Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Buyer's remorse and the perfect lens
#1
I have been an off and on photographer for twenty-five years and in that time I have associated a certain "look" to my photographs; an image identity that reassured me that I had a unique view of the world. In that time I have used Nikon, Mamiya, Pentax, Rolleiflex, Canon, Polaroid, and other brands as well in my quest for that magic, but mostly relying on film type and printing to achieve that final 'look'.



I am still very amateurish in my technique in the digital era, but have found a digital process that gives me prints I like, and some prospect for good things to come with consistent results across my group of lenses and filters; and then I bought the Canon 24 TS-E II. I am so befuddled by this lens and the data it produces that I have nearly given up. Even without using any tilt or shift, using the same cameras, same software (I only use digital now), it looks like I have gone from using Kodachrome to a hybrid emulsion something between Velvia and Tech-Pan! I am only a few thousand images in using the lens, but the post-process is so different from my other lenses that I treat the lens something like an alien now, and I am afraid to use it for fear of how much further its rendition of the world is going to deviate from what I envisioned. It is everything we are supposed to expect these days in terms of contrast, sharpness, handling... but why does it look so different from my TS-E 90 or 200L?



I'll search for a process that can tame this lens, but in the interim I suspect I will be its foster parent; too bad since I placed so much faith in it that I bought a whole Singh-Ray and Cokin filter system for it too!
#2
Cannot answer your question (though I read an interesting opinion that canon 70-200f4 produced better images than the 70-200f4 is even though it has lower resolution; something abuot the 'cream' on colour and how digital is more telecentric destroying this aspect of lenses). Your question borders on something that is very personal. Sort of some folks swear by zeiss (and then try to explain the zeiss look in more concrete fashion). I will say I personally was very happy with mamyia 7 and npc or contax slr and fuji reala; so far with digital I've not been able to find an image that makes me very happy but I've only dabble a little.



The answer might be visible in the mtf if you know how to find it but I'm not sure issues related to colour rendering (or separation) is visible in the mtf; and certainly other metrics such as distortion, bokeh and so forth.



To be honest I've not used the 24 tse; or for that matter looked at very many images from that lens. Currently I've been of the opinion that skin tone from the 5dmk2 is too bluish and the alpha 900 with 24-70 seems to have a rather decent look but these comments are based on posted images which is subject to a huge number of variables.



Sorry about the long post; I'm very bad a posting useless answers to very real questions.
#3
I remember Klaus had color issues with tilt and shift lenses too

the sensor unlike film reflects some light that is then reflected by the rear elements of the lens, that's why some manufacturers like Sigma add a rear lens coating.

Dunno if this lens suffers from this or no but this is a possible explanation, being a tilt and shift the angle of the elements changes and this creates inner reflexions.
#4
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
#5
[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.
#6
Indeed, I have the lens. And I do like the images it produces. But I quite understand your attitude!

Don't buy the 200mm f2L! IO don't own that -- could never afford it -- but I did play with a friend's, and it has a similar "feel" to the unshifted 24TSE when compared with the 200 2.8.



Another suggestion for you: do you use lightroom? If so set the so-called "clarity" slider to slightly negative settings. This will just slightly reduce local, but not global, contrast and might make the images "match" the 90 TSE more. There is probably a similar effect you can get with unsharp mask in photoshop; set the radius to 50, therehold to 0 and the amount to a negative amount: maybe -20 for a start.
#7
I agree with a previous poster that you can use Lightroom's "Clarity" slider to reduce microcontrast, if you wish.



If you use Lightroom or Camera RAW, it sounds to me like you may be able to resolve your color issues by creating a few DNG profiles.



[url="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/photography/colorchecker-passport_1.html"]Keith Cooper has a few pages[/url] on how to do this.
#8
[quote name='funkboy' date='10 June 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1276219994' post='436']

I agree with a previous poster that you can use Lightroom's "Clarity" slider to reduce microcontrast, if you wish.



If you use Lightroom or Camera RAW, it sounds to me like you may be able to resolve your color issues by creating a few DNG profiles.



[url="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/photography/colorchecker-passport_1.html"]Keith Cooper has a few pages[/url] on how to do this.

[/quote]



It is a good tip, and I started doing camera specific ACR profiles a few years back so that all my bodies looked the same when the RAW came out of the wash. I bought X-Rite products in early 2007 along with the colorvision hardware and have had continuity throughout my camera/lens changes until now. It seems odd, but maybe I should do a 'lens' specific profile and see if that is the answer, but I suspect I should just move on.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)