Let's "Soften" the top L Glass

I am an inspiring glamour photographer and confused about why did I purchased the two sharpest lenses Canon made (28-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS) and then went on adding Carl Zeiss’ Softar filters ($249 each at B&H) to “soften” the pictures. The answer surely cannot be “because I gained a F-stop”

Ken

Hi!

Is this a question to us or to yourself (-:

I am actually looking around for lenses too and I am not sure wether I will need any L lens... I am considering the 24-85 standard zoom and I am suspicious about quality too. But I believe the high end L lenses do no match the medium built quality of a D60. The critical thing is wide angle but I believe there will be compromises left even with the pro 16-35L zoom.

Maybe you, as a pro, have benefits beond optical aspects from build quality? If you shoot all day long the lens will last longer and working more precise than a consumer grade one?

Just some stupid idea to make you feel better (-:

Regards, A. Schiele

Ken Neb said:

I am an inspiring glamour photographer and confused about why did I
purchased the two sharpest lenses Canon made (28-70 2.8L and 70-200
2.8L IS) and then went on adding Carl Zeiss’ Softar filters ($249
each at B&H) to “soften” the pictures. The answer surely cannot be
“because I gained a F-stop”

Ken

Click to expand...

I am a not so inspiring glamour photographer and i have no idea why you would want to soften your images ...soft glamour is very old fashioned take a look at my gallerys here
http://www.akn-media.com/eos1dpage/1DIP1/
http://www.akn-media.com/eos1dpage/1DIP2/

All shot with eirther the 28-70 or 70-200 IS on a 1D ...nothing soft about them in fact they have a anti soft almost harsh look thats really in vogue today with a lot of magazines like FHM and Maxim etc

Ken Neb said:

I am an inspiring glamour photographer and confused about why did I
purchased the two sharpest lenses Canon made (28-70 2.8L and 70-200
2.8L IS) and then went on adding Carl Zeiss’ Softar filters ($249
each at B&H) to “soften” the pictures. The answer surely cannot be
“because I gained a F-stop”

Ken

Click to expand...

Gosh, Paul, I was having my morning coffee, and after viewing your galleries I find it superfluous! KP

Paul Pope said:

Ken Neb said:

I am an inspiring glamour photographer and confused about why did I
purchased the two sharpest lenses Canon made (28-70 2.8L and 70-200
2.8L IS) and then went on adding Carl Zeiss’ Softar filters ($249
each at B&H) to “soften” the pictures. The answer surely cannot be
“because I gained a F-stop”

Ken

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

I just posted this on another thread. Thought it might apply here too.

Here are three samples using the Canon D60 and :
Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5, Canon 28-70 2.8 L, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L.

All three pics were taken at their widest apertures.

24-85 / f3.5 flash fill auto:



!

28-70 2.8 / f2.8 / flash fill



!

70-200 f4 / f4 / flash fill



!

Anthony,

Thanks for the samples. They all look good. The 70-200f4 looks the softest or possibly the focus on the face was a little off.

Jim

--

Anthony said:

I just posted this on another thread. Thought it might apply here too.

Here are three samples using the Canon D60 and :
Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5, Canon 28-70 2.8 L, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L.

All three pics were taken at their widest apertures.

24-85 / f3.5 flash fill auto:



!

28-70 2.8 / f2.8 / flash fill



!

70-200 f4 / f4 / flash fill



!

Click to expand...

Jim Kelly said:

Anthony,

Thanks for the samples. They all look good. The 70-200f4 looks the
softest or possibly the focus on the face was a little off.

Jim

Click to expand...

Yes Jim, I noticed the same thing. I recall attempting to fo focus on her right eye.

I'll run a test or two to make sure the lens is OK.

Member said:

--

Anthony said:

I just posted this on another thread. Thought it might apply here too.

Here are three samples using the Canon D60 and :
Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5, Canon 28-70 2.8 L, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L.

All three pics were taken at their widest apertures.

24-85 / f3.5 flash fill auto:



!

28-70 2.8 / f2.8 / flash fill



!

70-200 f4 / f4 / flash fill



!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree. Nice pics. I presume they were all shot around 70mm? On 70-200, looks like focus is back at ear.

Jim Kelly said:

Thanks for the samples. They all look good. The 70-200f4 looks the
softest or possibly the focus on the face was a little off.

Jim

--

Anthony said:

I just posted this on another thread. Thought it might apply here too.

