Colour rendition

Let me preface this by saying that I love Canon's colour science. I love the M50 and the m100 before it.

I've always had good results with the 22mm and adapted 50mm 1.8 STM with very little effort and post editing.

I've gone on a recent splurge and bought two of the Sigma primes - the 30mm and 56mm. The autofocus is nice and snappy on both and I get nice clean images.

However the Canon colours and image 'pop' that I was getting with ease before is not there. I find the colours and rendition more muted and sterile.

Am I crazy?

I was watching quite a few video reviews of the EF-M 32mm vs the Sigma 30mm before buying. Whilst the Sigma produces nice results, I noticed that the colours on the Sigma weren't quite the same as the Canon lens. The EF-M 32mm seems to be a bit warmer

minglukhan wrote:

Let me preface this by saying that I love Canon's colour science. I love the M50 and the m100 before it.

I've always had good results with the 22mm and adapted 50mm 1.8 STM with very little effort and post editing.

I've gone on a recent splurge and bought two of the Sigma primes - the 30mm and 56mm. The autofocus is nice and snappy on both and I get nice clean images.

However the Canon colours and image 'pop' that I was getting with ease before is not there. I find the colours and rendition more muted and sterile.

Am I crazy?

Question: did you shoot them with the lenshood on ?

Some lenses, especially the fast 1.2/1.4 max aperture primes, are more prone to loose contrast if you don't use them, resulting in flat, liveless, dull images...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

No, you’re not crazy.

.

Folks will stone me, again, but I find most, but not all Sigma lenses have a very clinical color rendering.

Sharp as a tack, but dull color rendering. That’s part of why I sent back my Siggy 56. The other half was it not being a prim and proper 85mm on Canon crop. Both are nitpicks, but some of us are picky.

They are price effective, small, light and fast glass, sharp as a tack. But colors? Ugh. This isn’t even talking Lightroom either...

minglukhan wrote:

Ooo, that's interesting, I never thought of that! You're right I never use the lens hoods which may explain why my outdoor shots are abit duller than I expected.

Will give it a go!

You know, playing devils advocate for a minute, it could be the metering and picture profile integration since this is a third party lens without native support. One workaround would be to employ Lightroom, but Lightroom doesn’t have an acceptable color match for my former M6 II. But, there was a bunch running around on the R forum saying there was a decent paid-for color match for new Canons. Marrying the two, with lens corrections, could “solve” this. Maybe.

prospects wrote:

minglukhan wrote:

Let me preface this by saying that I love Canon's colour science. I love the M50 and the m100 before it.

I've always had good results with the 22mm and adapted 50mm 1.8 STM with very little effort and post editing.

I've gone on a recent splurge and bought two of the Sigma primes - the 30mm and 56mm. The autofocus is nice and snappy on both and I get nice clean images.

However the Canon colours and image 'pop' that I was getting with ease before is not there. I find the colours and rendition more muted and sterile.

Am I crazy?

Not crazy but probably a little confirmation bias.

While lens character will differ between lenses, I can’t imagine why Sigma lenses would lose their “pop”.

Exactly. There are lots of different factors that ultimately affect IQ, but with today's tools many of the issues can be largely mitigated by shooting RAW and applying your own adjustments to taste, losslessly.

I don't hesitate at all to use any of my Sigma lenses when the situation is appropriate. They perform marvelously. Here is a shot taken in a very challenging lighting situation (for color and contrast). Middle of the day into the sun. I do use a lens hood religiously though...

The foliage in the background is muted of course, but the Sigma 56 + M6ii did very well with all of my photos during the shoot. Click on "original size" (2160 high). Rights reserved

R2

Regarding color differences with Sigma...

.

Hypothesis 1: Sigma glass is optimized for sharpness, not color rendition. This has been my going theory, until this morning. This isn't well understood by most folks, but different glass does have different color rendition. Even Canon is known to produce some glass with varying color transmission.

