p.5 #1 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
woos wrote:
Nice test!
Edit: I'm actually surprised how good the 24-105 L is. I know, it's soft in some areas. But honestly for the price and the range it gives, it's quite nice. I wish you had the Sigma to test, too! The 24-70 F4L IS is noticeably better though especially at 24mm it seems.
The lowly 200 2.8 and 50 1.8 STM are *amazing* at f8.
If you do more, there is one lens I really wish to see... the 40mm STM
The 24-105mm f4L IS is a solid lens. I love mine. Wide open it looses a tiny bit of sharpness at 105mm and vignettes quite a bit wide open as well but it is still good. At any given f-stop it is not as "bright" as most L primes set at an equal f stop. This is pretty typical with zoom lenses.
I agree, let's see the 40 STM. Mine is very very sharp.
p.5 #2 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Added 3 lenses today!
Canon 200mm f/2 IS
The 200mm beast! Lens is pretty much at peak sharpness right at f/2, for both the center and left extreme edge. My copy's right edge needs a little more help and reaches its peak sharpness at f/4. The lens is so amazingly sharp that moiré can be seen on detail that is a few miles away - I included a 100% crop of that in the OP to demonstrate. There is a tiny hint of field curvature on the lens at f/2, so small that it's hard to distinguish between field curvature and MF focus variation.
Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM
The little pancake that could. Lots of vignetting apparent up until f/5.6. Edges start off slow at f/2.8 but reach excellent peak sharpness at f/8. Field curvature couldn't be tested due to the Canon body limitation of not supporting by-wire MF at magnification on STM lenses in LV.
Canon 400mm f/5.6
Reaches center and peak sharpness right at f/5.6. Beats the 100-400mm V1 - the comparison to the 100-400mm V2 is much closer; they look very similar, with the edge to the 100-400 V2 although differences in heat-wave distortion makes the comparison difficult.
p.5 #3 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Snapsy, thank you for doing all this work. It is a benefit for all of us. But, there are problems.
Something I have noticed is nearly all of the tests is the poorer performance for nearly all the lenses is on the left side of the field. I noticed this first on the 24-70/4 IS, a lens I own and which I feel gives superior performance to your lens. Then there were the 100-400 lenses, both of which I own. This lower performance on the left side puzzled me. Earlier, I realized the left side of the test photographs were at a greater distance than the right side. Perhaps the greater distance, coupled with curvature of field, explained why the left side of the images was not as sharp as the right side in many of the tests.
But a few minutes ago it sank in, the left side of frames were over water. The shots with part of the test image over water introduces temperature differential or heat waves. And it also introduces more water vapor into the air.
I learned a long time ago, but keep forgetting, photos over water introduce two optical problems. One, you have the temperature differential; and two, you have the water vapor evaporating off the surface of the body of water, which makes for a few gazillion molecular diffusion filters. Not a recipe for sharp photographs. And it does not mean much if the temperature is in the 90's, or it is in the -20's, as long as there is the differential and as long as there is the open water, these problems exist.
Ain't gonna get nothing sharp shooting over water. That is one of my fundamental rules of photography learned the hard way. Yes, that is not completely true, but combining temperature differential with high water vapor is not a recipe for ultra sharp photographs from a some mega-pixel monster as seen on a high resolution monitor just slightly smaller than a football field.
This is not to belittle the effort Snapsy put into these tests. He is to be commended. But there are flaws which we should be aware of. Still, there is much to be learned from has been presented.
p.5 #4 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
juststeve wrote:
Snapsy, thank you for doing all this work. It is a benefit for all of us. But, there are problems.
Something I have noticed is nearly all of the tests is the poorer performance for nearly all the lenses is on the left side of the field. I noticed this first on the 24-70/4 IS, a lens I own and which I feel gives superior performance to your lens. Then there were the 100-400 lenses, both of which I own. This lower performance on the left side puzzled me. Earlier, I realized the left side of the test photographs were at a greater distance than the right side. Perhaps the greater distance, coupled with curvature of field, explained why the left side of the images was not as sharp as the right side in many of the tests.
But a few minutes ago it sank in, the left side of frames were over water. The shots with part of the test image over water introduces temperature differential or heat waves. And it also introduces more water vapor into the air.
I learned a long time ago, but keep forgetting, photos over water introduce two optical problems. One, you have the temperature differential; and two, you have the water vapor evaporating off the surface of the body of water, which makes for a few gazillion molecular diffusion filters. Not a recipe for sharp photographs. And it does not mean much if the temperature is in the 90's, or it is in the -20's, as long as there is the differential and as long as there is the open water, these problems exist.
Ain't gonna get nothing sharp shooting over water. That is one of my fundamental rules of photography learned the hard way. Yes, that is not completely true, but combining temperature differential with high water vapor is not a recipe for ultra sharp photographs from a some mega-pixel monster as seen on a high resolution monitor just slightly smaller than a football field.
