Ack ! My 135mm f2 L is a lemon ! ?

[buze]

Went to "walk" my new 135mm f2 L this evening, with my trusted 50mm f1.4 on the wider side. I did plenty of shots to try it out, and when I came back i was amazed to find very strong CA in the middle of the frames with the 135mm on some photographs. Also, even the good shots were quite soft in general, nothing like what the 50mm can do.
So, is this a lemon ? return ASAP ?
Here are two example of fairly strongly contrasted shots that show CA. Both at f2.5 (not even wide open) and 100% crops

I find it incredible that I bought Sigma lens that are really good, absolutely brilliant non L Canon lens, and that my very first L turns out to be a lemon! Depressing :( !
http://oomz.net/ca.pnghttp://oomz.net/ca2.png
Edit: Sorry posted to the wrong forum, please move to the lens forum...

[CyberDyneSystems]

Looks like carp :( :(

Do us a favor and post full exif..
Also.. be sure to get out there again.. and double check all settings before shooting..

But yes to me this looks waaaay bad .. I'd try it again asap.. compare it against another lens in the same conditions to rule out some ohter possible influence.. and if the results remain the same ..

Return it ! :(

this is depressing.. I don't think I've ever seen a bad post regarding this particular lens :(

[schmoelzel]

Oh boy!! Try it again and if it's not much better than your 50F1.4, get another. The optics from this lens are beyond what your 50 should/can get...............

[TheObiJuan]

Mine has a little CA wide open, but goes away by f/2.8.
It also appears to have misfocused. Did you focus and then recompose as the duck was moving?
If you did this in conjunction with the shallow DOF at f/2.5, then this could be the problem.

[buze]

I was at f2.5, ISO 200 the first shot was recomposed, and therefore I was the one screwing up the focus; but I didn't expect to find anything like that a in !
The second one I didn't recompose, and it's still very soft, and with CA. Actualy I have a shot where the recomposing was even worse and the bird shows even worse CA too. Dreadful ! OOF areas are much more subject to this it seems.

I've read literaly hundred of reviews of that lens. Nobody, ever, mentioned CA. I just can't beleive it's normal.

Look at that one, you can see I took about a second (and one meter for the bird) to recompose. I know I was slow, but heck thats what practice is for :D But just watch the CA !
http://oomz.net/ca3.png

[rent]

i'd venture to say it's not a problem of your lens. what you see here is more likely purple fringing (PF) than CA. PF is often mistaken with CA but they are different. PF is caused by the overflowing of electrons from highly saturated areas of the sensor to nearby unsaturated areas. your overexposed white goose against a dark background here is probably what made PF more visible.

i want to point out that PF is not a problem of lens, but rather with your sensor; i'm pretty sure a properly exposed subject would greatly reduce PF in a shot like this.

-alex

[CyberDyneSystems]

I've read literaly hundred of reviews of that lens. Nobody, ever, mentioned CA. I just can't beleive it's normal.


What your posting ISN'T nromal!
And I'm with Rent.. I'm not at all sure we are even looking at CA.

Virtually all lenses will display CA under the right (or wrong) circumstances.. it is a fact of life. If reviews were to point it out.. then every review of every lens would point it out.. the only difference would be what you had to do to get it (CA) to show up.

Again.. what were seeing here is way beyond anything you should expect from this lens.. it's awefull.

I've had mine for about 8 months and never had a shot displaying any CA.. (although if I wanted to I could go shoot soe backlit tree branches and post some nice CA shots tomorrow ;) )

I really don't think what were seeing is normal.. by any stretch of the imagination.
It's either a bad lens or something else is terribly wrong.

Like rent,. I beleive what we are seeing may not be lens related however...
Again I think further testing may be prudent...
The Swans are mostly all overexposed.. totally blown out in many parts..
But the head shot with the blotches almost looks underexposed..
They do not look in focus...

It's really hard to tell as the images just look soo bad all around.

that last shot.. the focus seems waaaaaay beyond the swan.. and the water actually looks quite good ??

[Keiffer]

I agree it might not be the lens. Your point POF looks like the water behind the swan and Cybers right your way blown out on the highlights. Also your WB may be off. Try it again under different lighting and make sure your POF is on target and also check your WB.

[buze]

Purple fringing is ... purple. CA is red and green (Canon website's definition of it). Look at the second example, there is green aberations on the right birds back, and red aberations on the left birds beak.

I'll give it another shot today, but monday that lens goes anyway. Having to doubt a L is not my idea of owning one !

[grego]

It does look like you put yourself in some harsh conditions. Looks very bright plus white subject.

[Cadwell]

Purple fringing is ... purple. CA is red and green (Canon website's definition of it). Look at the second example, there is green aberations on the right birds back, and red aberations on the left birds beak.

I'll give it another shot today, but monday that lens goes anyway. Having to doubt a L is not my idea of owning one !


I've sent an "L" back to be fixed and it looked better than that. The only thing your lens looks good for is adding some flavour to a gin and tonic. Send it back.

[WestFalcon]

What is your shutter speed? Could be movement or a poorly focusing camera.

[drisley]

Definately a lemon. No doubt about it here.
I shoot 95% of my shots wide open with the 135F2L, and I NEVER see any CA at all.
Even with the 1.4x extender shooting wide open in the middle of a sunny afternoon, I get no CA or fringing, EVER.
And even at F2.0, this lens is sharper than any lens I've ever used at any aperture.

[Maureen Souza]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..... I've been having trouble with mine too although not quite as bad as these. I haven't been finding that sharp photo that the rest of you owners are bragging about.....I think I will give Canon a jingle tomorrow.

[buze]

Actualy to put the matter to rest I stacked my 135mm f2 L against... my 70-300 DO IS. We all know that the 70-300 is not even suposed to even approach the 135.
But in my case, in a tripod at f5 1/320s ISO 100, the 70-300 is sharper AND has no CA on the same shot/conditions.

This 135 is on the way back tomorrow :(

[CyberDyneSystems]

Let us know how things turn out..

Bummer you got the lemon :(

[buze]

Well that'll be a test of 7dayshop return policy that I really would have loved to skip. but at least I'll be able to tell the tale!

Oh, and to WestFalcon, these swans shots where 1/3200s; I was really trying to get to f2 on purpose :D So no, I don't think camera shake is in the equation here...

[drisley]

The 135/2L should not have any CA under ANY circumstances.
At least, mine doesn't.
This picture was taken with the 135/2L wide open, with the 1.4x extender, under an extremely harsh, bright, sunny day. The exposure was 1/6400s at ISO1000 to give an idea of how bright it was. Although you can't see from this websize image, there is no fringing of any sort. I may post a 100% crop later.

I had another look at the swan pictures, and they are severely overexposed, so what you may be seeing is sensor blooming, not CA or fringing. But the images should definately be sharper.

I have shot bodybuilding pictures with my 85/1.8 lens that showed some fringing at apertures up to about F2.8. In the same theatre with the same lighting I've shot pictures with the 135/2L wide open that were clean as can be. With the 85mm prime, where the skin meets the bright blue backdrop, there would be fringing. With the 135/2L, as you can see in these 2 samples, they are perfectly clean.

Sample 1 (f2.5) ISO800 (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/IMG_8020.jpg)

Sample 2 (F2.0) ISO800 (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/master100.jpg)


189mm, F2.8, ISO100, 1/6400s
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/cricketmem09262004/MG_1874.jpg