24-105L Curved horizon.

[Rocguy]

Took some pics with my 24-105L on my 6D today and the horizon was curved when I had the lens at 24mm. A LOT. Embarrassingly so. I'm not really sure what this is called to look it up. Lol Barrel distortion or field of curvature? All I know is it was a lot. Would doing afma on this lens help any? Is it pure user error? Or is this just normal for this lens? Someone I know said it was because I used the "kit" lens, but this is an L lens I thought it would be better than this. I mostly am not using it at 24 so it really only showed up today when I was at the beach taking some pictures.

If I can figure out how I'll try to attach an example. Thanks for any info/help anyone has on this issue.

 

[Pi]

First, the horizon is actually curved. This is more visible with wider angles.

Next, the 24-105 does have a considerable barrel distortion at the wide end. If you are using LR/ACR, they would correct it automatically, and you will never see it again. In DPP, you have to click here and there for that. In DXO, it is also automatic.

 

[Rocguy]

First, the horizon is actually curved. This is more visible with wider angles.

Next, the 24-105 does have a considerable barrel distortion at the wide end. If you are using LR/ACR, they would correct it automatically, and you will never see it again. In DPP, you have to click here and there for that. In DXO, it is also automatic.

I use Aperture instead of Lightroom. Anyone have tips on correcting this in Aperture?

 

[Loswr]

PTLens plugin for Aperture.

Personally, I use Aperture for image triage and library management. But I use DxO for RAW conversions.

 

[Rocguy]

PTLens plugin for Aperture.

Personally, I use Aperture for image triage and library management. But I use DxO for RAW conversions.

Thanks. Currently I just use Aperture for everything. But I'm beginning to wish I had bought Lightroom instead. But maybe this DxO would help.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

All lenses have distortions, but zoom lenses are the worst. Usually wide angles have the most distortion, but the telephoto end does as well.
There are usually free trials of plug-ins, or Lightroom has one.

Canon DPP has even more sophisticated corrections for Canon lenses, and its free. First develop the image in DPP and send it to Aperture for a final touchup and for library management. You can setup DPP to export to Aperture automatically.

 

[Rocguy]

After a little (ok, a lot ) of head scratching and figuring out I changed it to this. Which is much better than it was. I used the PTlens plugin for Aperture. FYI.

I feel like this should be easier to do? Lol So maybe I need a better workflow. But I have to admit I hate this part of this photography thing. I sort of want the images to just look great on the computer right from the SD card...

 

[rpt]

After a little (ok, a lot ) of head scratching and figuring out I changed it to this. Which is much better than it was. I used the PTlens plugin for Aperture. FYI.

I feel like this should be easier to do? Lol So maybe I need a better workflow. But I have to admit I hate this part of this photography thing. I sort of want the images to just look great on the computer right from the SD card...

In LR it is one check box that needs to be checked...

 

[bdunbar79]

Hmmm. I looked in my Camera RAW program and there are buttons and sliders to correct this for the 24-105L lens.

 

[dirtcastle]

Another trick is to lower the camera and place the horizon closer to the center of the frame. Getting closer to the ground will also enhance the foreground, and make your friend look a bit more dramatic. ;-)

 

[friedmud]

In LR it is one check box that needs to be checked...

I agree with this.

But I'll also add something else here: optical perfection comes has costs. Sure, we all want perfect pictures straight out of the camera, but you have to keep in mind a few things:

1. Money. As in $$$$. Instead of spending $1000 on the 24-105 and getting this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

You could have spent $2000 on a 24-70 Mk II and gotten this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

How much is a straight horizon worth to you?

2. Utility. Instead of having image stabilization, autofocus and a huge zoom range you could have spent $1,700 and gotten this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/713-zeiss25f2eosff?start=1

Do you want to walk around with a bag full of primes and change lenses every 10 minutes to get a perfectly straight horizon?



My point here is that every lens has its tradeoffs. Some trade performance for cost. Others trade utility for ultimate image quality. What lens is right for YOU is what you need to work out.

If you're going to be taking nothing but pictures containing tons of perfectly straight lines (ie architecture photography) you might want to invest some cash in some primes that have as little distortion as possible.

If you're going to be taking casual travel photos that occasionally show distortion effects (like your shot here) it's probably better to err on the side of utility (like you've done with the 24-105). What good are perfectly straight lines if your dog runs off while you're trying to change lenses??

Finally, a tip: learn the strengths and weaknesses of your gear and keep that in mind while you're shooting. Don't try to force a tool to do a job it wasn't made for....

 

[Eli]

Is it me or is the curve only on one side only, and more visible vignetting on the other side..

 

[bitm2007]

Rocguy. Specking as a pro landscape photographer who lives near the coast, I think you've gone a little to far with the distortion correction in the dog image. As Pi stated in the first reply to your post 'the horizon is actually curved'. You should therefore leave a small amount of curvature in your landscapes, especially when using a wide angle lens. If you visit the coast, try holding a ruler or other straight edge up to the horizon at arms length, you will plainly see what Pi and myself are getting at. Basically there should be some curvature but it shouldn't be obvious like in your original.

 

[lol]

Is it me or is the curve only on one side only, and more visible vignetting on the other side..

The curve appearing on one side is probably due to a slight tilt of the camera. The vignetting looks about the same both sides to me. Be careful as the image is cropped on my forum view, so you have to move the slider to see all of it.

