Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Paul2660 on November 22, 2009, 09:59:22 am
-
I have been using the 5D MKII since Jan of 09 with excellent results. On a recent assignment I used my
24 TS-E F3.5 lens and was rather surprised by the results.
The images were considerably grainy even at ISO 160 which has never happened in any of my work with the
5D MKII. The focus was also sometimes a tad off, even though most times I received focus confirmation in
the viewfinder. Images were shot with a CL-PL on sometimes and off at others.
The images were useable, but just didn't seem to have the expected clarity I have been getting with the MKII
since I started using it.
I would appreciate any feedback from other photographers that have used the older version 24mm TS-E on the
5D MKII and if they are having any issues with clarity or noise. I have not been able to try the newer version of the
lens in fact right now it's not in stock anywhere.
It just surprised me to see the increased amount of grain in the images taken with the 24mm TS-E.
Paul Caldwell
-
I've never used the original 24mm TS-E, only the Mk II. One thing I can tell you though is that you will get better results by using Live View with 10X magnification to focus rather than the focus confirmation beep.
Were you using a tripod? Can you post a couple of samples of the problem images?
-
The images were considerably grainy even at ISO 160 which has never happened in any of my work with the
5D MKII. The focus was also sometimes a tad off, even though most times I received focus confirmation in
the viewfinder. Images were shot with a CL-PL on sometimes and off at others.
It just surprised me to see the increased amount of grain in the images taken with the 24mm TS-E.
Paul Caldwell
I have the same gear (5D2 and 24TSE) and have never seen any difference in 'grain' between lenses. One suggestion - don't use the between ISO settings, stick to the full steps. I saw a graph somewhere that showed that 160 would be a tiny bit noisier than 200 - the way the Canons derive the intermediate steps is different to the Nikons. Can't think of the link for the moment - maybe someone else can step in here...
-
I would appreciate any feedback from other photographers that have used the older version 24mm TS/E 3.5 on the 5D MKII and if they are having any issues with clarity or noise.
I've been using the 24 TS/E on my 5DII since January, shooting at ISO's from 100 to 400, and even with my compulsive pixel-peeping I've seen no issues such as you describe -- just the corner/edge softness inherent in the original 24 TS/E.
While waiting for a 24 TS/E II, you might want to check out dp's ISO chart 100% crop comparisons between the original and new version of the lens here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=347). Quite a difference.
-
daws,
Thanks for the link. Even at f/11 there is a substantial difference (and the magenta/green CA appears to be totally gone in the new version. Yea!) Guess I have to add that to my gear wish list. I love using my 24T/S lens, but I always have second thoughts because of the image quality problems.
-
I used the old lens for years until I bought the II a little while back. It was my primary lens to make my living first on a 5D and 5DII most recently. The only time I have seen a problem like what you describe is on long exposures where I had the long exposure noise reduction and the highlight tone priority on too. They seem to work against each other at times. Grain (noise) has nothing to do with the lens, most likely you had some odd settings dialed into your camera on that shoot.
-
Thanks to all for the feedback,
I will keep working with the lens and see if I can get a better feel. I did forgot to mention, most of the problem shots were taken with the lens at almost full
shift, and this might have caused underexposure. All of the exposures were in the 1/30 or faster shutter speed, but I will go back and check to see what the
noise reduction setting were.
Sincerely
Paul Caldwell
-
I did forgot to mention, most of the problem shots were taken with the lens at almost full shift, and this might have caused underexposure.
Just checking -- by chance did you set exposure after shifting? If so, it could well be off. Exposure needs to be set first, then shift.
-
I am not sure now that I think about it, I may have actually at times, shifted and then set exposure.
Paul
-
The other "gotcha" to watch out for is if you're spending most of your shoot time using rise & fall (shift) only, and never use the tilt, be sure to check from time to time that the tilt release knob is still secured, and tilt is at zero. Just handling the lens in the normal course of shooting, I've inadvertently loosened both tilt and shift knobs -- and discovered it later to my frustration.
-
Just checking -- by chance did you set exposure after shifting? If so, it could well be off. Exposure needs to be set first, then shift.
Yes but......while a large shift can really throw off the meter, the shifted exposure, because of falloff often is insufficient. Because of falloff more exposure is often required than the unshifted exposure. Always check the histogram after the shifted exposure to be sure you arn't losing your shadow detail and adjust accordingly. So yes, meter before the shift, but check the histogram of the shifted exposure and adjust accordingly.