Faster than f/2 straight out of the camera

Having never owned a superfast "L" lens, I have a question for those who do own them.

I have owned the 50/1.8II, the 50/1.8STM, the 50/1.4, and the 85/1.8 and they have ALL showed this halo effect (to varying degrees) wide open. Is this also common for the "L" lenses (the 50 and 85 specifically)? I'm look for real world experience ... I read online reviews just like you guys do, I know what they say. I'm posting a photo as an example, but please don't key on this particular photo. I'm asking generally about fast L's wide open straight out of the camera. Thanks for your help.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21UC​aBD

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21RN​jsU

That haze is what I remember about my 50/1.4 when I used it at apertures larger than f/2.

I flipped through several images from my 50L and 85L, looking for lighting situations that are somewhat similar to what you have here. As a matter of course, this kind of light, diffuse overcast day is actually where I'm often quite happy with the L primes because it doesn't bring out the heavy fringing.

The second example is one I came across in a quick flip, here you see a brighter day and the bubbles and strong contrast around the white dress just bring out the PF like crazy from the 85L in the regions that are out of focus. But that is a different issue than the haze I think you are complaining about here.

Thanks for your response. Yes, I think haze and purple fringe are different, but they are often both seen together making it tough to distinguish between the two.

I also wonder if adjusting the micro focus adjust to perfect would reduce both effects. I've been trying to "dial my lenses in" with the MFA in the hopes of minimizing the effect (and getting all of the sharpness I can out of my glass, obviously).

My "end game" is to re-create the look of a full frame sensor and the 135L ... on a crop sensor. So the obvious answer is the 85L. But given the 85/1.8 or the 100/2 are so cheap, I want to make sure I'd be happy with the L before trying to come up with that kind of money.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18504669
That haze is what I remember about my 50/1.4 when I used it at apertures larger than f/2.

I flipped through several images from my 50L and 85L, looking for lighting situations that are somewhat similar to what you have here. As a matter of course, this kind of light, diffuse overcast day is actually where I'm often quite happy with the L primes because it doesn't bring out the heavy fringing.

The second example is one I came across in a quick flip, here you see a brighter day and the bubbles and strong contrast around the white dress just bring out the PF like crazy from the 85L in the regions that are out of focus. But that is a different issue than the haze I think you are complaining about here.

Hosted photo: posted by JeffreyG in
./showthread.php?p=185​04669&i=i103689840
forum: Canon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by JeffreyG in
./showthread.php?p=185​04669&i=i80419607
forum: Canon Lenses

IME, this is an effect of the cheaper fast lenses. My Sig 85 (non-art) does not do this. The Tammy 45 is very slight (you have to know what you are looking for). My 50 1.4 wasn't as bad as that, but was worse than the other two. The 135L doesn't do that at all.

You can help make it a bit less bad by adding a USM with large radius and small amount of sharpening to your standard sharpening.

ejenner wrote in post #18504696
IME, this is an effect of the cheaper fast lenses. My Sig 85 (non-art) does not do this. The Tammy 45 is very slight (you have to know what you are looking for). My 50 1.4 wasn't as bad as that, but was worse than the other two. The 135L doesn't do that at all.

You can help make it a bit less bad by adding a USM with large radius and small amount of sharpening to your standard sharpening.

Yes, your Σ85 and the 135L do exhibit purple fringing. You simply haven't used them in circumstances that produce it.

The phenomenon is a product of light transmission through glass and coatings. All lenses do it to one degree or another. It is more prevalent at wider apertures. It is unavoidable. For the most part, it is easily corrected, or at least may be greatly diminished in processing.

Kris,

Look for a Sigma 85 F1.4 (non-ART for budget). It'll do what you're wanting, without the silly costs.

For your question, yes, most L primes also exhibit CA/fringe/Bloom (like what you're seeing) wide open (just not as obvious usually). Even the 85L does it. Expect it from things around F1.8 or faster. Even good stuff. It's there. Some are more sensitive to it than others.

For less than the cost of an 85L ($1200~1400) you could have a 5D classic ($250~350) or 5D Mark II ($650~700) and a 135L ($625~700), which looks like (nothing fancy, but its kids walking in some tree covered area like you're looking at):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GAWA​WF

Bassat wrote in post #18504783
Yes, your Σ85 and the 135L do exhibit purple fringing. You simply haven't used them in circumstances that produce it.

The phenomenon is a product of light transmission through glass and coatings. All lenses do it to one degree or another. It is more prevalent at wider apertures. It is unavoidable. For the most part, it is easily corrected, or at least may be greatly diminished in processing.