This is not to belittle the effort Snapsy put into these tests. He is to be commended. But there are flaws which we should be aware of. Still, there is much to be learned from has been presented.
Regarding field curvature and distance, the entire far mountain across the frame is at least a mile away, so it's at infinity focus for all the focal lengths I've tested.
Regarding the water and distortion, on certain days I shoot there is more distortion than others based on that day's temperature differentials. When it occurs it is visible across the entire frame because for most focal lengths I test the scene is entirely over water. The only focal lengths where the right edge isn't always over water are about 35mm and less and looking over the results I don't see any lens tested so far in that range that had a softer left edge vs right. On quick review here is a list of lenses I've tested that have exhibited asymmetric edge sharpness and which side was softer:
Canon 200mm f/2 IS - right edge
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS V2 - right edge
Canon 100-400 V2 - left edge
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS - right edge
All of the above had their frames entirely over water.
As for "nothing being sharp over water", I think my results indicate otherwise. The differentials certainly can cause some contrast-robbing haze but those have been accounted for in the post-processed versions I've presented, where contrast is added. Where you will see is softness in all of the lenses tested that include water in the frame is at the boundary of the water and mountain, ie shoreline.
p.5 #5 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
I have noticed, when photographing over water, I will have variable results from frame to frame. Areas within the frame one moment will be sharp, but the same area in the next frame will not be.
From the photographs I looked at, it appeared you were standing well onto the shoreline (rocks), shooting across variable distances of water. I reckon the body of water you were shooting across was in the 50 degree range, and none of the photographs I remember appear to be so early in the morning the air and water temperature differential would be near equal.
Land heats up far faster than water. Highly reflective surfaces heat up much slower than dark, absorbent surfaces which then radiate heat. Whether you can see them or not with the naked eye, or through your camera viewfinder, those differentials are there and will influence the quality of a photograph as seen by a 50 MP monster camera. Much the same for water vapor, especially evaporating off the surface of a large body of water. Think of each of those little globs of H2O as mini-diffusion filters.
The worst heat waves I have experienced as a photographer have been on -20 or lower (Fahrenheit) winter days when there were some areas of bare ground among the fields of snow between me and my subject. Other difficult situations were shooting across a flowing creek on cool, dry mornings which would result photographs sharp in one area and soft in another. A subsequent frame would show the area of sharpness in another area of the frame.
An interesting example of the difficulty of photographing across water was created by the folks at DP Review in their samples from the latest Canon superzoom camera. There are several photos of a ferry in Puget Sound (cold water) which show severe problems created by heat waves. One would think a man-made object like a ferry would show straight lines. But in these photos, these straight lines appear to have been drawn by a van Gogh wannabe after starting the morning with a bottle of Captain Jack. Heat waves. Over cold water. What does this mean?
I hope, before somebody declares their lenses to be soft and elements tilted one side or the other, they would look at the possibility atmospherics could be playing in the image quality they are seeing. Quality lenses on a 50 MP camera may be showing us stuff we did not see at 6, 8, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22 megapixels and maybe testing needs to be more rigorous.
p.5 #6 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
juststeve wrote:
I have noticed, when photographing over water, I will have variable results from frame to frame. Areas within the frame one moment will be sharp, but the same area in the next frame will not be.
From the photographs I looked at, it appeared you were standing well onto the shoreline (rocks), shooting across variable distances of water. I reckon the body of water you were shooting across was in the 50 degree range, and none of the photographs I remember appear to be so early in the morning the air and water temperature differential would be near equal.
Land heats up far faster than water. Highly reflective surfaces heat up much slower than dark, absorbent surfaces which then radiate heat. Whether you can see them or not with the naked eye, or through your camera viewfinder, those differentials are there and will influence the quality of a photograph as seen by a 50 MP monster camera. Much the same for water vapor, especially evaporating off the surface of a large body of water. Think of each of those little globs of H2O as mini-diffusion filters.
The worst heat waves I have experienced as a photographer have been on -20 or lower (Fahrenheit) winter days when there were some areas of bare ground among the fields of snow between me and my subject. Other difficult situations were shooting across a flowing creek on cool, dry mornings which would result photographs sharp in one area and soft in another. A subsequent frame would show the area of sharpness in another area of the frame.
An interesting example of the difficulty of photographing across water was created by the folks at DP Review in their samples from the latest Canon superzoom camera. There are several photos of a ferry in Puget Sound (cold water) which show severe problems created by heat waves. One would think a man-made object like a ferry would show straight lines. But in these photos, these straight lines appear to have been drawn by a van Gogh wannabe after starting the morning with a bottle of Captain Jack. Heat waves. Over cold water. What does this mean?