 

[Eli]

Is it me or is the curve only on one side only, and more visible vignetting on the other side..

The curve appearing on one side is probably due to a slight tilt of the camera. The vignetting looks about the same both sides to me. Be careful as the image is cropped on my forum view, so you have to move the slider to see all of it.

Ahh that makes sense, on my iPhone it only showed the left side of the image..

 

[Pi]

In LR it is one check box that needs to be checked...

I agree with this.

But I'll also add something else here: optical perfection comes has costs. Sure, we all want perfect pictures straight out of the camera, but you have to keep in mind a few things:

1. Money. As in $$$$. Instead of spending $1000 on the 24-105 and getting this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

You could have spent $2000 on a 24-70 Mk II and gotten this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

How much is a straight horizon worth to you?

Is not so much matter of cost - what we have here are different lens designs due to different FL ranges. It is not like the designers of the 24-105 did not get paid enough to reduce the geometric distortions even more.

I remember reading an interview by one of the Samsung representatives - his point was that the ability to correct geometry with software allows to design sharper lenses, even after software corrections, since optical distortion corrections come at a greater IQ cost.

 

[Spiffyinferno]

Is not so much matter of cost - what we have here are different lens designs due to different FL ranges. It is not like the designers of the 24-105 did not get paid enough to reduce the geometric distortions even more.

I remember reading an interview by one of the Samsung representatives - his point was that the ability to correct geometry with software allows to design sharper lenses, even after software corrections, since optical distortion corrections come at a greater IQ cost.

This! I will say that the 24-105 has been my go-to for landscapes due to limited budget (though I'm interested in the 14mm Samyang 2.8, which is known for really ugly mustached-distortion... also fixable!)-- I've shot a lot on the Washington coast and, as others have said on this, the Lightroom correction is one button. If you're still kicking yourself for using Aperture instead, you can download a 30-day trial of Lightroom from the Adobe site. Definitely worth tinkering with.

I know you mentioned you hate the technical editing piece of photography but these days that's where a lot seems to really come together. If you get a great shot, simple non-destructive enhancements really let it shine. I dove into photography again after a 10 year hiatus because it's the only hobby where I felt art was truly co-dependent on science in every way. Embrace the tech if you can, or just get really fantastic, perfect light on all your outings. Cheers!

 

[Pi]

[...] the Lightroom correction is one button.

Once an year, if I may add, when you upgrade LR (actually, if I am not mistaken, the new version uses your old preferences so it maybe one click in a lifetime!). You set up LR to auto-correct the lens distortions and forget about it.

 

[Rocguy]

In LR it is one check box that needs to be checked...

I agree with this.

But I'll also add something else here: optical perfection comes has costs. Sure, we all want perfect pictures straight out of the camera, but you have to keep in mind a few things:

1. Money. As in $$$$. Instead of spending $1000 on the 24-105 and getting this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

You could have spent $2000 on a 24-70 Mk II and gotten this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

How much is a straight horizon worth to you?

2. Utility. Instead of having image stabilization, autofocus and a huge zoom range you could have spent $1,700 and gotten this:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/713-zeiss25f2eosff?start=1

Do you want to walk around with a bag full of primes and change lenses every 10 minutes to get a perfectly straight horizon?



My point here is that every lens has its tradeoffs. Some trade performance for cost. Others trade utility for ultimate image quality. What lens is right for YOU is what you need to work out.

If you're going to be taking nothing but pictures containing tons of perfectly straight lines (ie architecture photography) you might want to invest some cash in some primes that have as little distortion as possible.

If you're going to be taking casual travel photos that occasionally show distortion effects (like your shot here) it's probably better to err on the side of utility (like you've done with the 24-105). What good are perfectly straight lines if your dog runs off while you're trying to change lenses??

Finally, a tip: learn the strengths and weaknesses of your gear and keep that in mind while you're shooting. Don't try to force a tool to do a job it wasn't made for....

This I understand. And for my purposes I wouldn't have want to spend double on a lens for the few landscape type shots I do. I would count this as learning the strengths and weaknesses of my gear. I will definitely be more careful in the future of using this lens at 24mm, and know from the get go that I would have to run it through some PP afterwards.

 

[Rocguy]

This! I will say that the 24-105 has been my go-to for landscapes due to limited budget (though I'm interested in the 14mm Samyang 2.8, which is known for really ugly mustached-distortion... also fixable!)-- I've shot a lot on the Washington coast and, as others have said on this, the Lightroom correction is one button. If you're still kicking yourself for using Aperture instead, you can download a 30-day trial of Lightroom from the Adobe site. Definitely worth tinkering with.

I know you mentioned you hate the technical editing piece of photography but these days that's where a lot seems to really come together. If you get a great shot, simple non-destructive enhancements really let it shine. I dove into photography again after a 10 year hiatus because it's the only hobby where I felt art was truly co-dependent on science in every way. Embrace the tech if you can, or just get really fantastic, perfect light on all your outings. Cheers!

I think I will end up doing this Lightroom trial. And possibly buy in the future. And I know you're right in that I have to embrace the tech a bit more. I'm not so much afraid of the tech as I am of the learning curve at the beginning of using it. But I can't get past that if I don't start it...