Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

24-70 Canon USM L i Sharpness - R3D Test

Phil Hopper

Phil Hopper

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Age
35
Location
Northern Ireland
Website
www.bnlproductions.co.uk
Hey Guys,

We recently bought a Scarlet, and our primary lens for shooting is currently the 24-70 Canon USM L Series Mark 1. We seem to be having a problem with sharpness when filming. I'm not sure if this is a problem on our end or if it is the actual lens, or maybe we're just expecting too much out of the lens and this is the sharpness it films at.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I am attaching an R3D file to this post and if anybody has any time to maybe put together a quick grade to see what sharpness they can achieve from the lens that would be awesome too.

Link to R3D:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqigcmiz18p4dm1/A017_C009_12142J.0000072F.R3D

Thanks,
Phil
 
Looks about how I'd expect. Remember you're seeing two things you're not used to if you shoot the same lens on a DSLR:

• Stronger OLPF to avoid aliasing
• No software sharpening or enhancement

To some extent you can sharpen the image digitally, but personally I'd say its just an attitude adjustment. Bear in mind that even very expensive, very sharp lenses are still not 'individual pixel' sharp when viewed 100%. If they were you'd immediately have aliasing problems.
 
I beg to differ Greg.
I projected the 24-70 many times- there is nothing wrong with it sharpness wise. It's about the same as other lenses that range.
The Nikon is better, but not "worlds" better. The aftermarket lenses in that range are about the same.
The primes are better- why wouldn't they be?
The new Canon 24-70 II is better- why wouldn't it at $1000 more or so price tag?
 
Jacek Zakowicz said:
I beg to differ Greg.
I projected the 24-70 many times- there is nothing wrong with it sharpness wise. It's about the same as other lenses that range.
Click to expand...

Hey Jacek, thanks for the response. Do you notice a difference in our R3D compared to that of which you have seen in the past from shooting with he 24-70 yourself?
 
Looks good to me. I have both the I and the II and maybe I'm just old but I can't see any difference. While others have expressed this lens looses focus through the zoom, I don't find this to be true with my lenses. If anything try a little post sharpening.
 
Peter Strietmann said:
Looks good to me. I have both the I and the II and maybe I'm just old but I can't see any difference. While others have expressed this lens looses focus through the zoom, I don't find this to be true with my lenses. If anything try a little post sharpening.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Peter. Has helped my concern that I might have done something wrong with the lens.
 
Peter Strietmann said:
Looks good to me. I have both the I and the II and maybe I'm just old but I can't see any difference. While others have expressed this lens looses focus through the zoom, I don't find this to be true with my lenses. If anything try a little post sharpening.
Click to expand...

I read a blog on LensRentals.com that posted MTF comparisons of the I versus the II [http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation]; they found that the top 10-20% of the copies of I weren't that far from the MTF range of the bottom 10-20% of the IIs. If you have a lens in the bottom of the I range and compare to a lens in the top of the II range, I'm sure you could see a difference; if comparing mid-level to mid-level, you would probably see a difference if you looked for it pretty hard.

At least, according to SCIENCE. Of course, we're all aware that "clinically sharper" does not equal "better".
 
the 24-70 version I does produce a sharp image but it should be considered a variable prime since it does go out of focus when you zoom. I have looked at a few of these and most do suffer from this. The version II is much better. The Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L or the 24-105mm f/4L are better at zooming too.
 
To some extent you can sharpen the image digitally, but personally I'd say its just an attitude adjustment. Bear in mind that even very expensive, very sharp lenses are still not 'individual pixel' sharp when viewed 100%. If they were you'd immediately have aliasing problems.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

If you have very high contrast at the pixel edge level it is always 'false' and to my subjective eye 'not good'. This is the single biggest unifiying problem facing 'good' movie cameras... many lowerend ex DV guys and definitely ignorant Stills assistantant are too large a market force for my liking. They all seems to demand brittle cheap pictures!

