Lens images from photozone

I went to shop today to purchase the Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8 L II that is going to become my workhorse for next years. Since I could not sell all the lenses I had for the change, they gave me the Tamron SP 24-70 F/2.8 for trying, if I am not satisfied I can purchase the Canon 24-70 later. They are so sure I'll like the tammy (since many other professional photographers buy it and are happy with it) to let me use it for some days and I wanted to give it a chance.

I do usually avoid third part lenses, not that they are bad, but for reliability, assistance, compatibility, autofocus and other small things I always prefer to use Canon lenses, even if they cost more. And the Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8 costs A LOT more! My decision to purchase it depends on the cash-back Christmas offer they make now (ok, let’s make some adv for Canon, they need it!  ^_^ SEE OFFER). Even after the 250eu refunding, the difference between the two is still a lot, about 750 eu.

I must then say that for almost half the price of the Canon I am very very tempted to keep the Tamron. Let’s see why. The Tamron has image stabilisation aka VC, which can be very useful, especially for the photography I make. I don’t do landscapes and if I do I prefer to use specific lenses (although I must say, before going on the details, that to my eyes the Tamron is a bit better than the Canon EF 17-40 F/4 L I used for it @24mm). For reportages, wedding and travel photography, no use of tripod, the VC is a good thing (Canon 24-70 is missing) but only at 70mm I do feel I need it. After testing, it seems to compensate to max 2 stops (not the 3-4 rated by Tamron, but it is very subjective), which is good nevertheless.

About shape and weight: It is a very compact lens although very large too, 82mm of diameter, it is not heavy (same as the Canon) and surprisingly feels less on the hand than my Sigma EF 35mm 1.4 Art I used for comparison, they are close though. Tammy weights 825 grams, it seems a solid tool to use. Is rated as tropicalized and the construction is indeed very good, although all plastic, good plastic. The lens barrel is mostly made of plastics but it is of high quality and it is tightly assembled. The new weather sealing is very welcome, of course. Same goes for the very fast and silent USD (ultrasonic AF drive).

I don't like the reverse ring for changing focal lengths, which pushes you to use the left hand in a not correct manner, then I find the very tiny focusing ring disturbing, but usable, and hate the fact that the lock is usable only at 24mm. But the zooming is good, mean there is not a chance that the focal length could change, the ring is neither too hard nor to loose to move. I tried a polarizer I had, 82mm, never used on other lenses, it made the focusing imprecise and the images blurred, probably due to bad polarizer itself not the lens, it is a cheap one.

Let’s see the IQ which is the most important thing for many (I was more concerned about AF). The image quality is very good, I suspect a little front focus what I have to try to assess later, as for now sharpening and contrast of images appear quite good @ F/8, even at the corners. I tried the Sigma 35mm 1.4 for comparison. It is a marvellous lens, we know it, an high quality prime. The Sigma is quite sharper, especially at corners. But the differences are not big. The Tammy is good, mean they are both high quality lenses, the Sigma is so much of an excellence that it does not make justice to the also good Tamron.

Let’s see some images (they are nothing special, sorry, soon I’ll ad some pictures I would make even if I was not to test a lens ^_^):

This image is 35mm wide. I tested the Sigma that is native 35mm and the Tamron at 35mm. Both at F/8 to see the best sharpness in situations such as landscape photography (although it is not the reason I bought it for).

All pictures were processed with ACR 8.3, I only corrected the chromatic aberrations (which is very low for both lenses), not the distortions nor vignetting. Also the default sharpening of ACR (25%) was reduced to 0.

Sigma 35mm, 100% crop, centre:

And the Tamron:

At F/2.8 (what interests me more) the Tamron is definitely better than the Canon 24-105 F/4 L IS USM (at F/4) that I gave to the seller for change. We can see that at centre and F/8 the Tammy is just very slight less sharp than the Sigma. Bad light is confusing, afterward we show another image where we can appreciate how sharp the Sigma is, better even at F/8 in the centre. But let’s see further.

Sigma 35mm @ F/8, corner:

 

Remember that NO sharpening at all is applied, even not the default sharpening applied by ACR, Lightroom DPP, etc.

This is the Tammy @ F/8:

Not bad at all!

