PDA

View Full Version : Compromising image quality with a L lens with digital??


Kelv2888
9th of May 2005 (Mon), 23:13
I have a Canon 20D with 2 L lenses.
Some browsing on the net about digital lenses like EFS lenses are making me wonder.
It is stated that for a digital sensor, the light needs to hit the sensor at a very specific and precise angle for a optimum image.
Is the image with a regular non digital lens inferior to a image taken with a specialized lens for digital?
Heres some of the things I've read.
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/PHOTO/digicameras/olympuse/001.html
Anders Uschold, a lecturer on digital imaging and digital photography, a respected journalist and an expert court witness for analogue and digital photography, carried out a special scientific test in 2002. He examined three six megapixel cameras with high-quality lenses designed for analogue models and a five megapixel camera with a lens optimised for digital photography. The aim was to investigate the capabilities of digital cameras and compare 'analogue' lenses (designed for 35mm systems) with those optimised for digital capture.

The result was, that the camera with fewer pixels but using a lens system optimised for digital photography was more effective than the higher-resolution models with lenses made for analogue cameras.

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?print_page=y&section_id=2&article_id=849&page_number=1&preview=
This extra reach is a real plus, but what about other possible side-effects, such as lower corner resolution, contrast, and brightness, that some manufacturers claim you get when older lenses are used on digital SLRs? Are these real problems or a marketing ploy?
According to Olympus and several other manufacturers, resolution and light falloff around the edges of an image are caused by the extreme angles of light from a non-aspheric lens striking the smaller image sensor found on a typical digital SLR (see our test of the Olympus E-1 (http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=742), November 2003). This is particularly noticeable at wide apertures on wide-angle lenses. Image contrast is also lowered by increased lens flare, which is caused by two things: First, light bouncing off the internal components and sides of a lens adds unwanted light to shadow areas. Second, light striking the protective glass filters on the front of a CCD or CMOS sensor reflects back to the rear lens elements and is mirrored back to the image sensor, again adding light where it doesn’t belong. On film SLRs, a coating on the back of the film minimized this part of the flare problem, so few lenses were designed with anti-reflective coatings on the rear elements. Newer digital lenses include more aspherical lens elements to straighten out the light path and more anti-reflective coatings on rear elements.
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_focal_length.html
Digital Lenses

Digital camera manufacturers are now working on lenses that are made specially for digital cameras ['Digital' lens is really an unfortunate misnomer]. Film can be properly exposed with light incident on it at any angle. An image sensor, on the other hand, consists of a matrix of light-gathering photosites set in "wells" and pretty much requires that light be incident on it at right-angle. This means that lenses made for 35mm film cameras may not be always adequate to the job.
http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1204zuiko/index1.html
Unlike lenses originally designed for film photography, all Zuiko Digital lenses are engineered to produce optimal image quality with the “Four Thirds” CCD with its three-dimensional surface structure. According to an Olympus rep, the digital optimization starts with higher resolving power, “to get the most out of the imaging element.” The lenses also benefit from improved polishing technology, low dispersion or aspherical elements, and superior coatings to suppress internal flare caused by the highly reflective sensor. In addition, each barrel lens includes an Olympus exclusive, called “smart lens design.” A built-in CPU and special firmware enables the lens to transfer data to the camera, allowing for correction of aberration and darkening at the corners of the frame. (For vignetting correction, the camera’s Shading Compensation feature must be enabled; this is also unique to Olympus.) Any distortion can be easily corrected later using the Olympus Viewer software.

Short focal length lenses, such as the 11-22mm zoom, particularly benefit from the new design that causes all light rays to strike the CCD sensor at a near perpendicular angle. In older wide angle lenses, light entering near the edges strikes the sensor plane at increasingly oblique angles. That’s not a problem when shooting film, but in digital photography it can produce softness and darkening at the periphery of the frame

Thanks for the replys

FlyingPete
9th of May 2005 (Mon), 23:42
Ah yes, I have read this as well, about the sensitivity of the pixels varying depending on the angle of the light, film doesn't have this issue, therefore you want specially designed lenses to for digital that has the light hit straight on.

I also recall it being related to some marketing hype related to lenses that were designed this way.

I would think it would only really be an issue with extreme wide angle lenses, as anything with a reasonable focal length will have the light hit pretty much straight on, or near enough.

It would be interesting to see what sort of angle was required before seeing this sort of drop off, and if the microlenses on the sensor help in any way.