I hope, before somebody declares their lenses to be soft and elements tilted one side or the other, they would look at the possibility atmospherics could be playing in the image quality they are seeing. Quality lenses on a 50 MP camera may be showing us stuff we did not see at 6, 8, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22 megapixels and maybe testing needs to be more rigorous.
Nearly everyone reading this thread understands atmospheric effects - we're a collection of landscape and wildlife shooters. However as already explained the application of that understanding does not comport with the specific images presented in the thread - all generally suffer from equal amounts of atmospheric distortion, some days less some more but with equal amounts across the frame. The images do not support a conclusion that the left edge was more susceptible to distortion than the right. Having similar amounts of distortion across days was not by accident - I made an effort to shoot all images at around the same time of day across the week or so these were captured, and is also why I only test a few lenses per day.
p.5 #7 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Lenses where I see problems on the left are:
50 STM--as slight bit on left
16-35/4--at 24 some left to center; 20 left to center; 35 right, upper distance
24-105/4--at 24 ca made it hard for me to determine; 50 left closer to water; 70 left closer to water
24-70/4--at 24 lower left shore and upper right shore, some localized mush in center above raft; at 35 lower left and upper right, shore again; at 50 not much; at 70 lower left above dock
40 STM--left shore
400/5.6--localized unsharpness throughout frame. Heat vortices?
70-200/2.8 ii--nothing at 70 or 100 at 5.6; at 135 and 200 some localized unsharpness. Caused by heat waves off the dock?
100-400/4.5-5.6 ii--at 100 some left, no right; 200 some left, no right; 300 lower left, upper right ok, boat gunwales show heat distortion; 400 localized mushiness with structures and boats showing distortion
ZE 50/2--left
ZE 35/2--left and right both. Frankly, not too good a lens.
Those are the ones I have looked at. The old eyes are worn out and my note taking ability has been stretched to the limit.
I do question if the 100-400 ii has a decentered or tilted element. What weakness I see can be explained by atmospherics. Also, I would expect to see a decrease in sharpness on the opposite side and I can't say I do. I sure would hate to send mine back and be without it for a week or two. Do you have access to an indoor tennis court or basketball court where you could line things up nice and parallel and test it again there? It is so useful and even more so on a 5DS, given the cropping ability.
p.5 #8 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
juststeve wrote:
Lenses where I see problems on the left are:
50 STM--as slight bit on left
16-35/4--at 24 some left to center; 20 left to center; 35 right, upper distance
24-105/4--at 24 ca made it hard for me to determine; 50 left closer to water; 70 left closer to water
24-70/4--at 24 lower left shore and upper right shore, some localized mush in center above raft; at 35 lower left and upper right, shore again; at 50 not much; at 70 lower left above dock
40 STM--left shore
400/5.6--localized unsharpness throughout frame. Heat vortices?
70-200/2.8 ii--nothing at 70 or 100 at 5.6; at 135 and 200 some localized unsharpness. Caused by heat waves off the dock?
100-400/4.5-5.6 ii--at 100 some left, no right; 200 some left, no right; 300 lower left, upper right ok, boat gunwales show heat distortion; 400 localized mushiness with structures and boats showing distortion
ZE 50/2--left
ZE 35/2--left and right both. Frankly, not too good a lens.
Those are the ones I have looked at. The old eyes are worn out and my note taking ability has been stretched to the limit.
I do question if the 100-400 ii has a decentered or tilted element. What weakness I see can be explained by atmospherics. Also, I would expect to see a decrease in sharpness on the opposite side and I can't say I do. I sure would hate to send mine back and be without it for a week or two. Do you have access to an indoor tennis court or basketball court where you could line things up nice and parallel and test it again there? It is so useful and even more so on a 5DS, given the cropping ability....Show more →
As already described, there will be more visible distortion at the shoreline for focal lengths which included it - that covers most of your report above. I don't think the others you listed have the noteworthy edge differences that you do. One doesn't look for an area of max distortion or pockets of distortion to evaluate whether that entire edge of the frame is decentered/tilted; you look at overall edge performance. This is why I didn't classify any of the lenses you listed as decentered/tilted except for the 70-200 and 100-400. For the 100-400II the entire frame is over approx equal volumes of water so again your theory about the left side being more suspectible doesn't resonate. You seem to be holding on tight to a theory that's in search of a problem. I apologize if you feel the lenses you own should have fared better than they did but it is what it is. I would have liked some of these lenses to perform better as well.
An indoor setting like a basketball court wouldn't provided the infinity focus distance that these tests are predicted on. And nearly any outdoor infinity scene would be suspectible to uneven heating depending on the specific terrain across the entire bottom of the frame anyway, likely more so than the even body of water I used.
p.5 #9 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
I have no pet theory I am holding on to. I also have no hard work into tests which may be in part invalid to hold on to. I reported sharpness problems with some of lenses on the left where there was little or no problem on the right.