I thought he was talking about the softness/'halo' effect, not the fringing. Yea, all my fast lenses do exhibit some purple fringing.

Blooming: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ials/lens-corrections.htm

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18504918
Blooming: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ials/lens-corrections.htm

That does seem like the problem Kris is referring to. Although it is described as a sensor issue, I experienced the problem with an EF50 1.4. I think the lens needed repair, problem occurred even stopped down to 2.8, but Kris's example photo matches what I saw. I called it colour bleed, not having heard the term blooming at the time.

Yes, per this article, I agree that I'm seeing a combination of blooming and CA. I remember seeing examples of other peoples 50/1.4 where the entire image looked like it was shot on a hazy day (when shot wide open). I don't know if the article explains that phenomenon, or if that's something else. Sorry I don't have a good example to show at the moment.

Again, it's not important to key on any one specific example ... I think we're all more or less on the same page. It bums me out to hear that $1800 lenses to it to (to some degree), but I guess physics is physics.

Thanks everyone ... I love this type of conversation

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18504918
Blooming: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ials/lens-corrections.htm

kmilo wrote in post #18504993
Yes, per this article, I agree that I'm seeing a combination of blooming and CA. I remember seeing examples of other peoples 50/1.4 where the entire image looked like it was shot on a hazy day (when shot wide open). I don't know if the article explains that phenomenon, or if that's something else. Sorry I don't have a good example to show at the moment.

I think that's more likely to be due to shooting with a strong light source (most usually, the sun) in the frame or striking the lens, at least. Not using a lens hood doesn't help and a filter on the front can hugely aggravate the problem. It's not just 'regularly priced' lenses like the 50 f/1.4 that are affected. I have a disastrously fogged out and hazy series of shots of a really good subject, all spoiled due to putting a cheap filter on the front of a 135 f/2 L.

yes, I've never understood filters at all. We spend a ton of money on glass ... then shoot thru a cheap window. I've never used filters, unless they were needed (graduated or ND). I use lens hoods as "protection", which is what I think others buy clear lens filters for.

In the photo I've posted, there was no direct sun, but the issue is most obvious around my daughters coat and hat, which is the brightest thing in the scene. I do believe it's a contrast issue.

DaviSto wrote in post #18504994
I think that's more likely to be due to shooting with a strong light source (most usually, the sun) in the frame or striking the lens, at least. Not using a lens hood doesn't help and a filter on the front can hugely aggravate the problem. It's not just 'regularly priced' lenses like the 50 f/1.4 that are affected. I have a disastrously fogged out and hazy series of shots of a really good subject, all spoiled due to putting a cheap filter on the front of a 135 f/2 L.

Ooops ... I should have read this thread from the beginning.

Choderboy wrote in post #18504987
That does seem like the problem Kris is referring to. Although it is described as a sensor issue, I experienced the problem with an EF50 1.4. I think the lens needed repair, problem occurred even stopped down to 2.8, but Kris's example photo matches what I saw. I called it colour bleed, not having heard the term blooming at the time.

It is due to a combination of lens and sensor problems. I have been doing more reading on lens design lately, but certainly not enough to sound intelligent, or competent, when really getting into the details. But my understanding is that virtually everything is a compromise with lens design. Yes, lenses can, and have, become more complex to deal with these issues but the result can often exacerbate one problem while fixing another.

Higher pixel densities means these problems become more and more noticeable AND prevalent. I beleive one of the reasons that article attributes blooming to compact cameras is due to not just to their lenses, but their cheapish sensor designs and higher pixel densities.

Just as with lenses, the design of the sensor microlens array becomes much more important with higher densities. So the design of the entire system from front element to sensel needs improvement to maintain perceived quality. Put the same 50mm lens on a 5DC rather than an 80D and I suspect there might be a vast difference in "IQ"

I use the 50F1.4 and 1.8STM at F2 and they work better there. Spherical aberration can be a problem for these lenses wide open. My copy of the 1.8 has too much vignetting wide open. On crop, and full frame, I get much better results with the Canon35F2 IS. It is a nice portrait lens on crop. My copy of the F1.4 has good resolution at F1.6, but contrast is not there yet. It is better at F1.8.

If you want faster than F2, there is a price to pay. When do you want wider apertures and for which sorts of effects? Frankly, it can be difficult to get a couple of people in proper focus at close distances at F2.

It is rare that I want wider than F2, but that is just me. I have full frame for low light. I recall wanting more than I could get from F2 at night by street lighting, and that is where faster primes are helpful to keep shutter speed up.

The 50 F1.8 STM should be sharp stopped down a little. Nothing looks sharp in that first photo. Have you tried microadjust or a critical test for AF?