Is this expected performance from an L lens?

Can't you take your lens to a camera shop (with a tree outside :D) and ask to compare it to an identical model from their stock (mentioning that you would be able to get a refund on yours if it was proven to be faulty and would then come back and by the same model from them :naughty:)?

Then you could make a couple of test shots and see for yourself whether or not that 'neon light' effect purple/blue fringing is 'right' for an L lens ;).

My own personal feeling is that the examples that you have posted show unacceptable levels of strong (heavily saturated) fringing and that a 'better' example of this lens would probably render the fringing as smaller, more translucent and less blue than this, although there would undoubtedly be some present :|.

Good luck :thumbs:!
 
Well the new lens does the exact same, so I presume this is just in the design... Terrible really for the price. I guess some lenses are worse than others.

Good job it's a great lens otherwise - focus is very nice and fast, DOF is amazing as is the low light performance.

Here's a shot I got:

QBWru.jpg
 
Last edited:
It might be an idea to set up a little high contrast test scene and shoot it together with more forgiving test scenes at different apertures and zoom lengths. Once you've seen the results you can then decide what settings are best for each situation and when shooting wide open is going to adversely affect the image too much.
 
Good idea, shooting at a higher aperture does fix it mostly, but I try to keep the ISO as low as possible with this cam, as you can see noise shows up quite a bit..


p.s this new lens does seem a little bit better, only very slightly though. I'm going out for a shoot now to test it properly.
 
I think that it is really terrible and the only way you will be truly happy is if you donate the lens to me. I'll pay the P&P. :lol:
 
If you look here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

you will see that at 70mm there is a degree of CA at f2.8 which gradually gets better as the FL is increased.

I would also say that virtually any lens would show such a result if taken against an overexposed sky.

Also the fringing looks rather odd in some of the pics as if it had been "pushed".

Try taking a normal shot and ignore the OOF fringing which often occurs or take a few pics of the branches against the sky but this time expose for the sky.

.
 
Last edited:
It is much better if you just expose for the sky, but then again I don't really take any pictures of the sky, but lots of objects against them :).

I don't know what you mean by pushed, but I can say for certain they are 100% direct from the SD card..
 
LaurenceGough said:
It is much better if you just expose for the sky, but then again I don't really take any pictures of the sky, but lots of objects against them :).

I don't know what you mean by pushed, but I can say for certain they are 100% direct from the SD card..
Click to expand...

If you take objects against the sky and expose to get the object correct then the sky will invariably be overexposed to a greater or lesser degree.

This will act as a kind of "flare" around the objects giving rise to a greater degree of CA than is normal.

If you also do this at 70mm at f2.8 where the CA is greatest I would certainly expect to see exactly what you have.

And pixel peeping at 100% will only make the CA appear that much greater.

The review of the lens notes that "Color and contrast are good. Some CA is present...."

But as many people have noted you can reduce the CA in PP.

Since you have tried a second lens and found the same results it looks as though this is simply an attribute of this particular lens and physics.

.
 
DemiLion said:
PEBCAC
Click to expand...

Umm, I think not, if you have nothing useful to say please go elsewhere.:thumbsdown: Please realise these pictures are done to DEMONSTRATE the problem, of course it's going to be worse than normal pictures. However you can't ignore the fact that it still appears in normal pictures.


No filter on the lens.
 
You asked a question and I'm giving you an answer. Several other people have pointed out the same thing (albeit a touch more politely) and you've completely ignored them.

You are pushing the combination of body and lens beyond it's capabilities and then blaming the kit for your own lack of understanding.
 
DemiLion said:
You asked a question and I'm giving you an answer. Several other people have pointed out the same thing (albeit a touch more politely) and you've completely ignored them.

You are pushing the combination of body and lens beyond it's capabilities and then blaming the kit for your own lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

I perfectly understand - I just expected better from a L lens, the various coatings, UD elements etc, I expected very low CA results instead I got more than a standard 18-135mm kits lens. I hope you can understand why I am questioning this as this is a 300 quid odd lens compared to one just under 2000 quid.