Hypothesis 2: Metering and Canon Standard picture profile results are somewhat impaired on third party glass... Canon Auto, which often chooses standard, (is in these three samples btw, I checked by toggling between the two), in turn prioritizes parts of the image with a proprietary selection criteria based off lighting, and may not produce the same results on lenses without correction data, namely third party glass. Likewise, I’ve found third party glass without correction data, leads to off-results particularly with evaluative metering. Spot or center weighted priority are a good mitigation for this, but are spot or center weighted thus not taking the entire scene into account. This leads to uneven results where parts of the image essentially blow out the highlights as the camera (mis)interprets uncorrected vignette as dark areas which center or spot ignore/give less weight, at the expense of not metering the whole scene. Then there is always good ol exposure compensation; I do recommend keeping it in the back of your head when shooting non-Canon glass in particular.

.

Some important reading regarding Canon picture profiles aka JPEG profiles:

https://global.canon/en/imaging/picturestyle/style/faithful.html

"It is the feature of the Faithful style that color change is few by the deference of the light. In the examples, though the “Standard” is more vivid reproduction, at the part where strong light is hit, the “Faithful” maintains the color taste near the actual subjects."

https://www.canon.com.hk/cpx/en/technical/pa_New_Picture_Style_and_Sharpness_parameters_for_Ultra_High_Resolution.html

The default [Saturation] of “Fine Detail” is similar to “Standard” but the default [Contrast] is set lower than “Standard”. “Fine Detail” has Sharpness’s [Fineness] and [Threshold] both set to the minimum of [1], so even thin and low contrast edges can be sharpened to produce an image emphasizing fine edges and patterns. Unlike “Neutral” and “Faithful”, “Fine Detail” is intended for images that will be used straight from the camera, without post-processing (however we suggest you to take RAW images to enjoy the maximum post-processing flexibility).

.

Fine detail, may be a good mitigation for color rendition since it has a traditional Canon saturation profile, but, not prioritized based off metering data. Also, although not described, Fine detail has a different highlight curve preserving more highlight data preventing blowouts... Note the curve on the right end has a different, curve. Auto, is using Standard in this case which I confirmed by toggling to Standard and nothing was changed.

So going with theory #2 for a minute, Fine detail would partially correct for the metering differences by preventing some blowout, and, giving less weight to metering data for color and contrast shifts... I might agree btw.

Original, reprocessed from RAW

Fine Detail used

Fine Detail, with 4-2-4 sharpness, +0.5 Contrast (to match standard). I found a whole stop of added contrast was a bit too much here, by my taste.

Original / SOOC

Fine Detail

Fine detail, 4-2-4, +1 Contrast

Original / SOOC

Fine Detail

Fine Detail, 4-2-4, +1 Contrast

I do prefer the Fine detail with 4-2-4 sharpness and added contrast (to match Standard, without being Standard); there is more of a Canon "feel" to the images. I was aware of the implications of lack of correctional data on metering and was ready to shift exposure comp or metering type, but, hadn't stopped to consider JPEG engine shifts, till today. There may be something to door #2 as alot of Canon's secret sauce is in fact, the secret sauce.

BTW, this can be done in-camera with customizing picture style, using Fine Detail, and adding +1 contrast, and adjusting Sharpness to 4-2-4. Lightroom not needed. It's an improvement in my book.

I may have been wrong about Theory #1... Most of Sigma's handiwork has been when bolted on a Sony body, which are not known for stellar SOOC JPEG rendition. Coupled to a Canon, Canon isn't throwing any weight (pun intended) to helping third party glass work well on it's platform because they want to sell their glass. A bit of help, does seem to be in order and some tweaking Fine Detail closes a good part of the gap I feel.

The differences seem subtle, until you're making changes in DPP4 you can see the detail recovered on my bearded dragon's head, my daughters left cheek, and the added contrast to my son's hair, the pink shifts in my daughters face, etc. Call me picky, but a little here a little there, adds up. This may be a theory (#2), but I feel it has teeth to it reviewing the impacts and the more Canon-esque rendition it imparts. It may be Sigma glass is comparable in color transition, but, is hampered by Canon's lack of embrace to third party glass like Sony has, maybe.

Folks will say color differences between platforms are small deal, till they're not. I'll say the differences here are small, but, the output from the adjusted workflow is more true to Canon, in my eyes. Canon's perceptual quality optimized "Standard" picture profile appears to be replicable with some success with modification to Fine Detail for third party glass is the moral here, and, it may explain a missing part of the equation here why third party glass lacks the oomph, on Canons...

