Reading mode: Light Dark

please help a new 14-54 owner

Go to last post
S

SteveM7i

Senior Member
Messages
2,222
Reaction score
0
Location
AL, US
Over the past few days I've been testing out my new 14-54 zoom lens with my E-1. Long story short, at 28mm my sample of the 14-54 is VERY significantly softer at f/2.8 than at f/5.6. I hate to ask, but have other 14-54 owners noticed that their lenses are soft wide open at 28mm?

Also, my new 14-54 is much more prone to significant underexposure than my 14-45 "kit" zoom. I know there's a firmware update for the 14-54 but don't know whether my lens shipped with it. Is the lens firmware version included in the EXIF data for E-1 images? If not, is it possible to check which version of firmware the 14-54 has? I would hope that the underexposure issue might be solved with a firmware update.

Thanks in advance for all responses.

Steve
 
SteveM7i said:
Over the past few days I've been testing out my new 14-54 zoom lens
with my E-1. Long story short, at 28mm my sample of the 14-54 is
VERY significantly softer at f/2.8 than at f/5.6. I hate to ask,
but have other 14-54 owners noticed that their lenses are soft wide
open at 28mm?
Click to expand...
Mine isn't. You might be noticing very shallow dof. How many focal points are you using? I find working with one much easier.
SteveM7i said:
Also, my new 14-54 is much more prone to significant underexposure
than my 14-45 "kit" zoom. I know there's a firmware update for the
14-54 but don't know whether my lens shipped with it. Is the lens
firmware version included in the EXIF data for E-1 images? If not,
is it possible to check which version of firmware the 14-54 has? I
would hope that the underexposure issue might be solved with a
firmware update.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be. You can check the firmware by having it attached to the camera and going to the last menu 'wrench 2', the firmware should be 1.1
--
Theresa K
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
 
Could be a focusing problem at 28mm wide open. I would do a check on that. Also, sometimes, they focus at 54mm good ,but not so good at 14mm wide open. Maybe exhibiting a little front focus issue.
 
Theresa K said:
SteveM7i said:
Over the past few days I've been testing out my new 14-54 zoom lens
with my E-1. Long story short, at 28mm my sample of the 14-54 is
VERY significantly softer at f/2.8 than at f/5.6. I hate to ask,
but have other 14-54 owners noticed that their lenses are soft wide
open at 28mm?
Click to expand...
Mine isn't. You might be noticing very shallow dof. How many
focal points are you using? I find working with one much easier.
Click to expand...
I always use the center focus point and for my testing was anal about checking the distance scale between shots.
Theresa K said:
Theresa K said:
Also, my new 14-54 is much more prone to significant underexposure
than my 14-45 "kit" zoom. I know there's a firmware update for the
14-54 but don't know whether my lens shipped with it. Is the lens
firmware version included in the EXIF data for E-1 images? If not,
is it possible to check which version of firmware the 14-54 has? I
would hope that the underexposure issue might be solved with a
firmware update.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be. You can check the firmware by having it attached
to the camera and going to the last menu 'wrench 2', the firmware
should be 1.1
Click to expand...
Theresa, does this work with the E-1? I'm not seeing a firmware version listed under the wrench 2 menus.

Thanks for responding.

Steve
 
My 14-54mm (purchased 25 months ago) is sharp at all apertures and all distances. I believe it's better overall than my old Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L zoom. Before you become concerned, try again after rethinking your testing procedure. It's always possible you have a dud of a lens, but don't give up too quickly.

It sounds as though you are aware of the effects of DOF, but be sure that is not biting you. Focus on infinity and test there first. Then, do NOT focus at 54mm and zoom to 14mm without refocusing. The 14-54mm is a varifocal lens, not parfocal.

The next step is to get hold of another 14-54mm and compare. I suspect that's easier said than done, but it is the next logical step. You need to eliminate the camera body as a source. The second lens will help with that.

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

I don't make stupid mistakes. My mistakes are always very clever.
 
I just checked the firmware of my lens using Oly Viewer. It's version 1.1, so it does have the one and only 14-54 firmware update.