Now I want to show another image’s crop after the pictures has been sharpened in PS. I applied a sharpening of 100% with a radius of 0.5 at the original size file (full resolution). Here is the image (again, not a nice one, I know! ^_^):

Sigma @ F/8, centre, sharpened:

This is the Tamron @35mm & F/8 and sharpened:

Even after sharpening the Sigma is a tad sharper, it is visible but just at pixel level. And Sigma has more contrast, what can be added in post-production. Lateral CAs are very low which contributes to the high sharpness perception even at the corners, as we will see now. Indeed when you remove chromatic fringing the halo around objects remains. Both the Sigma and the Tamron have no problem with that. Let’s see.

 

  

The Sigma is impressive. Look at the red car or the windows in the very corner, so sharp. Light was low. Here’s the Tamron:

Less sharp, here the difference is bigger than at centre. Let’s remember that this image has not been post-processed, mean the contrast could be improved.

Finally I wanted to test something that you can not test: zoom vs. prime. Sigma is better, end. But, what happens if you are on the field and a dramatic sunset happens in the far away and the only shot you can make is a narrower (field of view) FOV? You have to zoom. I repeat that I’m not interested in landscapes but the same can happen when photographing people. This is the shot we could take by zooming up to 70MM:

So I wanted to see if by taking a Sigma 35mm image (the best) and up-resizing it to the same magnification of the Tamron @70mm the higher quality of Sigma could make it against the magnification given by a zoom. The answer is: NO…of course. Here the crops:

After this I made some other shots on field using the F/2.8. At centre the Tamron is not loosing much in comparison to F/8. And you don’t need corner-to-corner sharpness when shooting with that aperture. Sometimes you do, but the VC is useful by allowing you to narrow the aperture at F/4 or F/5.6 for better DOF.

One of the thing that also positively impressed me is how well chromatic aberration is under control!. Lateral CA is really so few that it easy correctible in Camera Raw, Lightroom or DPP with no detail lost. By this picture taken at 70mm & F/2.8, we can appreciate it.

This is the Lateral CA, very low. Of course it can be more with a stronger light:

This is after activating the simple chromatic aberration correction in ACR 8.3 (and no need to further increase the correction on green/purple channels):

All this determines a good perception of contrast/sharpness also at the borders.

One thing that needs further testing is the image stabilisation. It is very effective. Tamron does not claim, as Canon does, how many stops it can stabilize, and the thing can change a lot whether you shoot indoor with safe conditions or outdoor with wind and quick action. Of course remember VC does not freeze action, it only compensates the hand-shaking. By a short test you can see that the images start to be a bit blurred (only visible at 100% magnification, not visible after reduction to web dimensions) at 1/15. We talk about the long focal length, @70MM. So 1/15 is very good. I show the 1/15 image as the large one, at 600x600px, just to show how at a web resolution even a bit blurred image appears sharp enough:

 

One thing I noticed is that the VC can be very effective at very low speeds such as 1/15 but sometimes “fail” at much safer shutters such as 1/80, 1/50. This is confirmed by the DPReview’s site too. They say it fails to compensate the pressure on the shutter button. Let’s see an example, both pictures at 1/50:

By the way, I remember shooting similar test images with my EF 24-105 F/4 IS L at F/4 (not 2.8 as here) and the focus area (centre) was not at all so sharp as Tamron’s. No sharpening has been applied.

This is an example of the bokeh at 24MM and close distance. It is good, not the best ever seen but to my eyes it is prime’s quality:

Bokeh seems also ok by other images I made, transition is always very smooth, but I’ll test it with specific shots outdoor at 70mm.

Finally I liked the autofocus a lot.  It is fast and silent, it works well even with low light (I use an Eos 5D Mark3). I also liked that it can focus quite close with a good MFD (about 0.38) and AF is definitely better than the Sigma’s one which is ok. It seems also more consistent to me, mean the Sigma is not precise if near infinite or at MFD, the tammy seems better. You can see it in the VC-test images above, they were sho with AF and quite close to the subject

I do generally shoot very close to the subjects, even if not interested in macro photography. As reported in other reviews, the Canon 24-70 2.8 USM L II has some issues at short distances. Another good point for the Tammy.

I’ll expand this review in future…

EDIT: This is a full resolution image (ugly picture), the Tamron @35mm & F/8, so for landscape. This image has been a bit post-produced, a 50% of sharpening applied in ACR. Sigma 35mm is visibly sharper ONLY at the extreme corners. Just look by yourself, I’m impressed! 