EDIT: Yes it was Olympus I read this about, sounds alot like marketing hype. I imagine the issue would showup a bit like vignetting aound the edges of wide angle shots.

Kelv2888
9th of May 2005 (Mon), 23:49
Hmm makes me wonder if the image quality would be better with a EFS lens with the same UD elements as a L without the dust/weatherproof and build quality.

rdenney
9th of May 2005 (Mon), 23:53
I've used my 10D extensively with a range of lenses covering 12mm to 500mm, and I have yet to see an image that shows the sorts of faults Olympus claims to fix. At 12mm, there is slight vignetting--very slight--as one would expect with a lens of that focal length, even when looking at the central 15x23 area of its coverage. I get the same thing on film with relatively longer lenses, such as the 47mm Super Angulon on 6x9 film, wtihout its fabulously expensive center filter.

The three sources you cited were all motivated by the Olympus marketing department, it seems to me. I'll take my own results in answer.

Here's a typical example. It's the 12mm end of the full-frame Sigma 12-24, and I see a bit of vignetting--about the same as I would expect on film with this extreme optic.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/san-jose-tower-lores.jpg

And this one was shot on a Canon 20-35 USM, which predates DSLR's by a goodly margin, at 20mm. There are dark corners, but those were in the scene. The upper left corner shows no vignetting at all.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/palace-bedroom-lores.jpg

But for some reason fans of Olympus are thoroughly willing to believe all the hype, and frankly my opinion of that company has gone down a bit as a result of what they say. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting not the recipe, and my results seem pretty good to me with those old-fashioned lenses.

Rick "who has seen much more pronounce vignetting from normal lenses at wide aperture on plain old film" Denney

Kelv2888
9th of May 2005 (Mon), 23:56
Great shots rdenney!
Well What about Canon? I cant find it now but they have made similar claims regarding the light hitting the sensor better in the EFS line.

ron chappel
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 02:45
There has been alot of hype and missinformation on this subject for several years.

To cut through it all and put things very simply:
Reduced frame canon sensors have zero issues with vignetting or edge softness .Canon have no problems designing the sensor so as to avoid these issues.

Full frame sensors DO show some slight effects.This is easy to see when the Canon 1DsmkII and Nikon D2x are compared when using equivilant wide angle of view lenses-the nikon is definitely sharper at the edges and has less vignetting than the canon

Allthough it's a genuine 'problem',it's obviously nowhere near bad enough to deter prospective buyers.

malcolmx
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 03:50
i have not noted this effect with my mk2 .i would however think that if light hits the sensor at an angle then the light will be elongated over the sensor ,the sensor is so small and only one colour is picked up then even though it is elongated the colour will not change will it impinge on the next sensor to set the colour there? i await further comments

mdr
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 06:48
This is absolute nonse, and probably just a marketing hype comparing EF-S to non-L lenses.

Canon's flagship digital SLRS, the 1D MkII and 1Ds Mk don't take EF-S lenses, so if these lenses were better than L lenses, Canon would have brought out a new range for their flagship DSLRs!

Even on the 20D I doubt the EF-S lenses produce better quality than L lenses. Think of it this way. L lenses tend to be much longer in physical length than the equivalent non-L lenses and EF-S. Therefore, any light will hit the sensor straighter.

Andy_T
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 07:20
Kelv,

to judge that, you can do two things ...

- analyze the Olympus Marketing hype ...
- or look at your pictures and those of others :D

Best regards,
Andy

slin100
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 07:38
Another bit of marketing hype I've seen claims that non-digital lenses without specially coated rear elements have lower contrast due to the light reflected off the sensor back onto the elements. I believe Sigma makes this claim. They are even going so far as to "update" all of their lenses with new coatings and give them "DG" designations.

DavidEB
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 08:34
On crop-frame cameras like the rebel and 20D this must be a total non-issue. I took some blue-sky photos on the rebel with the 18mm & 55mm end of the kit lens (looking for sensor dust) and saw no vignetting. Similar with my Tamron 28-75.

The sensor is definitely more reflective than film surfaces. That's easy to see during a sensor cleaning. I haven't run a formal flare comparison but in practical use, I haven't noticed more flare with my rebel compared to my old film cameras. So maybe lenses need more coatings than they used to, maybe not. Somebody else can worry about it.