My lens tests were done using various outdoor scenes, particularly buildings and other static structures, in both mid- and late-afternoon sun. I used ESP exposure mode. I just pulled out an old thread from this form in which at least one E-1 user commented that ESP AE mode seems to be prone to underexposure. One aggrevating aspect of the E-1 is that it's very hard to judge image exposure using the camera's LCD (and useless to judge sharpness). The majority of my images appeared well-exposed on the camera's display, but were clearly underexposed when viewed via my computer monitor. Most of the RAW images were around 1 stop underexposed based on the default exposure compensation applied by ACR. Does the center-weighted metering mode work better for outdoor scenes/landscapes?

As for the softness I observe in most images shot at 28mm and f/2.8, I did find that some images were worse than others and a couple seemed reasonable, so there may indeed be a focus accuracy issue involved here, even though I was careful to check the distance scale between most shots. I'll do some more tests tomorrow using manual focus mode to see if that clears up the softness problem.

Thanks for your response.

Streve
James Pilcher said:
My 14-54mm (purchased 25 months ago) is sharp at all apertures and
all distances. I believe it's better overall than my old Canon EF
28-70mm f/2.8 L zoom. Before you become concerned, try again after
rethinking your testing procedure. It's always possible you have a
dud of a lens, but don't give up too quickly.

It sounds as though you are aware of the effects of DOF, but be
sure that is not biting you. Focus on infinity and test there
first. Then, do NOT focus at 54mm and zoom to 14mm without
refocusing. The 14-54mm is a varifocal lens, not parfocal.

The next step is to get hold of another 14-54mm and compare. I
suspect that's easier said than done, but it is the next logical
step. You need to eliminate the camera body as a source. The second
lens will help with that.

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

I don't make stupid mistakes. My mistakes are always very clever.
Click to expand...
 
Kanji said:
Could be a focusing problem at 28mm wide open. I would do a check
on that. Also, sometimes, they focus at 54mm good ,but not so good
at 14mm wide open. Maybe exhibiting a little front focus issue.
Click to expand...
You might be right, Kanji. See my post below.

Thanks for your response.

Steve
 
Hi Steve,

Personally, I stopped beating myself up with these lens tests , as they, for me, were pretty pointless. No matter how carefull I was, I always screwed up the methodogy somewhere :-)

Go out for an hour, set the lens at 28mm, wide open too and shoot tons of stuff, come home and count just how many are soft and how many are acceptable, emphasis here on acceptable!

I don't personally own a wide (fixed focal length) lens, never mind a zoom, that is anywhere near pin-sharp (wide open) for general shooting (zeiss included).

I bet yours, just like all the rest is acceptable under the circumstances you describe!
Best,
Chris
 
SteveM7i said:
I just checked the firmware of my lens using Oly Viewer. It's
version 1.1, so it does have the one and only 14-54 firmware update.

My lens tests were done using various outdoor scenes, particularly
buildings and other static structures, in both mid- and
late-afternoon sun. I used ESP exposure mode. I just pulled out an
old thread from this form in which at least one E-1 user commented
that ESP AE mode seems to be prone to underexposure. One
aggrevating aspect of the E-1 is that it's very hard to judge image
exposure using the camera's LCD (and useless to judge sharpness).
The majority of my images appeared well-exposed on the camera's
display, but were clearly underexposed when viewed via my computer
monitor. Most of the RAW images were around 1 stop underexposed
based on the default exposure compensation applied by ACR. Does the
center-weighted metering mode work better for outdoor
scenes/landscapes?

As for the softness I observe in most images shot at 28mm and
f/2.8, I did find that some images were worse than others and a
couple seemed reasonable, so there may indeed be a focus accuracy
issue involved here, even though I was careful to check the
distance scale between most shots. I'll do some more tests tomorrow
using manual focus mode to see if that clears up the softness
problem.

Thanks for your response.

Streve
Click to expand...
I too find that ESP metering gives me more underexposures that I care to have. I use the center weighted metering the most. I also use a hand-held meter and set exposure manually.