Its true, and perhaps also a entirely subjective. I love the rendering of the sigma lenses.

If you want warmer tones create your color profile in camera, including kelvin. I use the Natural and faithful profile the most, then i add a few tweaks. Some people here like the Fine Detail profile on canon, which i absolutely loathe

AshleyMC wrote:

minglukhan wrote:

Let me preface this by saying that I love Canon's colour science. I love the M50 and the m100 before it.

I've always had good results with the 22mm and adapted 50mm 1.8 STM with very little effort and post editing.

What does that mean, exactly? Post processing of Raw files? SOOC JPEG files with minor enhancements? For the latter case, which Picture Profile(s)?

I've gone on a recent splurge and bought two of the Sigma primes - the 30mm and 56mm. The autofocus is nice and snappy on both and I get nice clean images.

However the Canon colours and image 'pop' that I was getting with ease before is not there. I find the colours and rendition more muted and sterile.

Hmm?

Am I crazy?

Maybe.

For many years, I have been using interchangeable-lens camera bodies of multiple brands and lenses of multiple brands, including (mostly) the OEM like Canon and others like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and various Korean and Chinese manufacturers.

That said as background, I have not encountered any degradation or, rather, difference, in colour rendition to the point of negative reaction. I am not one who claims that OEM lenses are the best and non-OEM lenses are always problematic in one way or another. My Sigma lenses, including the recent 56mm for EF-M mount, mingle easily with my favourite Canon L lenses. No problems.

Note that Canon, understandably, operates and optimizes within its own world of bodies, sensors, processors, algorithms, firmware versions, lenses and lens firmware versions, and flashes and various accessories. Canon does not guarantee “comparable” (and “error-free”) performance if the users, like you and me, mix any non-OEM parts into the total solution. One practical example: you cannot enjoy the “lens correction” features if you mount, say, a Sigma lens on your M50 - in fact, it is advisable that you turn off all “lens correction” features in such cases.

So, if you happened to use a pre-built and pre-optimized Picture Profile with a Sigma lens when producing your SOOC JPEG images, no Canon-comparable performance and results would be guaranteed.

You are on your own.

And, like all decisions behind a final photographic creation, it is up to you. Yes, it is up to you, from the moment you put the viewfinder up to your eye and to the moment you save the JPG file after a post-processing session on your computer.

If you happen to ask Canon to “help” along the way, imagine the Canon guys whisper in your ears, “We can only help you with Canon stuff, OK?”

I'm still not wholly convinced it's Canon's lack of support of third party lenses that's entirely the problem, but I am convinced it's a contributor to the problem. It may be that both my theories are correct: Sigma glass doesn't have the same color transmission, and, Canon's metering data and Standard JPEG profile's proprietary selection criteria doesn't work flawlessly with third party glass.

If I were a betting man? It's probably both. Canon's been making glass for a long time. Not saying Sigma hasn't either, but the scale of business, is a different magnitude and Canon themselves has been known to produce some lesser color transmission lenses every now and then. Sigma isn't just going to wake up and learn all the lessons Canon did overnight, well, unless they hired some of their former optical engineers anyways.

Part of Canon's secret sauce is their glass. Not saying other people can't make glass equal or better, just saying they have alot of experience with it, just as Sony does with sensors. Doing that much business in a segment does give you a competitive advantage. Sigma is no slouch though, they are first-rate for third party. Rumor has it Canon tried to buy them and they said no. Good for them I might add.

prospects wrote:

AshleyMC wrote:

prospects wrote:

Maybe the easiest way to resolve this is to shoot a bunch of comparison photos with the Sigma glass and Canon glass in JPEG.

I personally don’t have a problem to resolve.

I enjoy my photographs created with Canon and Sigma lenses.

Neither do I, but curious what is being referred to as “sterile” and “muted”.

As someone who shoots almost exclusively with sigma lenses, they are colder in its tones for RAW files. But for JPEGS (which i believe this whole conversation revolves around) the colors are what you want them to be.