Here are three samples using the Canon D60 and :
Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5, Canon 28-70 2.8 L, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L.

All three pics were taken at their widest apertures.

24-85 / f3.5 flash fill auto:



!

28-70 2.8 / f2.8 / flash fill



!

70-200 f4 / f4 / flash fill



!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Ken,

I am not a pro, but isn't it better to have the sharpest lens possible and soften it when necessary? A bad lens very unlikely could be made sharper (when you need that) even with Zeiss filters. I don't have 70-200IS but do have 28-70L and looks to me that in addition to sharpness you also gain much better color and contrast.
Regards

I say just shoot with the D30 and don't use any USM to get your soft photos. ;-)

Mikhail Bogdanov said:

Hi Ken,
I am not a pro, but isn't it better to have the sharpest lens
possible and soften it when necessary? A bad lens very unlikely
could be made sharper (when you need that) even with Zeiss filters.
I don't have 70-200IS but do have 28-70L and looks to me that in
addition to sharpness you also gain much better color and contrast.
Regards

Click to expand...

elmo said:

I agree. Nice pics. I presume they were all shot around 70mm? On
70-200, looks like focus is back at ear.

Click to expand...

The 70-200 was shot at 118mm
The 28-70 was shot at 68mm
It does look as if the 70-200 focused at the back of the ear.

I'm gonna give it some kind of focus test.

elmo said:

Jim Kelly said:

Thanks for the samples. They all look good. The 70-200f4 looks the
softest or possibly the focus on the face was a little off.

Jim

--

Anthony said:

I just posted this on another thread. Thought it might apply here too.

Here are three samples using the Canon D60 and :
Canon 24-85 3.5-4.5, Canon 28-70 2.8 L, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L.

All three pics were taken at their widest apertures.

24-85 / f3.5 flash fill auto:



!

28-70 2.8 / f2.8 / flash fill



!

70-200 f4 / f4 / flash fill



!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LOL!!!!
In the running for comment of the year so far .....

Chris Florio said:

Mikhail Bogdanov said:

Hi Ken,
I am not a pro, but isn't it better to have the sharpest lens
possible and soften it when necessary? A bad lens very unlikely
could be made sharper (when you need that) even with Zeiss filters.
I don't have 70-200IS but do have 28-70L and looks to me that in
addition to sharpness you also gain much better color and contrast.
Regards

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hey, Paul, I always enjoyed your bikini pics. Can you share with us how did you light those pics next to the pool? I am assume you are not in the middle of the pool, am I correct? ........If so, you are shooting from across the pool, how did you light it?

Ken

Paul Pope said:

Ken Neb said:

I am an inspiring glamour photographer and confused about why did I
purchased the two sharpest lenses Canon made (28-70 2.8L and 70-200
2.8L IS) and then went on adding Carl Zeiss’ Softar filters ($249
each at B&H) to “soften” the pictures. The answer surely cannot be
“because I gained a F-stop”

Ken

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Alfred,

Over the next few days I will be judging all of this for myself. I have been shooting digitally with a Canon Pro90IS and a G1. I also shoot extensively with a pair of Canon EOS-3's, and a stable of lenses that included the 17-35 L, the 28-70 L, the 28-135 IS, and the 75-300 IS. The 35mm/lens shots are all processed with a Canon 4000US film scanner.

I have eBay'd the Pro90IS (freeing up funds toward my D60 - which arrives tomorrow), and the 17-35 L. I have the other gear still in hand. As soon as I can I will be shooting with the D60 and the remaining lenses, including the 28-70 L, and will be judging for myself. Comparison of shots taken with the 28-70 L on both the EOS-3 and D60 will be compared with similar if not identical shots taken with the 28-135 IS.

A lot of what I learn will determne what I do from there. The sale of my 17-35 L was in preparation for the aquisition of a 16-35 L. Because of the 1.6x "crop" factor of the D60, I am also considering the sale of my 75-300 IS in favor of a 70-200 L IS and a Canon 1.4x or 2.0x TC.

Your question about the image quality from the D60 reflecting the potential of the L glass is appropriate.

Something I will say, is that for the size of many of my final prints - the tripod-mounted images from the Pro90IS with it's built-in "non-L" lens, at 2.6 megapixels, was pretty darn good compared to film scans from the EOS-3's and L glass (also tripod mounted). Because of that, my expectations from the D60 and L glass are high.

