ben egbert wrote:
Soft backgrounds. Is this poor resolution at infinity? All of my WA Canons have been that way, but after micro adjust, and all of them needed a lot of front focus correction this improved considerably.
Or do you mean the oof blur? .
Oof blur. Here's the scenario: Subject is about 15-20 feet from the camera and photographed from maximum aperture through to f/11. Comparing the 24 f/1.4 II against the 24 f/2.8 and the TS-E 24, at equivalent apertures, the background (objects at around infinity focus) has more oof blur in the 24 f/1.4 II images until about f/8, at which point all are very similar. At f/2.8 and f/4 there are significant differences between the oof blur produced by the 24 f/1.4 II compared to the two others (and those two are nearly identical to each other).
Therefore, if I wanted a 24mm lens that will render greater oof background blur until about f/5.6, such as for better subject/background separation, I would choose the 24 f/1.4 II. If I was in a situation where I had to shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 and give the impression of greater background sharpness (more depth of field), then I would choose the 24 f/2.8 or TS-E.
It seems that the recent DPP auto-noise correction bug/issue caused the poor initial results from Bryan's first sample of the lens, with the test results of both samples now showing substantially improved performance over that shown in the original test from early December.
Received my 24L II yesterday. Really digging this lens so far. Sharpness wide open is quite good on a 5D2 and it takes further sharpening in PS very well. The CA is considerably reduced from the previous version and the bokeh looks a smidge nicer to me. Overall its well worth the upgrade (assuming you shoot at 24 at large apertures). The vignetting at large apertures is very pronounced but so far it isn't bothering me. Like Stan, I really like the "look" of the lens. Not sure what exactly that is, perhaps its the combination of sharpness wide open with low CA, punchy colors and heavy vignetting. There's just something really nice about the images.
Now I'm really excited to see what Canon is able to do with the 35L update.
Still only 2 reviews on this in the lens review page. Must be more people here with this lens. Sure would like to know how it does landscapes, especially corners, but also how well it holds detail at infinity.
Took a look at your link, was not able to see how to view full size. That first image shows sharp corners and has some infinity content. Hard to tell how good that is at this size.
Thanks, took a while to download. Looks very good in terms of sharpness from near corner to the furtherest subject. Just the sort of thing I was looking for.
What was the aperture and focus point if you recall?
Hint: If you want to get rid of the color aberrations in the tree branches try out DxO Optics Pro trial version (www.dxo.com). Under the "Prepare" tab turn on Chromatic Aberration and check "Purple Fringing". It works wonders for your images.
Life is unfair. I am still waiting for my copy of this lens.
abqnmusa wrote:
DPP can also fix fringing when processing the RAW file
Yup, but DxO is generic so you can fix jpeg's or tiff's. Agree that it is best to use RAW.
The thing is with DPP, it gives me less detail. Shooting grass it becomes a blur in DPP relative speaking compared to DxO. We all have our favorite converter I guess.
Problem with DxO OP is that lens profiles are not always available, such as in this case. The "purple fringing" removal function however does not require a profile.
I've had this lens for over a month now. I don't have any 100% crops or brick-wall testing for you but I can say that this lens is a solid performer. I'm keeping it
Here's a gallery of web-sized pics from the lens on a 5D:
Overall, the sharpness is excellent. It's just okay wide open, but by about f/2.0, it's really sharp. The most impressive thing to me is the sharpness in the corners.
At f/5.6, this lens is amazing. I don't often view my pics at 100%, but when I looked at the f/5.6 images at 100%, I was blown away.
CA seems to be very well controlled (much better than my L-zooms), even at wide apertures. Really, there just isn't any significant CA.
Light fall-off in the corners is significant at f/1.4 (~2 stops). It improves by f/2.0. By f/2.8, it's just very slight (perhaps 1/2 stop). This is nothing new vs. previous reviews.
