Lens softness - is this the best I can expect?

Pete_W · Jun 11, 2017

After seeing consistent softness on the right hand side of photos taken with my PL 12/1.4, I decided to take it back to the store on Friday and get it swapped for another copy.

I took the new copy out this weekend for some test shots to see if it was better. Unfortunately there is still softness on the right hand edge.

I've pasted some examples below. The first two were taken with wider apertures while the third was stopped down to f/5.6 for comparison and this obviously helps sharpen up the edges.

But that kind of defeats the purpose of having an f/1.4 lens.

Am I being too picky? Is this what I should expect for a $1,500 lens?

--
Pete

d3xmeister · Jun 11, 2017

sigala1 said:
d3xmeister said:

I'm surprise people here keep blaming the wide aperture, field curvature, or how wrong it is to shoot landscapes wide open (it isn't), but what I see is the right side looks like it was photographed through a coke bottle bottom. The only think I'm not sure if it is the lens, or the IBIS system causing this.

Click to expand...

Well wide-aperture primes DO have field curvature. And shooting landscapes wide open is not something there's ever a reason you should be doing.

However, there's a valid point that for $1300, there should be better quality control. (I'm sure it's the lens, probably a tilted focal plane, and not the IBIS.)

Coke bottle softenss on only one edge have nothing to do with field curvature

Shooting landscapes wide open is done and there is no reason not to if that's what you need to get the shot.

There is valid point that QC is poor these days considering the price of lenses and cameras.

KTMfan · Jun 11, 2017

alcelc said:
Pete_W said:

KTMfan said:

Why the heck are you shooting landscapes at f/1.4-2.2? Madness. What are you trying to achieve? What exactly do you want to use the lens for?

Click to expand...

These are all test shots after swapping the lens so I tried a range of apertures. The sample below is f/2.8 where I'd expect it to be sharp at the edges, but it's not on the right hand side. In the previous post one was f/5.6 and it's still soft on the right hand side.

I just want to shoot landscapes with good DOF and sharpness across the frame. This lens is marketed as being good for exactly this.

--
Pete

Click to expand...

this sample does not provide something in both edges to compare properly. When I looked at the other 2 posted sample in the OP, there were a few tree branches in approximate distance on both side (more on the right, fewer hidden in the left) looked not much difference.

A crop of the right edge

A crop of the left edge (watch the branches behind the pine tree which should be in approximate distance to the right edge cropping.)

A more proper testing having more obvious easier comparing object in similar distance on both edge could be more conclusive. Just on those 3 posted images, can't say IMHO.

--
Albert

This ^^^^^^^^ You are NOT going to get maximum sharpness, or depth of field, shooting at f/1.4-2. Whatever lens you buy or use. If you focus well into the scene, as the first shot looks like you have, there is no way on God's green earth that the rhs of the frame, which is super close to you, is ever going to be sharp or in focus. Physically impossible. Most of your "test" shots display this lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals.

Impulses · Jun 11, 2017

dgrogers said:
As others have said, you can not judge lens sharpness at wide open apertures with landscapes. You could try a brick wall, but you would need to be at a perfect 90 degree angle. You could also try an image of a sidewalk where you can the level meters to ensure you are at a perfect 90 degree angle. You should also use a tripod with IS set to off (if your camera has it built in) to ensure you are not shaking the camera when you press the shutter button.

Having said that, the f/5.6 sample you provided looks pretty bad, but that is one shot. I would not pay any attention to the landscapes you took wide open unless you are experienced with using hyperfocal distance.

--
RIP Chris Cornell

Or just pick a really far landscape with no prominent foreground... (go on a roof, top of a parking structure, etc) And then while you're at it you can confirm or rule out decentering and alignment issues with something like the upside down test. Lock the focus, turn the camera upside down and take a 2nd shot, compare both. If the issue switches sides after you've flipped the images (and I haven't messed up the logic in my head) then there's probably something wrong with your lens. Far simpler than aligning charts or walls...

Danielvr · Jun 11, 2017

Impulses said:
Or just pick a really far landscape with no prominent foreground...

Athmospheric haze wreaks havoc with sharpness.

Impulses said:
Far simpler than aligning charts or walls...

Aligning a chart in the viewfinder is dead simple. When all four edges align nicely with those of the viewfinder, it's OK.

KTMfan · Jun 11, 2017

Tommi K1 said:
First frame, just in the about 800x600px resolution preview shows it is soft on right side.

