ashwinrao1 wrote:
I am seeing a lot of optical vignetting (cat's eye bokeh) and a ton of barrel distortion and vignetting.
I've been testing one from yesterday and agree with the above. The barrel distortion is quite pronounced and as a result, the cat's eye bokeh sometimes looks like an adapted lens from the 80s when there are specular highlights (like sun through foliage). I wouldn't say either of these aspects are bad or disappointing - as discussed above they are the trade-offs for the smaller size and weight - but they do mean there's less of an immediate wow factor for me.
Other initial observations (on my R6, unfortunately no R5s available at the moment):
- contrary to some views I've seen on YT etc, contrast does improve even in the centre when stopping down (looking at RAWs in C1P)
- either the focal plane is highly curved at f/1.4 and close up, or my copy has a wicked tilt...more testing required to nail this down
- the linear motor clunk feels more pronounced than the Fuji GFX equivalent (e.g. the GF 110mm where I first encountered this clunk shortly after taking it out of the box, and nearly crapped myself), which I suspect may simply be because there's less mass to damp it compared to the GFX. But I've been clunking around the world with my GFX lenses for ~6 years now for landscape work and have had no issues, so I'm relaxed about this.
ashwinrao1 wrote:
Taken on Canon R5, mixed indoor lighting. I am seeing a lot of optical vignetting (cat's eye bokeh) and a ton of barrel distortion and vignetting. This was not corrected adequately using the RF 35mm f/1.8 profile or with manual correction options in LR. Sharp as sharp can get, but definitely needs some profiling to be reasonable for stills. I am not so sure yet about this lens. We need a proper LR profile at the very least, to address barrel distortion.
On a positive note, the lens is very light and feels much more compact, easy to handle than prior EF models. I don't think the VCM rattle would bother me much as I'd rarely be swinging a camera around with enough force, velocity, or angular momentum for it to come into play for either stills or video.
To me, as a stills shooter who does some video, I think much will depend on the profiles avaiable in LR, the Bokeh characteristics in settings outside of a camera store, and the sharp/OOF transitions. The lens focuses fast enough for me, and does not feel like it hesitates at all. ...Show more →
Thanks for sharing your three excellent photos that give a good presentation of what to expect in the out of focus backgrounds rendered by this new lens.
As a side note, the only visible optical difference that I can see between the first two photos is the fact that the main subject is wearing optical eye correction in the second shot!
Photonadave wrote:
Thanks for sharing your three excellent photos that give a good presentation of what to expect in the out of focus backgrounds rendered by this new lens.
As a side note, the only visible optical difference that I can see between the first two photos is the fact that the main subject is wearing optical eye correction in the second shot!
I think he might be trying to show the distortion with the store lighting in the background. Those straight strip lights behind the guy are bending.
Anyway, my RF 35 1.4 was delivered on Friday and I haven't had a chance to open the box yet but I'll be testing it this next week. I'm not thrilled on the reviews so far because I do a lot of backlight shooting and the German review doesn't look promising for backlit photo and video.
artsupreme wrote:
I think he might be trying to show the distortion with the store lighting in the background. Those straight strip lights behind the guy are bending.
Anyway, my RF 35 1.4 was delivered on Friday and I haven't had a chance to open the box yet but I'll be testing it this next week. I'm not thrilled on the reviews so far because I do a lot of backlight shooting and the German review doesn't look promising for backlit photo and video.
I admire your restraint with not opening the the box till next week. This is a very foreign concept for me to comprehend!
Photonadave wrote:
I admire your restraint with not opening the the box till next week. This is a very foreign concept for me to comprehend!
I'm just getting back into town and I'm bogged down with approx 1TB of video work I shot last week. I'm not very motivated to open the box after watching the German review.
_Refraction wrote:
- either the focal plane is highly curved at f/1.4 and close up, or my copy has a wicked tilt...more testing required to nail this down.
The Flickr link above has some extreme close up photos. The one I looked at more closely also gave me this impression (possible strong field curvature) before I read your comment. It also appears that foreground out of focus bokeh quality is not very pleasant at least at very close focus distances. Looks like very hard edged rings that may accentuate double edge bokeh quality. It's not uncommon for a lens to have smoother bokeh on one side of the plane of focus and harsh bokeh on the opposite side. In this case I suppose it's preferable to harsh background bokeh.