RIGHT BUTTON THEN CLICK OPEN IN A NEW WINDOW

I finally had the time to make some shots with good light, these are not what I intend to use the lens for but can give a good idea how much the lens can resolve. This image is shot at 70mm (very usefull when trying to get an image without distortions and as flat as possible) and F8. Image has been processed in ACR and a sharpening of 100% (radius: 1.0px) has been applied in Ps). In ACR distortion and perspective have been corrected, chromatic aberration too, some green fringing remains at the border, see the fench on top/right but is barely visible):

RIGHT BUTTON THEN CLICK OPEN IN A NEW WINDOW

 

©2013 Marco Palladino – all rights reserved

READ ALL >>>

I have an Eos 5D Mark3 since few months, it replaced the Eos 5D2 I used in India that had partially left me because of poor weather sealing giving problems to the contacts. I always judged with some reservation the image quality of the 5d line , coming from the 1Ds mark2. These cameras do produce excellent images, but some  really bizarre problems in cameras of this level do continue to appear.

 

Already in the Indian photos, taken with Eos Eos 40D and 5D Mark2, I started to notice some strange things: the old 40D held up much better than the other when some overexposure of the shadows is applied in ACR, without altering the overall exposure. The Eos 5D Mark2 had often noise in the shadows at low ISO, even 100, a noise made of stripes (vertical banding), as the image from a fax.

 

I have not changed the Mark2  because the camera was broken, the problems with the contacts were resolved immediately by the excellent Canon Service Center in Rome. I decided to change it for many reasons, starting from the AF, a most versatile one,  but also for a significant improvement in the well-known problems of noise, at least as for these already seen in the EOS 5D2. A general upgrade in short, without waiting for miracles but certainly hoping for a more complete and versatile camera for all uses, eg. also for sport, in which the Mark2 was very lacking.

READ ALL >>>

ARTICOLO IN ITALIANO >>>

In the web there are many tests including authoritative ones , such as those conducted by Photozone . People going to make a purchase  very often did not try the lenses they want, otherwise they would not seek here for information about them, so the added value we try to give here is just an analysis of the equipment that is always focused and guided , first and foremost by my experience as it is obvious but most important by limiting the too many variables that incur in the “perfect” choice .

In fact, many scientific tests are likely to make us lose sight of the most important thing: lenses are to be used on the field! Unless one is interested in the tests as such, the photographer only cares that equipment effectively responds to the uses he intended for it. Perfect lenses moreover do not exist and those that border on perfection are very expensive. Canon 24-70 2.8 L II and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L II zooms are amazing and certainly the best to accomplish most photographic situations , if we live with the weight and expense ( € 4000 both). However, the perfection for which we are willing to spend that much, is very often "wasted " . The photographer knows the equipment must be assessed on the basis of the uses to which he employs it and almost always chooses different equipment for different tasks . Clearly one of the thing to consider is that many of these do not relate to the quality in the strict sense . Personally, I consider the portability ( size and weight ) and the versatility a highly decisive factor . Then there is the cost , of course.

READ ALL >>>

VAI ALL’ARTICOLO IN ITALIANO >>>

---

Comparing EOS 5D MARK2 versus EOS 7D and vs. EOS 30D at high ISO (ISO6400),
about noise, detail preservation, image quality, dynamic range

As always I run the test in a not scientific manner but simply aiming to highlight some aspects that I think are important in determining the choice of a camera or a lens, based on my personal needs. I have to decide whether to chose as second body to my Eos 5D Mark2 an Eos 7d or keep the current Eos 30D.

I've never used an Eos 7D, I would say that it is the only Canon camera in the area of semi-pro and pro that I never had in my hands once. Given the many threads about this camera, which can be found on the net, with absolute detractors and others who worship it, at the end I started to have serious doubts about the quality of the files produced by the 7D. In general, I am convinced that too many megapixels of nowadays cameras are only an problem, and very little do to the actual quality of an image. I also wanted to see if this marketing has even gone so far as to produce a camera with a density of pixel such to be worse than a precursor as the 30D, with only 8MP. In general I do not believe this, among other things, 18MP has now become the standard for all APS-C cameras from Canon.

I read around very bad things about the 7D: that it produces very soft files, that the autofocus fails, that as you just raise the ISO it produces a lot of noise and loses details, that eventually it has an image quality equal to an entry-level camera . Well, unless my student who has just became owner of a 7D has been particularly lucky, by having received a copy better than others, or maybe just thanks to the recently updated firmware, the fact is that by exploring this camera, now I would say... bullshit!