100% shows it is badly decentered.

Return or swap

Oh please. It's shot at f/1.4? & focus point is deep into the scene. It's never ever ever going to be sharp a few feet in front of you. Ever

Impulses · Jun 11, 2017

Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:

Or just pick a really far landscape with no prominent foreground...

Click to expand...

Athmospheric haze wreaks havoc with sharpness.

Danielvr said:

Far simpler than aligning charts or walls...

Click to expand...

Aligning a chart in the viewfinder is dead simple. When all four edges align nicely with those of the viewfinder, it's OK.

I don't think haze is a big deal with a wide lens... I'm not suggesting you go pick a target that's 50 miles away. I didn't come up with the technique, but AFAIK it's been helpful to others in cases like this.

1KillDefiler · Jun 11, 2017

Were you using any filters (UV or ND?) when taking those test shots? Based on the shutter speeds used, I suspect that you might have used an ND. I've seen filters -cheap and not cheap- absolutely destroy image sharpness especially on lenses with a larger front element (ie Oly 75mm f1.8).

Pete_W · Jun 11, 2017

KTMfan said:
This ^^^^^^^^ You are NOT going to get maximum sharpness, or depth of field, shooting at f/1.4-2. Whatever lens you buy or use. If you focus well into the scene, as the first shot looks like you have, there is no way on God's green earth that the rhs of the frame, which is super close to you, is ever going to be sharp or in focus. Physically impossible.

Not sure what you mean by "super close" but the grass on the RHS and the small orange tree were at least 15m away.

Pete_W · Jun 11, 2017

1KillDefiler said:
Were you using any filters (UV or ND?) when taking those test shots? Based on the shutter speeds used, I suspect that you might have used an ND. I've seen filters -cheap and not cheap- absolutely destroy image sharpness especially on lenses with a larger front element (ie Oly 75mm f1.8).

No, I wasn't using any filters.

Pete_W · Jun 11, 2017

Thanks to everyone who contributed with helpful suggestions and comments, it's really very much appreciated.

I spent some time last evening reviewing everything that I've shot with this lens and also looking at the sample images online from reviews (e.g. LensTip which matches my experience) so I made the decision to return it. I simply didn't want to spend even more time testing and reviewing, and felt that for the price of this lens it just wasn't good enough.

The camera store were happy to exchange it so I've swapped it for a Panasonic 7-14mm, a lens I've been interested in for some time. They didn't have the PL8-18 in stock yet but having seen some comparison reviews, I think the older less-expensive lens is more suited to my amateur photography.

Given the difference in price between the PL12 and the P7-14, I used the remainder to pick up P42.5/1.7, a nice little lens.

Thanks again to everyone who helped. I really appreciate your input.

--
Pete

Tommi K1 · Jun 12, 2017

KTMfan said:
Tommi K1 said:

First frame, just in the about 800x600px resolution preview shows it is soft on right side.

100% shows it is badly decentered.

Return or swap

Click to expand...

Oh please. It's shot at f/1.4? & focus point is deep into the scene. It's never ever ever going to be sharp a few feet in front of you. Ever

Excuse me? The preview default tiny preview shows the right side to be extremely soft, even when the preview resolution was about 800x600px size.

Enlarging the 100% version showed very clear decentering.

And secondly, actually what you can get is the resolve the 8.6mm size details from infinity to front of the lens at 12mm f/1.4 exactly by focusing to infinity (or furthest point that is wanted to be in focus).

8.6mm is a lot when you compare it ie. 24mm f/1.4 that resolves only 17.2mm.

You need typically around 4-5mm to resolve perfectly details like a grass blades etc, to achieve that you need f/2.8-3.2 to do so.

Tommi K1 · Jun 12, 2017

I think you made the best choice to swap it to 7-14mm f/4 and 42.5mm f/1.7.

The 12mm f/1.4 is very nice lens but it is a prime and wide angle primes are more difficult to use than a prime in normal - short tele range. And to spend time to swapping lens, returning it to manufacturer to get it fixed etc is not worth if the lens isn't going to be a "daily driver".

Pete_W · Jun 12, 2017

Thanks Tommi, that was exactly my thoughts. The 7-14 will be a more versatile lens for my modest requirements, and I've had some fun already with the 42.5.

KTMfan · Jun 12, 2017

Tommi K1 said:
The 12mm f/1.4 is very nice lens but it is a prime and wide angle primes are more difficult to use than a prime in normal - short tele range.