On focus accuracy, I often focus twice. It's a habit I acquired with my EOS-1. It's amazing to me how often the second focus actually is more accurate on both the E-1 and the EOS-1. Give it a shot. Focus once. Focus again. Shoot.

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

I don't make stupid mistakes. My mistakes are always very clever.
 
I took some more test shots today using manual focus mode. There's no doubt that at 14mm, images taken at f/2.8 are very noticably less sharp than those taken at f/5.6, but not nearly as bad as it seemed in my previous tests done using AF mode. It turns out that the problem is that my 14-54 cannot consistently achieve accurate infinity focus at the 14mm focal length. AF performance at 28mm seems much better with closer subjects, but I will have to do some more tests to determine whether it's consistently accurate. At the tele end and apparently in between, AF seems to do fine. Also, the lens is sharp wide open at 54mm. I can probably live with the AF limitations but can always send the lens to Oly service for calibration if I encounter real life situations were AF accuracy at 28mm is a problem.

Thanks very much to everyone for all the input.

Steve
SteveM7i said:
Over the past few days I've been testing out my new 14-54 zoom lens
with my E-1. Long story short, at 28mm my sample of the 14-54 is
VERY significantly softer at f/2.8 than at f/5.6. I hate to ask,
but have other 14-54 owners noticed that their lenses are soft wide
open at 28mm?

Also, my new 14-54 is much more prone to significant underexposure
than my 14-45 "kit" zoom. I know there's a firmware update for the
14-54 but don't know whether my lens shipped with it. Is the lens
firmware version included in the EXIF data for E-1 images? If not,
is it possible to check which version of firmware the 14-54 has? I
would hope that the underexposure issue might be solved with a
firmware update.

Thanks in advance for all responses.

Steve
Click to expand...
 
SteveM7i said:
but have other 14-54 owners noticed that their lenses are soft wide
open at 28mm?
Click to expand...
Not here steve, I got a real good one and it's great across the frame wide open at all focal lengths unlike some I used.. Here's a comparison - 1st when I tried the E1 + 14-54 at launch followed by my current E1+14-54 - these are 100% Crops and you can see that my lens is sharper at F2.8 than the 2003 lens at F5.6 ..



Unfortunately, the 14-54 is the ONE lens which suffers the sample consistency disease which afflicts Canon, Nikon and Sigma glass :( . the rest of the ZD range including the cheapies seem to be far more consistent from lens to lens
SteveM7i said:
Also, my new 14-54 is much more prone to significant underexposure
than my 14-45 "kit" zoom.
Click to expand...
Yep, Mine too, it was the first thing I noticed when I tried a 14-45 on an E1 - all '54s seem to underexpose compared to the '45, or the Five I've used anyway

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
Did you use PS USM and, if so, what settings?

Thanks.

Steve
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
but have other 14-54 owners noticed that their lenses are soft wide
open at 28mm?
Click to expand...
Not here steve, I got a real good one and it's great across the
frame wide open at all focal lengths unlike some I used.. Here's a
comparison - 1st when I tried the E1 + 14-54 at launch followed by
my current E1+14-54 - these are 100% Crops and you can see that my
lens is sharper at F2.8 than the 2003 lens at F5.6 ..



Unfortunately, the 14-54 is the ONE lens which suffers the sample
consistency disease which afflicts Canon, Nikon and Sigma glass :(
. the rest of the ZD range including the cheapies seem to be far
more consistent from lens to lens
Adam-T said:
Also, my new 14-54 is much more prone to significant underexposure
than my 14-45 "kit" zoom.
Click to expand...
Yep, Mine too, it was the first thing I noticed when I tried a
14-45 on an E1 - all '54s seem to underexpose compared to the '45,
or the Five I've used anyway

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...
 
SteveM7i said:
Did you use PS USM and, if so, what settings?
Click to expand...
I have a 3 stage action I made up for E1 JPGs on standard settings

All threshold on 0

50% , 0.3 pixels
100%, 0.2 Pixels
75%, 0.5 Pixels

Both those 100% Crops were treated to the same sharpening, just goes to show the difference between 14-54s - the nasty thing is that when I did the first test in 2003 with the Dud, that was the best of 6 shots! - I only took two in the recent test with my own lens and that was at F2.8 and they were the same!!