I understand even more as much the inexperience and indeed real ignorance of many makes so that the camera is charged for their blunders. The EOS 7D's autofocus if set on maximum accuracy, in one shot mode, is as precise as a razor. The 7D does not produce files softer than other cameras when shooting in RAW and the same photographic processing is applied to images.

As quick test we compared the detail on the area in ​​semi-shade (left eye) of a portrait, executed with an EOS 30D, EOS 7D and an EOS 5D Mark2, at well ISO 6400. Obviously, the EOS 30D does not have the ISO 6400 but just shoot at ISO 3200, RAW, and then raise exposure by 1 stop right in Camera RAW. I present to you the 100% crop of the three shots and then I'll make my comments. As it is standard for this type of comparison, I have NOT reduced the files from cameras with higher resolution but up-resized the lower resolution ones up to the largest size, in our case, the 21MP of the eos5D, or 5616 pixels on the longest side. The crop 100% means that this image at 700px corresponds to the detail taken as 100% magnification.

Conclusions

For all three pictures we used a EF 85mm 1.8 USM @ f4, to get the best quality from the optics.

In our crop, what we see is indeed the noise from the camera set at the highest ISO (6400 ), but also the preserved details, colour and dynamic range. We present therefore the partially shaded eye  of the portrait where certain differences are more noticeable. A partial recovery on the shadowed parts guarantees to better highlight the limits of the dynamic range of each camera. The lowerer DOF of the full-frame at F4 (identical for all three shots), makes the photo of EOS 5D slightly softer (the focus is on the right eye, not the left), but I assure you that level of sharpness on the focal plane of all three shots is identical.

What you need to look at is instead the iris of the eye, the nuances of colour, the details inside. Clearly the EOS 5D Mark2 is a notch above the other two, as one might expect from a sensor that has virtually half the density of photodiodes with respect to 7D, but not with respect to 30D. The EOS 30D as old as it remains, is still a good camera. Do not be fooled by advertising, its field quality is very high even today, especially if you use good optics. Files from the 30D when enlarged can almost match with a camera like the EOS 7D, even at ISO 6400 that are not available in the EOS 30D (actually a firmware update would be enough to have them, but of course the Canon is careful not to do so).

The image produced by EOS 7D is still better than the EOS 30D’s (always look at the iris of the eye), but not the same jump that you have on EOS 5D2. This is still a great result for the EOS7D, that ISO 6400 and 18MP have less noise and more detail and in shades and colour. Really good result.

This small test teaches us another thing: if we compare a file of 8MP and 18MP the real difference of magnification is about 30% (not double as one might expect). If you enlarge a file like an 8MP to 18MP, the difference in detail is really ridiculous; such a file if correctly processed and printed would produce no perceptible difference. What are then the 18MP of an EOS 7D good for, apart from the advertising? Well we actually need those, but not if we use the photos at 100% magnification. That is, if we do not need to crop the photo since we can get optically close enough, then between 8 and 18 the difference is virtually ZERO! But sometimes crop is unavoidable, for example in the photo of fauna and for sport. So then when a file is cut 50% to 4 MP or 9MP things get very different. The 9MP file still has lot details to make large prints, the other one begins to suffer a lot, at 4MP (still usable, with the right processing).

Canon EOS 7D while doubling the number of pixels and increasing by 30% the resolution still maintains a level of noise even less than 30D, this is definitely a great achievement and I would say not at all due to the noise reduction applied by the software, the files are in fact identical in Camera Raw in terms of sharpness. On final word, the EOS 7D is an excellent camera, even if image quality is not very much better than a 30D’s or 40D’s. You choose it for many other reasons: resolution to crop, as said, but also a high-performance autofocus in sports, a great construction and excellent sealing, the flash that remotely controls other flashes, etc. etc… in short, many other things that "make the life of a photographer better". Even to use it is a real joy, much better even than EOS 5D, in comparison 30D looks as a plastic toy (it is not). But:

if you do not take pictures in rain, for sport, wildlife, etc.., and you've purchased the EOS 7D to take pictures on vacation, convinced that the hundreds of euro more you paid will ensure you better photos, then you've got a blunder, commercially induced, but a blunder. The 7D is great, but only IF you use it at its maximum, in sports and / or wilderness area, then it really pays you off. Here's how some lamentations were born!