Are you for real? Wide angle primes are about the easiest thing in the world to use. Stop down a bit if you want decent DOF, focus about 1/3 into your scene, press shutter button, done. Even wide open they're easy, as the DOF is not razor thin. Focus on your subject, press shutter, done. 24 f/2.8 on FF.

PS I added the vignette.

PPS The person who suggested a FF is on the right track. These were shot on a $1000 camera with a $150 lens

ahaslett · Jun 12, 2017

Excellent choices - enjoy!

Andrew

Adrian Harris · Jun 12, 2017

I thought I had similar problems when I bought the Olympus 40-150 f2.8, eventually it turned out to be the camera sensor that was tilted. Of course I had never noticed it before because I only previously had slow lenses. I borrowed another fast lens from a friend and had the same problem. Both lenses were perfect on his copy of the camera!

Another issue that will cause the same problem is the camera lens mount being a bit squiffy.

I sent my camera in to the service centre to get it put right.

LMNCT · Jun 12, 2017

Wide apertures lead to less sharpness in shots like those you have provided. It is not the fault of the lens...the user needs an update.

Tommi K1 · Jun 12, 2017

KTMfan said:
Tommi K1 said:

The 12mm f/1.4 is very nice lens but it is a prime and wide angle primes are more difficult to use than a prime in normal - short tele range.

Click to expand...

Are you for real? Wide angle primes are about the easiest thing in the world to use.

[Edit]

Wide angle reveals the problems in the perspective far more easier than tele. You can't control the background as easily, yet even tiny adjustments in perspective will have big changes.

It being a prime means you can't as easily to crop the scene like with a 7-14mm, instead you need to "zoom with your feet" and change your perspective and prepare to crop devil out of the photos more likely once you find the perspective as you are restricted to the one focal length.

Member said:
Stop down a bit if you want decent DOF, focus about 1/3 into your scene, press shutter button, done. Even wide open they're easy, as the DOF is not razor thin. Focus on your subject, press shutter, done. 24 f/2.8 on FF.

Learn the merklinger method instead hyperfocal or 1/3 etc. http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

Member said:
PS I added the vignette.

PPS The person who suggested a FF is on the right track. These were shot on a $1000 camera with a $150 lens

[Edit]

And for your information, camera is body + lens, the body isn't the camera. You can't take photo without an aperture (pinhole cap or something).

The FF has lost the reasons to exist really for >95% of the camera owners. That is sad fact.

Member said:

jaeae · Jun 12, 2017

As others have said too - I have feeling that these days price tag has nothing to do with consistent quality

Maybe the high number of glass elements makes things difficult..

Aaron801 · Jun 12, 2017

Pete_W said:
Thanks to everyone who contributed with helpful suggestions and comments, it's really very much appreciated.

I spent some time last evening reviewing everything that I've shot with this lens and also looking at the sample images online from reviews (e.g. LensTip which matches my experience) so I made the decision to return it. I simply didn't want to spend even more time testing and reviewing, and felt that for the price of this lens it just wasn't good enough.

The camera store were happy to exchange it so I've swapped it for a Panasonic 7-14mm, a lens I've been interested in for some time. They didn't have the PL8-18 in stock yet but having seen some comparison reviews, I think the older less-expensive lens is more suited to my amateur photography.

Given the difference in price between the PL12 and the P7-14, I used the remainder to pick up P42.5/1.7, a nice little lens.

Thanks again to everyone who helped. I really appreciate your input.

I would have done the same thing. I like prime to use prime lenses, but I figure that I'm getting more value out of ones that are both faster so that I can shoot in lower light and give me the ability to shoot really shallow depth of field. With a wide lens like, a fast aperture give you the ability to shoot in lower light but wides aren't really so great for subject isolation so with all of the extra cost and weight you still don't get much of that option. Besides, if you're shooting landscape type shots the speed probably isn't going to be such a big factor as in that case you can use a tripod when the light is too low and you be stopping the lens down anyway.

I think that zooms are more useful for the ultra-wide stuff and for the really long lenses, where you'd likely be "zooming in" (where the distances might be too long to cover by "zooming with your feet). It's for this reason that I feel that more mid-length lenses are best as primes; medium wide to short tele lengths...

Lens softness - is this the best I can expect?

Senior Member

Senior Member

KTMfan

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

KTMfan

Guest

Forum Pro

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Tommi K1

Guest

Tommi K1

Guest

Senior Member

KTMfan

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Tommi K1

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts