cactusclay wrote:
Has anyone seen a sharp eye ball shot at 1.2 yet?
What are you really asking for here? A full-sized eyeball taking up the entire shot? A face shot? A torso shot with a 100% crop? Needless to say, doing a macro shot focusing on an eyeball at f/1.2 would be, err... pretty stupid.
Sam Bennett wrote:
What are you really asking for here? A full-sized eyeball taking up the entire shot? A face shot? A torso shot with a 100% crop? Needless to say, doing a macro shot focusing on an eyeball at f/1.2 would be, err... pretty stupid.
Settle down there Sammy boy, don't work yourself into a lather. I'm looking for a portrait head shot with the eyes sharp at 1.2, like what the lens would be used for on a camera shooting portraits. With the eyes looking into the lens.
cactusclay wrote:
Settle down there Sammy boy, don't work yourself into a lather. I'm looking for a portrait head shot with the eyes sharp at 1.2, like what the lens would be used for on a camera shooting portraits.
Heh, I wasn't getting worked up - I was asking you to clarify what you wanted so I could actually help you, hence the . :P
Still, shooting a headshot at f/1.2 is pretty stupid. If I'm doing portraiture that close I typically stop down to about f/4.
It almost appears that the left eyebrow is on the same plane as the right eyeball in relation to you perpendicularly, but the right eyebrow is not(appears closer and oof). I'm not convinced this demonstrates a back focusing issue.
Isn't that the last thing you need Perry ? sending in another lense to canon ? (ie: 600mm)
I would use it some more before you make your final determination...
rockitman wrote:
It almost appears that the left eyebrow is on the same plane as the right eyeball in relation to you perpendicularly, but the right eyebrow is not(appears closer and oof). I'm not convinced this demonstrates a back focusing issue.
Isn't that the last thing you need Perry ? sending in another lense to canon ? (ie: 600mm)
I would use it some more before you make your final determination...
My sons face was at an anle to me, his left eye is closer to me and the right eye is further away. I have done test on letters and it is definitely backfocusing.
Yes I have a bad run faulty 600mm and now 50mm, but that said at least it is something that can be fixed. I dont feel bad anymore as my wife had a stroke when I received my faulty 600mm and in the scheme of things I am happy if the lens can be fix. I can't fix a stroke
Now who's worked into a lather? Nice images - I'm just not a big fan of DoF that narrow, just a matter of taste.
Anyway, more boring dog shots... went outside in good light to test backfocus in more practical conditions. I'm happy to say out of a few dozen shots everything seemed fine. I don't think these shots are super sharp for f/2.0 (I think my 85/1.8 would be sharper) but they're not bad - and the bokeh is quite nice.
These were all processed in DPP with "Sharpness 2" set, custom WB, black levels punched up a bit since I overexposed slightly.
50/1.2L @ f/2, 1/800th, ISO 100
50/1.2L @ f/2, 1/640th, ISO 100
50/1.2L @ f/2, 1/2000th, ISO 100
50/1.2L @ f/2, 1/2000th, ISO 100
Edited by Sam Bennett on Dec 08, 2006 at 09:35 PM GMT
I am attaching 4 images (below). One is a full frame overview, and the rest are 3 crops from the same sized images as the full frame image. These are completely unsharpened examples from my 50/1.2L @ f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.6. Processed with Capture One. These are manually focused.
And for those of you that don't think phone books hold any value in shooting....I agree but as an example of sharpness compared to another's lens...then they are valuable.
My lens seems to be a sharp copy. BUT IT HAS THE BACKFOCUSING ISSUE ALSO, on 3 different bodies that I tested it on. While the backfocus is not extreme, I sent my lens overnight to Canon CPS/ Irvine on Tuesday for this issue and got it back today. The results? It still backfocuses!
Now...what to do? I contacted Canon today and was quite agitated about this issue. They are supposed to call me back on Monday after they have talked to their techs.
Bottom line for me?: I could really like this lens! (see text below)
This lens is reasonably sharp wide open and VERY VERY sharp when stopped down a little (actually I'm impressed). It has good control of CA, reasonable bokeh, little light falloff, focuses reasonably quick and is lightweight compared to the 50L f/1. BUT Canon is going to have to address this issue of backfocusing!
By the way, the backfocusing is MOSTLY apparent in close up photos where the DOF is very narrow.
I mentioned to the Canon rep today that I was trying focus testing at approx 2 feet. He responded to me that the lens was calibrated at 6 feet, and I probably should not use it at 2 feet. BAAAH. It has 1.5 feet on its focus scale...and I for one think it should BE ACCURATE at close range, after all...my older 50Ls were! Plus an error at close distances is also there at longer distances...but it just gets covered in the larger DOF.
So, we'll see what Canon comes back with on Monday...
I want to keep this lens and like it.....but I think Canon is going to HAVE to fix it!
Oh...by the way....I am not a lens testing expert, so if I have missed something, please let me know. Maybe focusing under 6 feet should be manual?
I tried my focusing again with 85L and 50L and it seems OK to me now. I focus on the letter "I" ie the one on the left of S. I think I was doing it too close to image in my previous attempts
rockitman wrote:
Well that is good news. That looks spot on to me. One of my favorite boxes....
Thanks Christian.
I think sometimes we are too close to image and somehow it generates inaccurate reading. I went through all this with my 10d. Many a time I thought I have focusing issues but then I decided to go and shoot in real life situations and never worried about it again until now
Hi Harvey, all of the examples in my other post were manually focused...they were meant as a sharpness test of the lens compared to another posters copy.
The backfocus issue was just there for discussion. Sorry if I was not clear on this.
Here is an example of single point AF...
And...yes I know there is a lot of stuff there that AF could focus on...but take my word for it....when only one line is there or one possible point is there....it backfocuses...
My experience this afternoon seems to backup the "further away better" comment you got from Canon. I don't think it's really explainable just by having more wiggle room with increased DoF. The shots just seem like they're dead on. I may run up stairs and try my focus accuracy test again from 6ft just for the hell of it.
If you missed it, I posted a bunch of photos on the last page...
Unfortunately the bummer about trying to do a focus accuracy test at 6' is that it's difficult with the size chart I have and the 8MP MKII - there's not enough resolution to really make a solid determination of how accurate it is.
If I'm doing portraiture that close I typically stop down to about f/4.
? sending in another lense to canon ? (ie: 600mm)
