2nd Canon 24-70L New Lense Image

[jimchapin468]

OK -- I am trying this again -- Does this image look sharp, soft, what do you think? First shot with new lense.

ISO 100, Shutter 350, Apeture 9.0, 100% crop, handheld

Thanks Jimmy

[BrandonSi]

It looks like your flower is not in focus, like the camera focused on the leaves below it. You should manually select your focus point and then tell us what it was you focused on.

[nitsch]

Hi Jimmy. Where was the point of focus? If it was on the stamen of the flower then I would personally say it looks very soft with poor detail. :( Sorry!

[Tom W]

It all depends on what you had focused on - the pedals on the left are pretty good, but again, in tight macro shots, the depth of field is pretty shallow even at f/9. Proportionately, there is a good deal of depth in this image.

How far were you from the flower and what focal length?

EDIT: Hey, the image changed a bit while I was posting. :)

[jimchapin468]

I was about 2 feet from the flower.. What should I try to shoot the flower at?

[Tom W]

The dog is precious. :) Is that a 100% crop also?

Nothing inherently wrong with the distance from the flower - I'm just trying to draw a bit of a scale here. Can you shrink the full image down to something like 750X500 pixels so that we can get an idea of what portion of the image the flower is?

I'm thinking that it's pretty good, but it's hard to tell on that flower shot. The dog shot looks great.

[schmoelzel]

Jim:

Sorry man but that doesn't look good at all!! Unless it is operator error, I wouldn't keep that lens!! I have read many times of people not too happy with that lens..........here's a first. I just about always post pictures of my daughter Julia but I just ran outside and took this shot of some flowers at the front of the house. I am no flower photographer but I know my 35L can take better shots of flowers than the example you posted. Here is the shot taken at F22.......I think you have to really stop down aggressively if you want the whole flower in focus. Compare it to your shot and I think you
can see a difference...........


http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/DRebelPix/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/35L-F22.jpg

[Tom W]

Schmoelzel, is that a 100% crop or an image reduced for the web? Big difference there.

You're right about stopping down - f/9 on a close-up isn't going to provide a huge depth-of-field. It will for farther focus distances though.

Jimchapin - that latest flower image looks much better, though it's a tiny bit darkish.

[jimchapin468]

Did you shot that with a flash? When I stop down to 22 my image goes dark at 250 shutter speed. Help

[condyk]

Are you considering focal length in these calculations? You haven't given any info on that. Why are you using the lens as a Macro? :lol:

Not scientific, but quick and easy!

Set camera to full manual operation.

Let's say the focal length you've selected on your lens is 50mm, then x by 1.6 for crop factor (if you have a 1.6x camera!) = 80mm. Using the '1 over rule' then shutter speed = 1/80 i.e. 1 over 80 or one eigthieth of a second!

You can adjust the above according to your real focal length, but 50mm is easy isn't it?

Try f5.6 and set the the ISO 100mm - you can try other settings for fun later!

With good light behind you (not bright sun/glare!) point the lens at a well constrasted, colourful SHARP item, ideally with something with some words on it. Maybe a tin of beans or a road sign or whatever. Ideally tripod, monopod, beanbag mount, or otherwise hold VERY stable. You want the subject stable too!

NOTE where you are focusing and keep the focus there!!!!!

Take three shots one after the other using AF.
Flip the AF/MF switch on the lens and take three shots one after the other using MF ... but obviously manual focusing using eye and fingers :lol:

Check the results and remember I don't know what I'm talking about :lol: but I'm trying to help!

[Tom W]

Here's a quick depth-of-field example at f/8.

First, the original image at f/8, 1/13 second at about 62 mm (don't know why 62, but that's where I had the lens). Focus distance from the lens is very close to the minimum focus distance for the lens of 1.3 feet.

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/45178951.jpg

A center crop shows good focus:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/45178952.jpg

The little "we're #1" guy on the left is about 1 inch farther back from the camera than the edge of the Canon box, and is definately a bit out of focus because of that. Here he is at 100% crop:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/45178953.jpg

The cork on the right is lined up so that the front edge of the cork is just about even in distance from the camera with the front of the box. You can see that there is a plane of in-focus that gradually goes out as you get farther back from the front of the cork.

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/45178954/original.jpg

[schmoelzel]

Tom......yes, that is sized-down image but I think Jim's was as well.......here is a 100% crop from the same shot. I know this is probably an unfair comparison since they are two different lenses but I just wanted to make sure Jim knows that his lens should/can do much better.

Jim.......as far as shooting F22.......yeah, you better have a lot of light (which I did) and up the ISO (which I also did). The shot was taken in direct sunlight from about 1/2 metre away. Maybe not the best flower shot in the world but I mainly take portraits. Flowers have no eyes to focus on so I am generally clue-less!!:lol:

100% crop.....

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/DRebelPix/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/35L-F22-100crop.jpg

[jimchapin468]

Mine was 100% crop. schmoelzel will you look at my other post and let me know what you think? I took another picture of the flower 100% crop and the dog.


THanks Jimmy

[Tom W]

Tom......yes, that is sized-down image but I think Jim's was as well.......here is a 100% crop from the same shot. I know this is probably an unfair comparison since they are two different lenses but I just wanted to make sure Jim knows that his lens should/can do much better.

Jim.......as far as shooting F22.......yeah, you better have a lot of light (which I did) and up the ISO (which I also did). The shot was taken in direct sunlight from about 1/2 metre away. Maybe not the best flower shot in the world but I mainly take portraits. Flowers have no eyes to focus on so I am generally clue-less!!:lol:

100% crop.....

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/DRebelPix/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/35L-F22-100crop.jpg

That's a very nice flower shot, Schmoelzel. Really nice.

