For those of you who have or had a contax 28 2.8 please take a look and download this raw image and tell me if this is around average for the lens. I`m not saying there is anything wrong just want to know if it is more or less up to spec.Ignore exif. Image taken on 5d2 hand held.

http://www.yousendit.com/download/TzY0b240YXlwcFdGa1E9PQ

thanks

Cancel

I got the .CR2 file OK. Big sucker - I'm used to smaller files (5D, 1DII, 40D, etc). It basically looks OK, but I really wouldn't spend too much time examining RAW files at 100% until you do some tripod shooting.

Is the EXIF data for shutter speed and ISO correct (1/1000 and 400)? If yes, then I'd guess you used f/8 or f/11. The histogram suggests there are some blown highlights, which I suspect are on the sunlight faces of the pillars - pretty clean, though. I'm really not used to looking at a 5DII file on-screen. Maybe you could send me a 16x24.

P.S. don't mention this thread on the current Canon-SLR forum 5DII IQ threads - it'll increase the noise here by a considerable amount, without even cranking the ISO

jcolwell wrote:
I got the .CR2 file OK. Big sucker - I'm used to smaller files (5D, 1DII, 40D, etc). It basically looks OK, but I really wouldn't spend too much time examining RAW files at 100% until you do some tripod shooting.

Is the EXIF data for shutter speed and ISO correct (1/1000 and 400)? If yes, then I'd guess you used f/8 or f/11. The histogram suggests there are some blown highlights, which I suspect are on the sunlight faces of the pillars - pretty clean, though. I'm really not used to looking at a 5DII file on-screen. Maybe you could send me a 16x24.

P.S. don't mention this thread on the current Canon-SLR forum 5DII IQ threads - it'll increase the noise here by a considerable amount, without even cranking the ISO

Yeh! I think you`ll find it`s the 50mm 1.8 that`s wrong cos I used an old standard adapter.
Basically I turned away from this lens a while ago but I took it with me the other day just to try out because having settled on the 40 Ultron I really needed something to bridge the gap midwayish between the 40 and my 21. My 25 is a bit too close to the 21 and my 35 can`t compete with the ultron and obviously too close to the ultron anyway.

Yeh! maybe I should have put a bit more technique into the shots but I tend to try things out as I intend to use them. For what it`s worth my end (apart from the highlights) I think it will probably suffice, certainly closer to the ultron IQ than my 35 2.8. Even the corners are not too bad (not up to the 21 but then again what is?)

I do take your point about 100% viewing but to be honest anything at 50% looks pretty good and doesn`t really tell me anything.

Thanks for looking (i`ll have to maybe sort out and get image upload turned on)

Dave

What was the F-Stop used?

I don't think I see anything wrong with the lens' performance here. Corners look fine. It is what I would expect from the Contax 28/2.8 Distagon.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
What was the F-Stop used?


F11

Thanks

dave chilvers wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What was the F-Stop used?


F11

Thanks

That looks normal, perhaps heven better than normal as my copy of that lens suffered worse CA than it appears yours does. At least with my copy on the original 5D, F11 was required to bring sharpness into the corners but at the sacrifice of central sharpness. Central sharpness was best at 5.6. I would imagine that would apply even more to the more demanding 5DII. By F11, you are already throwing away resolution due to diffraction.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
dave chilvers wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What was the F-Stop used?


F11

Thanks

That looks normal, perhaps heven better than normal as my copy of that lens suffered worse CA than it appears yours does. At least with my copy on the original 5D, F11 was required to bring sharpness into the corners but at the sacrifice of central sharpness. Central sharpness was best at 5.6. I would imagine that would apply even more to the more demanding 5DII. By F11, you are already throwing away resolution due to diffraction.


Might be worth shooting at f8 then and suffering the corners. Do you think that diffraction is really noticeable at f11 with the 5d2 then?

dave chilvers wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
dave chilvers wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What was the F-Stop used?