Frank P

alfred_schiele said:

Is this a question to us or to yourself (-:

I am actually looking around for lenses too and I am not sure
wether I will need any L lens... I am considering the 24-85
standard zoom and I am suspicious about quality too. But I believe
the high end L lenses do no match the medium built quality of a
D60. The critical thing is wide angle but I believe there will be
compromises left even with the pro 16-35L zoom.

Maybe you, as a pro, have benefits beond optical aspects from build
quality? If you shoot all day long the lens will last longer and
working more precise than a consumer grade one?

Just some stupid idea to make you feel better (-:

Regards, A. Schiele

Ken Neb said:

I am an inspiring glamour photographer and confused about why did I
purchased the two sharpest lenses Canon made (28-70 2.8L and 70-200
2.8L IS) and then went on adding Carl Zeiss’ Softar filters ($249
each at B&H) to “soften” the pictures. The answer surely cannot be
“because I gained a F-stop”

Ken

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi!

Thank you for your response!

Frank Patton said:

Over the next few days I will be judging all of this for myself. I
have been shooting digitally with a Canon Pro90IS and a G1. I also
shoot extensively with a pair of Canon EOS-3's, and a stable of
lenses that included the 17-35 L, the 28-70 L, the 28-135 IS, and
the 75-300 IS. The 35mm/lens shots are all processed with a Canon
4000US film scanner.

Click to expand...

Let me know all you experiences! I am very interested in your personal judgement about all.

I am considering the 28-135 IS as well. I like the IS technology and think it is very effective. But I am hesitating to plan to buy this lens because I am not sure about the allover quality. Some tell it is great, others are not satisfied... Well I do not expect it to be comparable to a 2.8 L lens because it is not 2.8... What counts is allover usability practical wise.

I think zoom lenses with 2.8 are much harder to correct than those around 4.0 to 5.6. They need more glass and possible the better mechanics to perform better at all, are therfore bulkier, heavier and more expensive. They are speedier and this adds some usage possibilities. But do they produce always better quality? I dobt a bit from what I have seen in conjunction with a D60... I won't doubt so much if you use these L lenses with 35mm bodies as well because I belive they provide better quality up to the edges. But this is out of my personal thoughs so far...

Frank Patton said:

A lot of what I learn will determne what I do from there. The sale
of my 17-35 L was in preparation for the aquisition of a 16-35 L.
Because of the 1.6x "crop" factor of the D60, I am also considering
the sale of my 75-300 IS in favor of a 70-200 L IS and a Canon 1.4x
or 2.0x TC.

Click to expand...

From what I read about the 17-35 L I think it was a speedy but not too good lens... But maybe all very wide angle lenses are lower than the standard focals... On the other hand the 16-35 has been judged here often to be much better than the 17-35 and I belive there must be something true in it.

Frank Patton said:

Your question about the image quality from the D60 reflecting the
potential of the L glass is appropriate.

Click to expand...

Well, thats exactly what I am trying to figure out as well. I am not mad about carring the most lens hype around just to show how a good equipped photographer I am... I don't care about this when I can save a lot of money... I won't care some miscredits in the peripheral zones of any lens if this is cropped away by the D60 frame... This is spare potential I will never need.. To me good performance in conjunction with D60 would be enough.

Frank Patton said:

Something I will say, is that for the size of many of my final
prints - the tripod-mounted images from the Pro90IS with it's
built-in "non-L" lens, at 2.6 megapixels, was pretty darn good
compared to film scans from the EOS-3's and L glass (also tripod
mounted). Because of that, my expectations from the D60 and L
glass are high.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't expect better quality when introducing another additional digital step into the "normal" print process that would do prints directly. It seems quite clear to me that additinal scanning can rarely do things better... Standard film is made to do prints directly and that should be compared...

I am bored about exactly this workflow, comparing film scan quality to direct digital imaging... What about doing a neg-exposure from a digital camera image and enlarging it the classical way, comparing this to a direct print from film? What would you expect from this workflow?? (-:

Regards, A. Schiele

Used two bowens 3k heads with big softboxes on them and a 2k head with a gold umbrella bouncing off the ceiling.

Ken Neb said:

Ken

Paul Pope said:

Ken Neb said:

I am an inspiring glamour photographer and confused about why did I
purchased the two sharpest lenses Canon made (28-70 2.8L and 70-200
2.8L IS) and then went on adding Carl Zeiss’ Softar filters ($249
each at B&H) to “soften” the pictures. The answer surely cannot be
“because I gained a F-stop”

Ken

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...