There is scene detail represented faithfully in the picture and false detail. All detail at the pixel level is untrustworthy... that said there is lots of interesting sources for non-scene detail like grain, noise, flares etc. I am happy to play about with these 'artifacts' artiiscally BUT don't often want brittle false pixels in my motion pictures...

Also the 1st 24-70 isnt the sharpest tool in the shed.
Click to expand...

+1... but it can still prduce great pictures

UPDATE I have had a quick look at the image and with ref to sharpness it is ok.
As others mentioned add a little unsharp mask if you need to (but not too much). Try RCX default seetting in the alchemny group and then back off.
That said it is at 360 at 25 (therfore a shutter of 1/25 sec). Not many stills of human subjects don't soften a little with that speed. (he was breathing???;-)
Also if the background was more out of focus then you would feel the subject is sharper. Perhaps shoot again not at 24mm and regig the room to make sure the bacjground is much further away?
Also i feel the focus is about half an inch infront of his eyes... did you check? At 5.6 (as you are) on a 24mm we expect lots more usable depth of field BUT when pixel peeping a 4k picture with no edge ehmacment you have to double check you are bang on.
 
I use a lot of time 16-35, 24-70 I and 70-200 II
I like very much the 16-35 and 70-200 but not the 24-70 I. Even on the Red screen, i find the focus very difficult to find and the image is more soft than the other. I will buy the 24-70 II


Olivier
 
Michael Dalton said:
Phil,

I agree with you, was having this same issue with my lens too. What f.stop are you using? I'm finding that you can't use anything below f6-7 and you need stay under about f16 or 17. F2.8 is soft, and so too is f22. The rokinons also fall off quickly as well.

See if you can do another test to see if this can help.
Click to expand...


Hey Michael thanks for the reply.

The test shot I did today was at F5.6, we shot a test at F2.8 and it was almost unusable as it was just far too soft even after post sharpening. The thing that concerned me the most was that we put a 18-55 Canon Kit Lens onto the Scarlet and if I'm honest it holds up perfect against the 24-70 if not a little bit sharper. Surely this shouldn't be the case in a lens that is a quarter of the price of the 24-70?
 
Like some said, the 24-70 version one is not Canon best lens. There are often sigma or Tokina lens that perform much better at a fraction of the cost. You have to do the research on each lenses.

Here is the chart for 24-70 version 2

index.php
 
Internet charts

Internet charts

Many times I found the "test sites"internet published charts inaccurate. The only ones I would somewhat trust are the manufacturers charts.
I worked for the lens manufacturer so I know these can be sometimes "enhanced" as well but they are generally close.
The "test sites" charts are all over the place.
You don't want to get me started what I have seen at SMPTE meetings coming from so called "experts":wink5:
 
While the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L has earned a great reputation in the Still Photography world for its particular look, it was never a got to lens because it was a Sharp one, even so it surely produced some great images not lacking in sharper neither, but still, they could never be compared to the same images shot on a 24mm L or a 85mm L glass, however the new version, the MKII it is certainly sharper, much nicer lens in both build and performance, but they both need to be stopped down to f4-f5.6 in order to really see its best side.
 
Phil Hopper said:
Hey Michael thanks for the reply.

The test shot I did today was at F5.6, we shot a test at F2.8 and it was almost unusable as it was just far too soft even after post sharpening. The thing that concerned me the most was that we put a 18-55 Canon Kit Lens onto the Scarlet and if I'm honest it holds up perfect against the 24-70 if not a little bit sharper. Surely this shouldn't be the case in a lens that is a quarter of the price of the 24-70?
Click to expand...

The mechanics of the lenses are much different. The kit lens is meant for stills; I'm sure it would be a bit unpredictable through a moving shot with changing zoom/focus. The 24-70 is more wide purpose, and works better, mechanically, when you have to adjust things during a shot.
 
As a beginner in this field (lens) I was wondering why my experience with a Canon 24-105 wasnt as much fun (visually) as using the Rokinon Cine 35mm and Tokina 11-16mm.

Thanks for starting this post, I was about to throw some cash on a used 24-70 instead of the Tamron or latest USM.

Or do you consider $600 for the USM a good price?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top