It took me quite a while to realize just how much I needed to stop down when shooting near the macro range.

[jimchapin468]

I wonder why my flower did not turn out like schmolez? I wonder what his film speed was, distance, and f-stop? Jimmy

[wilflee]

I wonder why my flower did not turn out like schmolez? I wonder what his film speed was, distance, and f-stop? Jimmy

Check your red channel's levels curve relative to green & blue channels. Chances are, the red channel has been blown.

If so, turn off AWB & meter off of a grey card.

[Bob_A]

I wonder why my flower did not turn out like schmolez? I wonder what his film speed was, distance, and f-stop? Jimmy

Can you please provide us with the exif data for the flower shot. In particular, what was the shutterspeed and aperature? Was the image taken hand-held?

The picture of your dog looks pretty sharp to me ... so, comparing the two shots I have a feeling that there isn't anything wrong with your lens, porbably just need to tweak your technique a bit.

[Bob_A]

Jim:

Sorry man but that doesn't look good at all!! Unless it is operator error, I wouldn't keep that lens!! I have read many times of people not too happy with that lens..........

:lol: I've read many posts about people not being happy with this lens ... but the majority seem to be repeat posts from the same few people. :lol:

This is a fantastic lens ... or I guess I'm just lucky that the copy I purchased is matches exactly what I would expect from the MTF's.

[SeanH]

Well guys I might have another answer......keep in mind this same issue with this lens has been driving me nuts. Well I was told today that it is NOT uncommon to have a "back focus" problem with the 17-40L & the 24-70L with the Rebel, 10 & 20D. I was also told that Canon can re-calibrate the lens with the body and fix the problem. This combined with other comments, and sample photo's with the same lens on diffrent camera's caused me to slap down the plastic for a 1D Mark ll........personally that was a good excuse for me....LOL.....so we will see if there is truth in those comments also. I keep you guys informed.

[jimchapin468]

These are settings used when taking the picture of the flower.

ISO 100, Shutter 350, Apeture 12, 100% crop, handheld, flash

[Bob_A]

Looking at your image a bit closer it looks like there are some pretty overexposed areas of the flower making the petals look washed out, while you can definitely see leaves that are nice and sharp. Considering that this is a very small portion of the entire image (a 100% crop that is only 535 pixels wide), the part of the image you are concerned about has overexposed areas and you took the image hand-held, I really don't think that this image points to a problem with your lens.

[condyk]

Well I was told today that it is NOT uncommon to have a "back focus" problem with the 17-40L & the 24-70L with the Rebel, 10 & 20D. I was also told that Canon can re-calibrate the lens with the body and fix the problem.

All these problems with Canon bodies and lenses ... every day another issue and another concerned customer. I dunno, makes me want to look seriously at what the competition are doing. Ooops, I already have :lol: :lol: :p

[blue_max]

All these problems with Canon bodies and lenses ... every day another issue and another concerned customer. I dunno, makes me want to look seriously at what the competition are doing. Ooops, I already have :lol: :lol: :p

Not listening! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Graham

[shiato storm]

tons of quality control issues cropping up. its a fault of being popular I'm afraid. people like what you make so youy try to make more, only in doing so you rush them out of the door before checking if they're up to scratch. eventually people cotton on and stop buying your porducts then you down size, as a result your quality checks are more thorough and then people start to like you again...its cyclic and to be honest depends on how many people buy canon and how they keep up with demand!
but I agree if you're going to sell a product it shouldn;t be any less 'built' than the next one.

[condyk]

Graham

I know you are a lost cause and good for you. Just trying to keep the 'Sigma chip problem, Tamron QA problem, 3rd party bad resale value, etc. etc. ZZZZZZZ people on their toes'

So, are those three laughs above 'see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil' ... about Canon L's? :lol: :p

[blue_max]

Graham

I know you are a lost cause and good for you. Just trying to keep the 'Sigma chip problem, Tamron QA problem, 3rd party bad resale value, etc. etc. ZZZZZZZ people on their toes'

So, are those three laughs above 'see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil' ... about Canon L's? :lol: :p

Hee hee, I guess so. I think you and I are either extreme and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I can't really comment about third party lenses – only having one for a 'loan' from a friend for a short time. You don't have any Canon lenses apart from the nifty and the one lens you did have and sold to me - and made money on :lol: ). So long as we don't tell downright lies, it's all personal opinion.

That particular lens is THE lens that suffers from quality control. It is extraordinary that such an expensive lens can be so obviously wrong. It's not a bit wrong, it's horrible. But when it's right, it's fantastic. My five lens, second hand experience has been a good one and don't think I could be happier.

Maybe I should start a thread – which is better, Canon or third party lenses. Think it might get a little long though!

Graham

[jimchapin468]

BLue Max which lens are you talking about that suffers for quality control problems?

[condyk]

BLue Max which lens are you talking about that suffers for quality control problems?

Gawd ... and so the rumour mill continues.

The more people say they have read about a problem, well it follows that more people then say they have read about a problem too, and then even more people say they have read about a problem ... and there was probably NEVER a problem worth talking about in the first case with the one guy who thought he had a problem. Or, maybe there was only ever three lenses ever made in the history of photography with problems but people just talk and talk about those three lenses for ever more.

[blue_max]

Hey don't shoot the messenger. I am only talking about what I have read. Should I doubt everyone who posted about the lens or may there by actually a problem?

I saw examples on another site of a 24-70 with severe ca. That should not be possible to induce due to operator error.

This second version of Jimmy's looks significantly better than the previous selection of pics –*maybe he improved his technique. Truth is, unless I experience it myself, I can not know for sure. But if you don't believe a word anyone says, what is the point of reading this, or any other forum at all?

Graham