The colors and contrast are beautiful. Images straight out have a sort of "wow" quality (sorry for not being more scientific). If you've seen good quality images from good L-primes before, you'll know what I'm talking about
I don't have a 24mm Mk1 version to compare, but I borrowed a Mk1 a year ago and used it for a few days. Looking back at those images and then looking at the new ones from the Mk2, I'd say things look pretty equal. This isn't a brick-wall test and comparison by any means, but just from a quick observation, the new version is just as good for sure. I'd say that the corners in the new version look better.
The build quality of the Mk2 is solid, and it's quite heavy. I like the new hood, despite being larger than the Mk1 version hood. It seems to be made from a little bit thicker plastic. Plus the little locking tabs on the hood look to be removable, so perhaps you can replace them when they wear down and the hood gets too loose.
My only real complaint is the cost of this lens. But I guess that's just the price you have to pay for good glass these days
Now, I just need to get out in the field and shoot something for real!
Kim Bentsen wrote:
Yup, but DxO is generic so you can fix jpeg's or tiff's. Agree that it is best to use RAW.
The thing is with DPP, it gives me less detail. Shooting grass it becomes a blur in DPP relative speaking compared to DxO. We all have our favorite converter I guess.
Problem with DxO OP is that lens profiles are not always available, such as in this case. The "purple fringing" removal function however does not require a profile.
Kim,
Are you sure you have disabled all noise reduction in DPP?
The latest version has some NR applied. Be sure to reduce it to zero.
This made a big difference in the sharpness of my landscape shots, using DPP.
After fixing this, DPP does very well.
I am sure. DPP is not bad, DxO is just better. More resolution can be found in DxO output. I have compared RAW converters when new versions appeared. I always removes noise and sharpening options. Most of the time DPP is OK, but for some reason the resolution in lawns and grass areas goes south.
Have you compared output from DPP and DxO?
One thing that really sets DxO apart, is how well it handles CA and purple fringing.
The good thing about DPP is that all lens profiles (apart from the big whites) are build in. This is the down side with DxO. Lens profiles are lacking for new and non mass market lenses.
The has been a lot of problems (most are fixed) with DxO. My self and others are constantly on their case about this on their own forum. Having said that, DxO OP is the numero uno raw converter available when you look at output quality.
When using DxO for production I actually have noise processing turned on, because it will remove noise before the demosaicing process unlike other raw converters. It gives a better result.
Br, Kim
trumpet_guy wrote:
Kim,
Are you sure you have disabled all noise reduction in DPP?
The latest version has some NR applied. Be sure to reduce it to zero.
This made a big difference in the sharpness of my landscape shots, using DPP.
After fixing this, DPP does very well.
I have not tried DxO. Thanks for the run-down on it. Sounds like a good product,
though I had heard complaints previously about it's license management code, which
seemed to wreak havoc on some computers. That was a turn-off, and I didn't
pursue it at the time. Seems like it could be worth checking out.
Kim Bentsen wrote:
The good thing about DPP is that all lens profiles (apart from the big whites) are build in. This is the down side with DxO. Lens profiles are lacking for new and non mass market lenses.
Actually, DPP does have the profiles for the "big whites" because I've been able to use vignetting and CA controls for the 400 IS and 600 IS.
A bit off topic, but perhaps of interest:
When DPP came out with the additional vignetting, distortion and CA controls (version 3.2), I did some side by side conversions against version 3.0.1 and found that Canon seems to vary the sharpening of the red and blue channels by a significant degree. In the older version the red channel was sharper than in v3.2 yet the blue channel was sharper in v3.0.1 than v3.2. If they'd output both red and blue at the higher sharpening, the resulting conversion would naturally be a bit sharper (I know because I replaced the softer red channel in a v.3.2 conversion from the same image converted in v.3.0.1). BTW, when I refer to sharpening, it's whatever the default conversion sharpening is that Canon applies to all conversions before the user selected sharpening (which I had set to zero). I haven't done the comparison with v.3.5.1, so can't comment on how it handles the red and blue channels. I'm sure DxO is able to do a great job at pulling out more detail since it appears Canon is intentionally either blurring or not sharpening certain channels.
but I can say that this lens is a solid performer. I'm keeping it