F11

Thanks

That looks normal, perhaps heven better than normal as my copy of that lens suffered worse CA than it appears yours does. At least with my copy on the original 5D, F11 was required to bring sharpness into the corners but at the sacrifice of central sharpness. Central sharpness was best at 5.6. I would imagine that would apply even more to the more demanding 5DII. By F11, you are already throwing away resolution due to diffraction.


Might be worth shooting at f8 then and suffering the corners. Do you think that diffraction is really noticeable at f11 with the 5d2 then?

Well, the thing to do would be to test it for yourself. On my original 5D, the loss of sharpness was very noticeable by F11 vs 5.6 in the center. Of course, some subject matter will require the dof F11 gives. The smaller, higher density pixels of the 5DII should be even more affected by diffraction.

dave chilvers wrote:
Do you think that diffraction is really noticeable at f11 with the 5d2 then?

Absolutely. Already at 12 mpix FF you are into diffraction land at f/11. Try f/5.6 or so for best midframe sharpness, if the lens is good enough.

dave chilvers wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That looks normal, perhaps heven better than normal as my copy of that lens suffered worse CA than it appears yours does. At least with my copy on the original 5D, F11 was required to bring sharpness into the corners but at the sacrifice of central sharpness. Central sharpness was best at 5.6. I would imagine that would apply even more to the more demanding 5DII. By F11, you are already throwing away resolution due to diffraction.


Might be worth shooting at f8 then and suffering the corners. Do you think that diffraction is really noticeable at f11 with the 5d2 then?


The corners are just fine at f8 with the 28/2.8 Distagon. On my old copy had pretty good corners by f5,6.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
dave chilvers wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
dave chilvers wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
What was the F-Stop used?


F11

Thanks

That looks normal, perhaps heven better than normal as my copy of that lens suffered worse CA than it appears yours does. At least with my copy on the original 5D, F11 was required to bring sharpness into the corners but at the sacrifice of central sharpness. Central sharpness was best at 5.6. I would imagine that would apply even more to the more demanding 5DII. By F11, you are already throwing away resolution due to diffraction.


Might be worth shooting at f8 then and suffering the corners. Do you think that diffraction is really noticeable at f11 with the 5d2 then?

Well, the thing to do would be to test it for yourself. On my original 5D, the loss of sharpness was very noticeable by F11 vs 5.6 in the center. Of course, some subject matter will require the dof F11 gives. The smaller, higher density pixels of the 5DII should be even more affected by diffraction.


You know, I never really give deffraction much of a thought, I do a run through and see. Funny thing is I only ever just shoot my 21 @ f8, I run that through the f stops as well.
Come to think of it because of the focal length I usually shoot my 70-200 at 6.3-7.1 and find the IQ great. I think we maybe get carried away by the corners which as you say is needed in some images but for street type shots the subject usually controls the impact.

Does anyone ever just extra sharpen the corners then?

I shot this with the 24-105 @f5 and it does look decent and BTW while on the site please check the next image on ( a crop) i can`t make up my mind if the crop works better

http://www.pbase.com/davechilvers/image/119070847

Ya, I think crop or no crop could go either way with that image. I prefer the uncropped version myself as I get more of a sense of place through seeing more of the ocean and sky.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ya, I think crop or no crop could go either way with that image. I prefer the uncropped version myself as I get more of a sense of place through seeing more of the ocean and sky.

Thanks Tariq

Some shots with the CZ 28/2.8 and the Nikon 28/2.8 AI-S
as another point of reference for the OP:

http://www.pbase.com/tswen/nk28cz28

On your first pic, I made it full screen on my 28" monitor and it looked good. I think you should be happy with it.

On the crop/uncropped image, my vote is for uncropped. I agree with Tariq that you get a better sense of where you are since the ocean and sky look pretty bleak at that moment.

zombii wrote:
On your first pic, I made it full screen on my 28" monitor and it looked good. I think you should be happy with it.

On the crop/uncropped image, my vote is for uncropped. I agree with Tariq that you get a better sense of where you are since the ocean and sky look pretty bleak at that moment.

Thanks Zombii for taking the time

cheers

dave