In another test, run against EOS 30D + EF 85mm 1.8 but at aperture of 5.6 and the same pose, we coupled the EOS 7D with a Canon EF 15-85 @ 85mm and aperture 5.6 (minimum that is allowed by the zoom at 85mm). Well despite the 8MP against 18MP, the 30D+85mm prime brings out more details, or rather: BETTER LENSES PRODUCE BETTER IMAGES DESPITE THE LOWER RESOLUTION OF THE SENSOR. Mind that the EF 15-85 is a great zoom lens and the picture it produced  is sharp, but the quality that you get with a prime even on an old camera is higher, namely: EOS 30D (used) + 85mm 1.8 costs about 700 euros, the EOS 7D (used) + 15-85 almost double it. Obviously they are very different set-ups for different purposes, but everyone can draw his own conclusions.

©2012 Marco Palladino – All rights reserved

READ ALL >>>

Per diverse ragioni che spiegherò meglio in un altro post, da un po’ di tempo sono tornato ad utilizzare quasi esclusivamente ottiche fisse, come agli inizi della mia avventura di fotografo con la pellicola 35mm.

LEGGI ARTICOLO IN FOTOBIETTIVO MAGAZINE >>

READ ALL >>>

Possiedo da alcuni giorni una Canon eos 5d mark2, acquistata usata a un prezzo molto conveniente, oggi che molti professionisti e amatori si lanciano sull'ultimo ritrovato tecnologico, la mark3, si iniziano a trovare sul mercato delle ottime occasioni.

La eos 5d mark II è diventata un riferimento di qualità sia per i fotoamatori più esigenti sia in tanti ambiti professionali, a partire dai matrimonialisti, così come tra moltissimi reporter. L'uscita della sorellina maggiore certamente non la rende obsoleta, ma sappiamo bene come agisce la componente psicologica del marketing tecnologico, sul desiderio di comprare il giocattolo più bello e nuovo.

 

 

LEGGI ARTICOLO COMPLETO >>

 

ENGLISH READERS, ARTICLE IS BEING TRANSLATED

 

READ ALL >>>

ARTICOLO IN ITALIANO >>

I am not particularly interested in doing tests on the equipment unless they do show real differences on the filed and allow the photographer to better work in real photographic situations . Almost always, the laboratory tests dwell in particular on the sharpness of a lens , tested under conditions that never happen in reality. If a lens loses sharpness at the edges, in most real situations it is completely irrelevant , while greater accuracy and focus speed could make the difference between a photo to keep and one to trash.

READ ALL >>>

 

ARTICOLO IN ITALIANO >>  This is not a scientific test (if you seek for laboratory tests, see those carried out by Photozone about ef 17-40 f4 L and ef 16-35 f2.8 L II). I had the chance to try out "on the fly" a Canon EF 16-35 2.8 L II that I wanted as a replacement for my current ef 17-40 f4 L, which has always served me very well, and was first mounted on a aps -c camera , the eOS 40D, then on a aps –h camera , the eos 1Ds mark 2 , where it really gave the best of themselves . From my experience the best format is the Aps-h x1.3, here the lens  is exploited to its maximum, by eliminating only the outer parts that are notoriously soft and distorted (and a lot of vignetting occurs on super wide-angle focal lengths and large apertures) .

READ ALL >>>

Ho voluto provare un po’ di obbiettivi che al momento possiedo in associazione con il tubo di prolunga per aumentare la capacità macro, l’extension tube EF 12 della Canon, versione I (unica differenza con la versione II e che monta solo ottiche EF non EF-S).

LEGGI ARTICOLO IN FOTOBIETTIVO >> 

READ ALL >>>

Canon EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS @ 300, f6.3, 1/250, iso 200. Su Eos 1d mk2, mano libera, no flash. Sharpening applicato. TEST SENZA ALCUNA PRETESA SCIENTIFICA...ma in situazioni reali.

Come da dettagli, ho testato questo nuovo obiettivo che invero ho preso come un sostituto economico e tuttofare in attesa di potermi permettere il 70-200 2.8 L IS II. Invece questo piccolo gioiellino della Canon mi sta piacevolmente sorprendendo.

LEGGI ARTICOLO IN FOTOBIETTIVO MAGAZINE >>

READ ALL >>>