Hence my thread - A QUESTION.

I'm reading everyone's response - I'm not going to reply to everyone I'm afraid.

No need to be so rude.
 
The good news is the lens is great otherwise, I doubt I would ever receive two bad ones in a row, I guess the chances of that are very low.
 
LaurenceGough said:
I perfectly understand - I just expected better from a L lens, the various coatings, UD elements etc, I expected very low CA results instead I got more than a standard 18-135mm kits lens. I hope you can understand why I am questioning this as this is a 300 quid odd lens compared to one just under 2000 quid.
Click to expand...

Well the comparisons are here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

And anyone looking at the difference between the two could certainly see why one costs £300 and the other just under £2000.

It's not just the matter of CA - it's incredible sharpness (apparent in the shot of the squirrel even at the low resolution of web pages) contrast, colour - plus the fact that you have f2.8 all the way through the whole zoom range.

That's the difference - the overall package not just one aspect of it which, in the case of the branches, is being exaggerated because of the shooting conditions.

.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
You asked a question and I'm giving you an answer. Several other people have pointed out the same thing (albeit a touch more politely) and you've completely ignored them.

You are pushing the combination of body and lens beyond it's capabilities and then blaming the kit for your own lack of understanding.
Click to expand...



don't be silly why would he listen to people that are telling him it looks normal when he has spent £1775 on a lens only to get PF in high contrast situations :cuckoo:
 
I think Marc has answered the query quite well...........:D
 
Lovely broken though in some of these shots, I'd rather have that and accept the ca at 100% crop. I'm still a bit confused whether you can visibly see this on prints, of whether these issues are just on screen at high crop.
 
daveya said:
Lovely broken though in some of these shots, I'd rather have that and accept the ca at 100% crop. I'm still a bit confused whether you can visibly see this on prints, of whether these issues are just on screen at high crop.
Click to expand...

I have expensive wide aperture lenses that display CA when shooting high contrast scenes wide open and when viewing at high magnification it is visible. It's even visible in some shots when printed at A4 but I don't care. I don't care because picking faults like this is really expecting too much from the current state of the art (at the price I'm willing to pay :D) and I also try and remember that when viewing the scene my own eyes can't cope either :D or see the level of detail that my gear can capture and display. I actually quite like a bit of shimmy, blooming or whatever other minor faults appear as to me it makes things a little more real :D and to be honest 99.9% of people will never spot it in an image anyway :D
 
Send it back for a replacement Laurence.

Personally I think you're being a little pedantic about the issue, I've had quite a few L series lenses and seen similar results under very high contrast situations (not with this particular lens). And to be fair it is pretty easily fixed in PP.

But... It's cost you a fair chunk of cash, you rightly expect top quality and once you're convinced it's a bad copy you're never going to be happy with it in a million years. So tell them it's pretty awful at the wider end (post #19) and that you want a replacement. Whether that will be any better of course could be an interesting follow up :)

cheers
 
POAH said:
I hate to think what the OP would think if he got an 85mm f1.2 lol
Click to expand...

Had one... and I know where you're coming from! Still one of the nicest lenses I've ever had though.
 
I'm fine with the lens - thanks everyone for their posts. I am now happy after playing around with two that my lens is acting normal, I hope so anyway.

I have read up a lot and it seems only primes get away with next to no CA. I guess some reviews just have to be taken with a pinch of salt as I've found a few that mention a hint of CA at 70mm or so mainly.

Can't see it in most pics and if you do it's little, and it doesn't seem apparent with pictures of RC helicopters which I take pics of a lot against the bright sky.
 
Last edited:
Canon UK were once very helpful with a concern of mine regarding a lens which was only a fairly cheap secondhand lens, I was quite impressed with their reply so it might be worth speaking to them?
I would expect that sort of thing with older technology but maybe Canon will be able to give you more insight, it is a contrasty scene after all.
 
I have sent an email to Canon before starting this thread but no reply as of yet. I'm sure they'll reply in good time.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top