Topics

1

Lenses / 70-200mm 2.8 IS mkii vignetting in the corner problem. Can someone help me?

« on: April 03, 2012, 04:42:59 PM »

Hello all,

I have a 5D mkII and mkIII and a 70-200 2.8IS mkII.
I noticed recently that it seems to have some extra vignetting in the corners at certain focal lengths (seeminly beyond typical vignetting on FF camera).  70mm seems normal, 100mm seems the worst where the vignette has the sharpest edge.  135mm and 200mm it's apparent, but the fade is softer, still bad though in my opinion.  I find that putting on filters makes it worse.  I put on a thin, normal sized clear 77mm filter on and the vignette intensifies.  I've never had one clear filter add vignetting of any kind, especially when zooming in.

I can't find any samples of from my old mark I where there is this problem.  And I've rented 3 different copies of the mark II (3 different serial numbers) where I've also not seen the problem.

I have sent this lens to Canon 3 times in the past month.  Each time I get it back, they tell me that it's normal vignetting and the lens is up to spec.  It's currently still at Canon and I'm battling it out with the engineer trying to convince him there really is a problem with this copy.

I use this lens primarily for landscape work, where I have to mess with contrast in a hazy city.  Adding contrast obviously magnifies the problem.  But like I said, I've never encountered the problem on 3 other copies of the lens, nor my old mark I under boosted contrast situations.

When I apply lens vignette correction in both LR3 and LR4 I get this weird halo effect where the lense's natural vignetting seems to be taken out, but this extra vignetting remains.  When I spit out .jpgs from my 5DIII I don't get the halo effect quite as much, but the corners are still clearly vignetting.
I understand that software lens correction both by Adobe and Canon are not perfect, but on every other 70-200, or any other lens I've used I get much much better results than I am with this lens.

I sent in to Canon a series of tests from this lens on my 5DIII with different focal lengths, both with and without the clear filter.  All tests were done at f5.6 where vignetting should be fairly mellow to begin with, and it's the stop I shoot at the most.  I also put focus at infinite where the problem seemed worse, and where I typically use my lens.

MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU:

BELOW are the two .jpgs of the lens at 100mm f5.6 focus:infinite on 5Diii with in-camera vignette removal applied, one with a clear filter, one without.  Picture Style is standard with contrast bumped to max.
Does this seem typical for most of you?  Do you experience this kind of vignetting even after in-camera removal?
Am I crazy and these images are just fine?  BELOW are also links to the RAW files for these .jpgs where you can see them without vignette removal and with contrast at Adobe's standard.

ALSO, would anyone be willing to replicate my tests with their own 5D, either markII or markIII and their 70-200 2.8IS mkII?  If so, here was my setup:
-Tripod shooting large, white posterboard with direct sunlight.
-100mm, f5.6, focus:infinite, evaluative meetering with no compensation (so the white posterboard turned out grey)
-Can you do a test with and without a standard clear or UV filter.
-Feel free to do 70mm, 135mm, and 200mm as well.
-And can you email the RAW results:
thatcher@thatcherphoto.net

I'm not typically super critical of my gear.  I only am making a stink to canon and now here because I saw the bad results in some of my recent landscapes.  I don't want to have to carefully add a grad in Lightroom every time the problem shows up in a real photograph.

And as a side note, I haven't shot with a crop camera for a while.  So I'm not comparing to what it looks like compared to a crop frame camera, where there is less vignetting overall.

And please don't tell me that I need to stop obsessing with my gear and should just go outside and shoot.  This is a problem that has come up in real situations, and I'm trying to remedy the problem with Canon, or get convinced by some of you who can do the test yourselves and show me that I'm out of my mind and there is no problem.


5DIII/100mm/f5.6/focus:infinity/Standard Picture Style with contrast up all the way/in-camera vign. removal turned on
WITH FILTER:


5DIII/100mm/f5.6/focus:infinity/Standard Picture Style with contrast up all the way/in-camera vign. removal turned on
WITHOUT FILTER:


RAW VERSIONS---
WITH FILTER:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2077993/70200vignette/TKA_0085.dng

WITHOUT FILTER:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2077993/70200vignette/TKA_0086.dng

Thanks,
Thatcher
thatcher@thatcherphoto.net
thatcherkelley.com

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5Diii pink picture problem

« on: March 23, 2012, 03:03:18 PM »

I was shooting some tests with my 5D just now and one of the shots I took has an extreme pink to it (except at the top of the frame) see below.  This was the only shot that did this.  None of the other shots had this problem.  I was shooting RAW to CF, and JPG to SD card.  It was pink in both RAW and JPG.  Here is a compressed jpg version:


and here is a link to the original untouched .cr2:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2077993/A12_0162.CR2


Anyone else having weird things like this happening?

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5Diii and sigma 85mm 1.4 slow focus (maybe)

« on: March 23, 2012, 02:14:14 PM »

I may just be paranoid, but I have a sigma 85mm 1.4 and love it so much.  I just got my 5Diii and it seems like the motor is moving slower than it did on my 5Dii.  It still gets focus, it's just the motor takes longer to get where it needs to go than I remember on my 5Dii.  I don't have my mark ii with me right now so I can't do a side-by-side comparison.

Does anyone else have this lens-camera combination and noticed the USM motor moving slower on the 5Diii than on the 5Dii.

I've not noticed anything odd on my canon lenses.  And I don't know if I'm just paranoid and I'll pop this thing on my 5Dii and it will react the same.