Atmospheric distortion, heat waves and haze particularly when the photos are made over a large body of very cold water, does explain much of what I am seeing. You claim the 100-400 ii to have an decentered or tilted element. I did not see that. If an element were tilted I would expect to see some problem at 180 degrees. I did not.
I suggested the indoor test for the 100-400 and for the 100-400 only since it would be simple to get a set of test charts set up parallel to the focal plane at something near 100 times the focal length without introducing problems of temperature distortion, haze and wind to the test. It would quite quickly and simply answer the question of tilted or decentered elements in that specific lens, or any other lens where tilted or decentered elements are suspected.
p.5 #10 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
juststeve wrote:
I have no pet theory I am holding on to. I also have no hard work into tests which may be in part invalid to hold on to. I reported sharpness problems with some of lenses on the left where there was little or no problem on the right.
Atmospheric distortion, heat waves and haze particularly when the photos are made over a large body of very cold water, does explain much of what I am seeing. You claim the 100-400 ii to have an decentered or tilted element. I did not see that. If an element were tilted I would expect to see some problem at 180 degrees. I did not.
I suggested the indoor test for the 100-400 and for the 100-400 only since it would be simple to get a set of test charts set up parallel to the focal plane at something near 100 times the focal length without introducing problems of temperature distortion, haze and wind to the test. It would quite quickly and simply answer the question of tilted or decentered elements in that specific lens, or any other lens where tilted or decentered elements are suspected....Show more →
I just did an experiment which should settle the matter. I took the 100-400 V2 back out and using the same framing as the original images, I took two photos, one in normal Landscape orientation and one in Landscape flipped 180º (rotating body+lens within the lens collar), both with the same locked focus. If your theory about distortion affecting the left edge more is correct then the edges of both the Landscape and Landscape flipped 180º should have the same acuity, since both over the same area of water/earth. If my theory about the lens being decentered/tilted is correct then the left edge of the Landscape flipped 180º should be sharper and the right edge softer. Here are the images:
p.5 #11 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
Added three 50mm lenses today
Canon 50mm f1/.4
Edges start slow but make a big jump in sharpness @ f/4 and another @ f/5.6, just a tiny bit more at f/8 where the lens is extremely sharp across the frame. No noticeable field shift or curvature.
Canon 50mm f/1.2
Like the 50mm f/1.4, the edges start slow. By f/5.6 the lens is sharp on the right edge but it's not until f/11 where the left edge catches up The lens is known to have focus shift at near distances but I didn't detect anything noticeable at infinity, nor any significant field curvature.
Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro
Sharp across the frame at f/5.6 with the right edge trailing just behind - at f/8 it catches up and is about on par with the 50mm f/1.4 tested. No noticeable focus shift or field curvature.
p.5 #14 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
snapsy wrote:
I just did an experiment which should settle the matter...
If your theory about distortion affecting the left edge more is correct ...
If my theory about the lens being decentered/tilted is correct...
Not quite so simple I think.
The original left side, flipped 180 and now on the right, is considerably improved. The house is almost as sharp, although contrast is lower. Was there high, thin cloud cover? The vegetation on the now flipped over left side is still soft. Was it windy or was there a wind gust?
The former right side, now flipped over on the left, is slightly softer than it was when it was right side up and on the right side. That is what I see.
You might well have a lens with a decentered or tilted element, but your tests are not proving it. You have too many uncontrolled variables.
p.5 #15 · 5DSR Mega Landscape Lens Test [Updated 7/27]
juststeve wrote:
snapsy wrote:
I just did an experiment which should settle the matter...
If your theory about distortion affecting the left edge more is correct ...
If my theory about the lens being decentered/tilted is correct...
Not quite so simple I think.
The original left side, flipped 180 and now on the right, is considerably improved. The house is almost as sharp, although contrast is lower. Was there high, thin cloud cover? The vegetation on the now flipped over left side is still soft. Was it windy or was there a wind gust?
The former right side, now flipped over on the left, is slightly softer than it was when it was right side up and on the right side. That is what I see.
You might well have a lens with a decentered or tilted element, but your tests are not proving it. You have too many uncontrolled variables. ...Show more →
Clear sky and no wind at my shooting location. The right side (both building and surrounding vegetation) is supposed to become soft after the flip because they're now both on the soft-left side of the lens. Concomitantly, the left building and its surrounding vegetation became sharp after the flip - I don't see the post-flip softness in the vegetation on the left that you're referring to. If you still have doubts after this experiment then I'm afraid we'll have to just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for all the feedback - it led to the flip experiment, the images from which will be useful when I send the lens into Canon.
The lens is known to have focus shift at near distances but I didn't detect anything noticeable at infinity, nor any significant field curvature.