06-05-2010, 03:49 AM
[quote name='DavidBM' date='04 June 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1275706607' post='231']
The lens is amazingly sharp; it also has quite remarkable micro contrast.
The microcontrast and coating result in incredible saturation since there is no stray light reducing it (hence the velvia aspect of your comment)
And the very high microcontrast combined with the sharpness also give it the tech pan look (tech pan had very high acutance as well as capacity to record resolution -- the high microcontrast of the TSEII means both of these features are emphasised.
A lot of us like this! But it's easy to imagine not being keen.
One thing you could do would be to put a uv filter on the lens that has been incredibly lightly scored with sandpaper (or just breathed on, or even a little dusty)
That would't reduce the resolution much, but would reduce the microcontrast
[/quote]
This is coming closer to what I am experiencing. I remember my first photography classes at night school and several classmates had the 'brand new' Canon EOS 620 and 650 bodies, and I had my lowly FT-Bn (not so lowly as time would tell). Anyways, the instructor let on to one of his secrets about good imaging, "...take a light brown nylon stocking, stretch it over the lens until it is taught, and then secure it with a rubber band, and you will get the kind of image everyone wants to see..." I am paraphrasing, but this was the gist of the lesson.
So on with the 24 TS-E II and where it fits with my view of the world relative to the limited sphere of lenses that I have owned and used (read the better part of the photozone review list for Canon mount lenses c sensor/full-frame and otherwise). For the most part I have limited my lens use to the 90 TS-E, 200L 2.8 II, as well as the 35L; these are lenses that I know will behave and obey what I want them to do, whether blurred in bokeh or sharp in microcontrast. As you mentioned, the 24 TS-E II is what 'we' want, in spades, but how is it so far from my other lenses that I refuse it as alien? I have colour profiled my cameras, I have my sharpening work flow sorted, my printer is familiar with my process, but the lens refuses to co-operate.
On top of the sandpaper I should add smeared Vaseline, use the aforementioned nylon stocking, and add a juiced up warming filter and call it done! Compounding the issue is the Cokin X-Pro polarizing filter I have that makes the North Pole look warm, and the Singh-Ray Soft step graduated filters that seem to hone the scalpel that is the 24 TS-E II, and I am stuck being the potato farmer (no offense) filling in for a neurosurgeon in the emergency room. This lens is cruel! If it is ever reviewed at photozone, I would like to see it head-to-head with the Nikon equivalent under ACR default, then compared with the Canon 90 TS-E and Nikon equivalent using the same scenes on ACR and see where this lens ends up on the spectrum of surreal imaging.
I appreciate your feedback, and obviously you have used this lens too.
The lens is amazingly sharp; it also has quite remarkable micro contrast.
The microcontrast and coating result in incredible saturation since there is no stray light reducing it (hence the velvia aspect of your comment)
And the very high microcontrast combined with the sharpness also give it the tech pan look (tech pan had very high acutance as well as capacity to record resolution -- the high microcontrast of the TSEII means both of these features are emphasised.
A lot of us like this! But it's easy to imagine not being keen.
One thing you could do would be to put a uv filter on the lens that has been incredibly lightly scored with sandpaper (or just breathed on, or even a little dusty)
That would't reduce the resolution much, but would reduce the microcontrast
[/quote]
This is coming closer to what I am experiencing. I remember my first photography classes at night school and several classmates had the 'brand new' Canon EOS 620 and 650 bodies, and I had my lowly FT-Bn (not so lowly as time would tell). Anyways, the instructor let on to one of his secrets about good imaging, "...take a light brown nylon stocking, stretch it over the lens until it is taught, and then secure it with a rubber band, and you will get the kind of image everyone wants to see..." I am paraphrasing, but this was the gist of the lesson.
So on with the 24 TS-E II and where it fits with my view of the world relative to the limited sphere of lenses that I have owned and used (read the better part of the photozone review list for Canon mount lenses c sensor/full-frame and otherwise). For the most part I have limited my lens use to the 90 TS-E, 200L 2.8 II, as well as the 35L; these are lenses that I know will behave and obey what I want them to do, whether blurred in bokeh or sharp in microcontrast. As you mentioned, the 24 TS-E II is what 'we' want, in spades, but how is it so far from my other lenses that I refuse it as alien? I have colour profiled my cameras, I have my sharpening work flow sorted, my printer is familiar with my process, but the lens refuses to co-operate.
On top of the sandpaper I should add smeared Vaseline, use the aforementioned nylon stocking, and add a juiced up warming filter and call it done! Compounding the issue is the Cokin X-Pro polarizing filter I have that makes the North Pole look warm, and the Singh-Ray Soft step graduated filters that seem to hone the scalpel that is the 24 TS-E II, and I am stuck being the potato farmer (no offense) filling in for a neurosurgeon in the emergency room. This lens is cruel! If it is ever reviewed at photozone, I would like to see it head-to-head with the Nikon equivalent under ACR default, then compared with the Canon 90 TS-E and Nikon equivalent using the same scenes on ACR and see where this lens ends up on the spectrum of surreal imaging.
I appreciate your feedback, and obviously you have used this lens too.