4

EOS Bodies / Why Canon doesn't Care about high MP photographers: a theory

« on: March 06, 2012, 10:47:07 PM »

This is just a theory.  And let me first off say that I am a landscape photographer.  I shoot some news and weddings, but primarily landscape.  And I'll say that I was disappointed that the 5Diii wasn't higher MP.

I wonder if the reason that almost all the new and updated features in the new 5D are geared for wedding, sports, nature, news shooters because these are the types of shooters that DSLRs are geared toward naturally.  Would it be true that most studio and landscape shooters that make the serious dough use medium format digital and full frame film.  Where those who are on more limited budgets settle for DSLRs as a budget option.  Afterall many features that are on DSLRs, even the idea of a single-lens reflex system aren't necessary for a landscape photographer, and some such as an SLR system even limit quality.  Aren't optics more difficult when needing to put a mirror in the way of the lens and sensor vs. a rangefinder system.

I'm not saying that professional landscapers and studio shooters don't use DSLRs and some make a good chunk of change.  But in general DSLRs are designed for the exact audience that the new 5D seems to be geared for.

So I think that canon looks at the bottom line and realizes that no matter how many people want more megapixels there is simply a bigger market that wants low ISO, FPS, etc.

My hope is that Canon comes out with a camera that does fit that niche market.  I'd pre-order it in a second.

Like I said, I'm just proposing a theory.  Anyone have thoughts?

5

Lenses / TS-E 17mm weird mini-flare on edges?

« on: January 11, 2012, 08:57:42 AM »

I just picked up a TS-E 17mm yesterday and was doing some test shots with it on my 5Dii.  I notice that when there is a bright light just outside of my frame it creates a mini-flare on the edge where the light is nearest to.  It isn't centered in the frame, it's just on the edge.  When viewing in live-view I pan across the light and it does such a strange flare sort of thing.  These are bright street lights, or indoor lamps, but they aren't bright enough to flare out the whole image, just on the side of the frame.  This problem is present when tilted and shifted to the extreme as well as when the lens is centered.  In fact, I can get the flare to react without panning the camera.  I simply lock off the tripod with the light out of frame, then shift the lens until it's in frame and I see the flare moving and reacting to the edge of my image as I shift the lens.

Has anyone else had this problem?  Is this normal?  Does it have something to do with internal reflections in my 5D because the lens has such a large image circle?  I tried googling, but all I could find was that the lens performs great with standard flare.

I'll try and post some pictures at some point.  And I might try it on my 7D.

6

EOS Bodies / Who uses printers?

« on: December 13, 2011, 10:27:31 AM »

I don't mean this as a criticism.  I'm curious who uses printers these days for photos and why?  WHCC and Costco are so affordable that I would never buy a printer.  WHCC is very affordable for professional quality and Costco is extremely affordable for great pro-sumer quality.  Walmart and other stores are pretty dang good too.  Turnaround time is very fast, and I've always had the understanding that lightjet printers are superior to any inkjet printer.  Am I wrong, do some lightjet printers fall short?  Have inkjet printers risen in quality?  Is it the convenience of immediacy?  I also live in Southern California where there is a walgreens/costco/walmart every 5 feet.  I assume in rural areas it's less practical to drive a long distance to pick up photos from a store.

Inkjet printer fans, weigh in.  Enlighten me.

7

EOS Bodies / A full frame compact camera with mega megapixel?

« on: December 12, 2011, 04:52:22 PM »

This is more of a dream than anything else.

I hike and climb a lot and I like to shoot landscapes too.  I currently have a 5Dii, which gives me wonderful results.  I take it and my 16-35ii everywhere I hike.  I usually also bring my super-light tripod.  I carry so much climbing, camping, snow gear, etc. with me that the added camera weight is annoying.

I would love to have a minimalist landscape oriented camera that is TOP notch quality and would rival Canon's best cameras.  I'd pay a couple grand for it too.  I'm not looking for a cheap camera.

I would want a full-frame sensor, high high MP, no special features, no high speed, no SLR, mediocre ISO performance, I'm ok with a delay from pressing shutter release, to actual photo time (like a point and shoot).

In exchange I would love it to have a 10stop bracket setting (so filtration can be 100% in post).  I would also like an advanced intervolometer for time lapse, and customizable exposure times.  And I want it to be small and light.

Then I want canon to come out with a super light wide zoom that kicks BUTT at 5.6 and above.  Something in the range of 16-35mm, but super super light.  I don't know if it's even possible to build such a lens.

I'm just sick of carrying my feature-ridden 5D up mountains just for the sensor.  I want a ff high MP camera with point and shoot features (plus the intervolometer thing)

And if it had a built-in weight-less tripod that would be great too.

Oh, rainy, jobless days in LA...

I'm bored.

8

Landscape / What's with all the unsharping going on?

« on: October 14, 2011, 06:12:42 PM »

As I've been looking through the many photo contest submissions (especially in landscape), I'm blown away with how much "unsharp-mask"ing is going on.  Holy smokes!  I think it's probably the most over-used, misapplied function of photoshop, lightroom, etc.  It has it's place of course.  Subtle sharpening, subtle contrast enhancement.  Or over-the-top extreme HDR (not my cup of tea, but still can look interesting).  But it's all about moderation and subject.  You can get away with bumping it up on clouds frequently.  You can do some subtle work on faces or detailed objects.  Or even a super detailed subject like a rusted out truck from the 40s, you can go crazy and get some nice surreal results.

An example of what I mean:

Administrator Note:
Copyrighted images removed. 

Do not hot link or copy and post images that do not belong to you.