I will say I uploaded the latest LR classic (13.4) update, and while the frame is slightly tighter, the barrel distortion (which is extreme uncorrected) resolves itself nicely, as dose vignetting. I decided to spring for the lens, as I really think it will suit my needs with this system.
ashwinrao1 wrote:
I will say I uploaded the latest LR classic (13.4) update, and while the frame is slightly tighter, the barrel distortion (which is extreme uncorrected) resolves itself nicely, as dose vignetting. I decided to spring for the lens, as I really think it will suit my needs with this system.
Hi Ashwin, it might be worth comparing the SOOC framing, which will have Canon's default corrections applied, vs. LRC's framing with Adobe's profile applied.
I recently had a loaner 24-105/2.8 Z and noticed that LRC's correction profile resulted in wider framing than Canon's corrections. It's possible that many of the RF lenses with stronger distortion, Adobe may have a different philosophy for distortion corrections. At least with the 24-105 at 24mm, Canon 'locked' central image magnification at 1x and let the distortion correction 'stretch out' the rest of the image accordingly. Adobe on the other hand appears to have selected some midway off-axis point as the 1x magnification position. As a result the central image area appears to recede slightly (becomes smaller compared to SOOC) and the image edges aren't stretched as far out of the frame, resulting in a wider final angle of view.
Perhaps. I didn't think to compare this from a stills perspective. Here I might actually side with Adobe's interpretation because it buys a little more usable image area, wider angle of view, at the wide end. For video it will generally be captured in-camera due to the lens's optical design and/or software correction of focus breathing, therefore Canon's corrections will be the default. Do we know how much Canon corrects focus breathing in software?
rscheffler wrote:
Perhaps. I didn't think to compare this from a stills perspective. Here I might actually side with Adobe's interpretation because it buys a little more usable image area, wider angle of view, at the wide end. For video it will generally be captured in-camera due to the lens's optical design and/or software correction of focus breathing, therefore Canon's corrections will be the default. Do we know how much Canon corrects focus breathing in software?
With the previous heavily software-corrected lenses (14-35L, 10-20L, 16) the corrected pictures for SOOC JPEG or DPP4 matches the angle of view you expect for the listed focal length. So with the 14-35L set to its widest, Canon will give you a 14mm picture. Adobe will give you a 13.5mm picture and DxO will go even wider.
In DxO PR and PL you can also opt to get an uncropped image, which is even wider, but won't have straight sides
^ It's missing the flare sample images found in his other reviews. Wondering if that will appear later. I only skimmed the review but it doesn't seem much deeper than a spec sheet summary...
tsdevine wrote:
Click on the Image Quality, Vignetting, and Distortion links....he definitely did those tests using the lens.
As far as I can tell, he’s not using the lens for these, just the published charts from Canon, as there aren’t even any pictures taken with the lens. This “review” has been up for a while and was the one I quoted a while back when I said the EF 35 L II is actually sharper in the dead center.
This link just goes to the write up from when it was announced, not a full review. There aren’t even any sample shots or test images, just images from other 35mm lenses and published test charts.
Bryan had to have had the lens, to produce the results at the links below. He wouldn't have gotten those from Canon. Not saying he won't add to the review. But the structured lens testing he does appears to have been done.
comotionfilms wrote:
As far as I can tell, he’s not using the lens for these, just the published charts from Canon, as there aren’t even any pictures taken with the lens. This “review” has been up for a while and was the one I quoted a while back when I said the EF 35 L II is actually sharper in the dead center.
comotionfilms wrote:
This link just goes to the write up from when it was announced, not a full review. There aren’t even any sample shots or test images, just images from other 35mm lenses and published test charts.
That's pretty much the feeling I had - what he touches on seems to be more about handling of the lens rather than visual examples made with it. There are the links to the resolution charts, distortion, vignetting but nothing (yet?) regarding vignetting. The written part feels more cut/paste from other reviews tweaked with specific details about this lens without really going into depth about its image quality.