David

Kelv2888
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 20:06
Very interesting points raised.Thanks so much for the reply people.
I guess I just need to judge for myself.Im definitely not a pro or anything but just want to make sure Im not shortchanging myself technologically by not buying digital lenses.
Another thing I was wondering about,bear with me guys! hehe,is the autofocus system on our cameras in relation to the speed of our lenses.
If I trade in my F4 70-200 for a 2.8, would I have a faster and more (accurate) autofocus system based on the horizontal and vertical lines being increased in addition to more light reaching the sensor obviously?
Canon stated this in the manual that came with the camera.

tim
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 20:11
Another thing I was wondering about,bear with me guys! hehe,is the autofocus system on our cameras in relation to the speed of our lenses.
If I trade in my F4 70-200 for a 2.8, would I have a faster and more (accurate) autofocus system based on the horizontal and vertical lines being increased in addition to more light reaching the sensor obviously?
Canon stated this in the manual that came with the camera.

You might end up with faster focusing in low light, or focusing with the F2.8 that the F4 might not do. I don't know anything about the lines you mentioned. The low light focusing of the F1.4 lens I just got is quite amazing!

ron chappel
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 22:31
There are other issues besides the amount of light getting to the autofocus module,stuff like the mass of the lens focus parts and the distance they have to move,the algorythms that control it all (and are they optomised for a certain model camera),etc.
I have heard some comments about the relative focus speeds of these two lenses but cant remember now what was said:oops:

ron chappel
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 22:42
Another bit of marketing hype I've seen claims that non-digital lenses without specially coated rear elements have lower contrast due to the light reflected off the sensor back onto the elements. I believe Sigma makes this claim. They are even going so far as to "update" all of their lenses with new coatings and give them "DG" designations.

As far as i know ALL lens makers,including canon, are doing this.
It no doubt does make a small difference (allthough i doubt i could tell)
Canon somewhere have a list of those lenses that have sensor optomised rear coatings .
It's not just the EFs lenses,but a few other recent models too.eventually they will all have it.It's definitely not something they urgently want to do-just as they phase out old models and introduce updated ones they'll add the better rear multicoats

Kelv2888
10th of May 2005 (Tue), 22:49
wow thats good to know.I guess I'll be selling my stuff at KEH.com for the newer multicoateds in the future.Would you mind If you could remember off the top of your head what those lens are?
Thanks.

Andy_T
11th of May 2005 (Wed), 02:15
Kelv2888,

I really would not base my purchasing decision solely on that.
An old (not-digitally-optimized) L lens will beat an EF-S lens or a DG lens very often ( I think *always*, but do not say it, as there might be the odd exception to the rule 8) ).
You should really judge it on images from the lenses with other digital cameras (e.g. ask the people on the forum if a certain lens is good or not).

It reminds me a bit of thinking of applying a special coating that can reduce 10% of air resistance on a car with 100 hp 4 cylinder engine instead of getting an older car with a 350 hp V8 engine.

Sure, it'll have *some* effect, but the older one *will* be faster.

Best regards,
Andy

Kelv2888
11th of May 2005 (Wed), 10:25
An automobile analogy coming from you Andythaler, Im sold!
You Germans sure know your cars! I looooove BMWs...
Thanks for the reply.

rdenney
11th of May 2005 (Wed), 12:32
wow thats good to know.I guess I'll be selling my stuff at KEH.com for the newer multicoateds in the future.

Why? Can you tell a problem with your images?

I confess I do not understand this concern that we might be something less than optimal in some theoretical way that can't be clearly demonstrated in the images. Are we afraid of the smirks of Olympus owners? Our bigger sensors will trump their "digital" lenses every time. Are we afraid to be even ten minutes behind the next fellow? If so, we had better hope that we inherited a lot of money, because I don't know of a job that pays that well.

On the other hand, maybe I'll be able to buy the lenses you dump at KEH because they don't have some marketing copy-writer's idea of an optimal rear coating. I'd be glad to have some of those sub-optimal lenses.

Rick "who uses lenses ranging in age from a year to 75 years, and each produce the images desired" Denney

Kelv2888
11th of May 2005 (Wed), 12:37
Oh definitely not.Im not a pro or anything. Im talking about a few years from now if they have like L lenses made specifically for digital.
I do hope that Canon has some type of technology to clean the sensor similar or better than Olympus's though.

Andy_T
11th of May 2005 (Wed), 12:49
You Germans sure know your cars! I looooove BMWs...

Hehe. look here! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72579)

Best regards,
Andy