karusel

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 13:45

Real world results from this lens have yet to disappoint me. It's the lens you have to love, I imagine it's the same way with any 1 series camera or S class Mercedes.

busterboy

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 13:57

Real world results from this lens have yet to disappoint me. It's the lens you have to love

Well said that man, I have yet to find a review that has any faults with this lens.. (In the real world anyhow)..;)

PetKal

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 14:55

f2...

(cough..cough)...errr....err......David, where is the focus supposed to be on that keyboard ?;)

DavidEB

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 15:39

Peter - the apple key. the apple logo is crisp as a newly picked macintosh. The angle of the shot is planned so that no other key is sharp.

I Simonius

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 16:40

what was the shutter speed? on these? i am guessing mirror shake. hope i am right as my 135 is razor wide open.
surely it would work te other way round, getting worse as the aperture gotsmaller - but it doesn't

Lord_Malone

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 18:59

sboerup

9th of March 2006 (Thu), 22:27

Ya, getting a bum copy sucks. We'll see how it holds up. If not, its up for sale. Maybe a local would be willing to pay.

rklepper

10th of March 2006 (Fri), 00:24

This is an excellent lens, but also a difficult lens. One thing that people must get used to is that it is easy to accidently focus on either side of the dof and then the photo will appear blurry. Take some time getting to know the lens. Take lots of shots paying special attention to how you are shooting when you do.