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
Thanks for the quick reply, Adam. Do you start with zero in-camera sharpening? -S
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
Did you use PS USM and, if so, what settings?
Click to expand...
I have a 3 stage action I made up for E1 JPGs on standard settings

All threshold on 0

50% , 0.3 pixels
100%, 0.2 Pixels
75%, 0.5 Pixels

Both those 100% Crops were treated to the same sharpening, just
goes to show the difference between 14-54s - the nasty thing is
that when I did the first test in 2003 with the Dud, that was the
best of 6 shots! - I only took two in the recent test with my own
lens and that was at F2.8 and they were the same!!

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...
 
James Pilcher said:
SteveM7i said:
I just checked the firmware of my lens using Oly Viewer. It's
version 1.1, so it does have the one and only 14-54 firmware update.

My lens tests were done using various outdoor scenes, particularly
buildings and other static structures, in both mid- and
late-afternoon sun. I used ESP exposure mode. I just pulled out an
old thread from this form in which at least one E-1 user commented
that ESP AE mode seems to be prone to underexposure. One
aggrevating aspect of the E-1 is that it's very hard to judge image
exposure using the camera's LCD (and useless to judge sharpness).
The majority of my images appeared well-exposed on the camera's
display, but were clearly underexposed when viewed via my computer
monitor. Most of the RAW images were around 1 stop underexposed
based on the default exposure compensation applied by ACR. Does the
center-weighted metering mode work better for outdoor
scenes/landscapes?

As for the softness I observe in most images shot at 28mm and
f/2.8, I did find that some images were worse than others and a
couple seemed reasonable, so there may indeed be a focus accuracy
issue involved here, even though I was careful to check the
distance scale between most shots. I'll do some more tests tomorrow
using manual focus mode to see if that clears up the softness
problem.

Thanks for your response.

Streve
Click to expand...
I too find that ESP metering gives me more underexposures that I
care to have. I use the center weighted metering the most. I also
use a hand-held meter and set exposure manually.

On focus accuracy, I often focus twice. It's a habit I acquired
with my EOS-1. It's amazing to me how often the second focus
actually is more accurate on both the E-1 and the EOS-1. Give it a
shot. Focus once. Focus again. Shoot.

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

I don't make stupid mistakes. My mistakes are always very clever.
Click to expand...
 
SteveM7i said:
Thanks for the quick reply, Adam. Do you start with zero in-camera
sharpening? -S
Click to expand...
Sorry, No it's set to -1 it works out to the same as default on the test camera when the firmware was at version 1.0 ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
Thanks for the quick reply, Adam. Do you start with zero in-camera
sharpening? -S
Click to expand...
Sorry, No it's set to -1 it works out to the same as default on the
test camera when the firmware was at version 1.0 ..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...
 
Steve,

Coming from a traditional photography background (read: manual focus / light meters & polaroid) one thing to be aware of is that auto-focus is just plain lousy on distant scenes. IF you pay attention you'll see the camera will often focus short of infinity especially with the wider glass. I see this all the time here in Alaska over the winter months due to everything from cloud to snow falling, yes, these things are that sensitive .

We read so much about camera/lens innacuracies , but, I'd beg to differ with 99% of the comments, it's nearly always, as we say, pilot error ;-)

As for exposure issues, Nikon too have a reputation for underexposure , I disagree, most images I see with this so called affliction contain one OR MORE area of excessive contrast OR brightness, again pilot error. The Canon kit overexposes by at least half a stop anyway (ask Chuck Westfall to deny this :-) so it APPEARS to be more accurate that both Olympus AND Nikon! Plain not true.......

This kit is pretty darn good (read: accurate), often more accurate than us mere mortals!

We all tend to forget our photography 101 classes when we use this modern kit, it's often easier to just get frustrated with the gears limitations .
Best,
Chris

PS. Ever noticed how good the exposures are with the longer glass, now, do a critique of the image, relative brightness, contrast, tone etc. Then apply same to the underexposed wide shots ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top