Jim Cassatt
Veteran Member
Just curious, how much are you sharpening you images in post processing?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
10-24 lacking sharpness when blown up to 16X20 print size
- Thread starter Jay A
- Start date
I did extensive testing before I sold the 14mm.
The zoom at 14mm shot with care is absolutely as sharp as the 14mm. At least the one I have is.
Of course there are three other issues with it (size (bigger), price (more expensive) and speed (slower)).
The zoom at 14mm shot with care is absolutely as sharp as the 14mm. At least the one I have is.
Of course there are three other issues with it (size (bigger), price (more expensive) and speed (slower)).
Do you print? Have you made this determination by viewing fairly large prints? I am sorry to keep bringing up the notion of viewing prints but as I said earlier, I have seen many times where something on screen looks pretty good, but once that same image is viewed in a print of at least 14 inches, the image no longer looks nearly as good.
For what it's worth, I picked up a 14 today on my way home. I will shoot both it and the zoom tomorrow. I did do a couple of quick and dirty images when I got home and printed each out on 81/2X11 paper...saw no difference. But then again, 81/2X11 prints looked pretty good to me using the zoom last week. So I will have to do some larger printing tomorrow.
Thanks for the admiringlight suggestion. While they do like the zoom, they also say the 14 is a tad better. Interesting.
MrFresno
Senior Member
Are you shooting raw or JPEG? How are you processing the images? I found that X-Trans smearing issues are more visible when printing large. Shooting raw and using something other than Adobe for processing can help bring out the fine details and micro-contrast that you are looking for in large prints.
I have been shooting JPG.
I am printing some comparisons right now with both the zoom (shot at 14mm) and the 14 and am finding that the results are very close, but that the 14 has a slight edge in the center and more of an edge at the corners of the frame. There isn't really a whole lot of difference to be honest. What I am also noticing is that the zoom is considerably sharper at the lower zoom range than the upper.
I did one shot with which I set in camera sharpness to +1 and am able to back off on the Photoshop USM by about 15 points. By the way, my USM settings are radius 1, threshold 4. At zero in camera sharpening, I found that amount +95 worked about the best and with the in-camera sharpening set to +1, 80 seems to work about the best.
What I am beginning to think is that the results I was complaining about when I started this thread are from images in the upper focal length range. I am finding that the lens does its best between 10 and 18mm or so. Above that, it starts to fall.
So I am about done for the day, but I have come to some semi conclusions at this point;
- The zoom sharpness is better at the lower end, below about 18mm.
- Below about 14mm, distortions come into play to the point where I am finding the lens not looking very pretty at the extreme wide end depending on what subject matter ends up at the sides of the frame.
- It almost seems that the most useful range of the zoom is between about 14mm and 18mm making it essentially a 21-28mm full frame equivalent. The rest of the zoom range seems to be something (however small) of a compromise.
- The 14 prime seems to have a very slight edge in the center of the frame and a more pronounced edge in the corners.
At this point, I am about ready to say that unless the zoom range is something of real importance, the 14 prime may be a better overall choice considering it's a stop faster, ever so slightly sharper, has slightly less distortion and is smaller and lighter. I will play with them some more tomorrow, but at this point I am definitely leaning towards keeping the 14 and returning the zoom.
- The zoom sharpness is better at the lower end, below about 18mm.
- Below about 14mm, distortions come into play to the point where I am finding the lens not looking very pretty at the extreme wide end depending on what subject matter ends up at the sides of the frame.
- It almost seems that the most useful range of the zoom is between about 14mm and 18mm making it essentially a 21-28mm full frame equivalent. The rest of the zoom range seems to be something (however small) of a compromise.
- The 14 prime seems to have a very slight edge in the center of the frame and a more pronounced edge in the corners.
At this point, I am about ready to say that unless the zoom range is something of real importance, the 14 prime may be a better overall choice considering it's a stop faster, ever so slightly sharper, has slightly less distortion and is smaller and lighter. I will play with them some more tomorrow, but at this point I am definitely leaning towards keeping the 14 and returning the zoom.
pluton
Senior Member
I have had the 14mm for a year, and have thought about, and examined a copy of, the 10-24.
The zoom is slower to manually focus, due to the focusing image in the finder being less distinct because it's f/4. AF is fast on the zoom.
The distortion at the wide end is also a negative, and 16MP doesn't offer a lot of pixel headroom if distortion correction is undertaken in software.
The 14mm lens, on the other hand, basically has no negatives: it is one of the best corrected 21mm-e lens available at any price, and...it's nice and small.
The zoom is slower to manually focus, due to the focusing image in the finder being less distinct because it's f/4. AF is fast on the zoom.
The distortion at the wide end is also a negative, and 16MP doesn't offer a lot of pixel headroom if distortion correction is undertaken in software.
The 14mm lens, on the other hand, basically has no negatives: it is one of the best corrected 21mm-e lens available at any price, and...it's nice and small.
Sal Baker
Forum Pro
Wide zooms must be particularly hard to design and maintain consistent IQ from FL to FL and copy to copy. My Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was one of the worst lenses I ever had--no comparison to any prime. I will be getting the 14mm Fuji prime because I don't want to spend time correcting distortions, soft corners, etc. in post.
You might consider purchasing Topaz Detail 3 for your large prints. It's not USM, it breaks the detail in the image into 3 levels and boosts the micro contrast surgically in each catagory. It adds no halos and, used sparingly, adds incredible punch which then requires less USM. It's inexpensive and can be one of the best tools on your computer. (I print up to 20x30).
Sal
You might consider purchasing Topaz Detail 3 for your large prints. It's not USM, it breaks the detail in the image into 3 levels and boosts the micro contrast surgically in each catagory. It adds no halos and, used sparingly, adds incredible punch which then requires less USM. It's inexpensive and can be one of the best tools on your computer. (I print up to 20x30).
Sal
Ap0ll0n
Senior Member
Are your conclusions based on 16x20 prints, looking at the monitor 1:1 - and at what resolution - or something else ? Cheers.
Yes, I've had OIS on. I thought about that as I have seen that turning OIS off on the 18-55 does improve its performance but I kind've came to my final decision to go with the 14 when I started viewing some results at 10 and 12mm FL. The sharpness is ok there and can be worked with satisfactorily at 14mm, but the distortions when going below 14mm were just not acceptable to me at this point. With those distortions and the fact that the lens just seems less than ideal sharpness-wise when shooting above 18mm seems to me that it is going to only be a very useful lens for me if I keep it between 14mm and 18mm. So, to me it's only going to be a full frame 21 - 28 lens. With that in mind, I would rather go with the 14 since it's smaller, lighter, f2.8, slightly sharper, faster focusing and costs less.
At any rate, I've decided to go on over to B&H and make the swap rather than play around anymore with the two lenses. Thanks to everyone for the comments.
At any rate, I've decided to go on over to B&H and make the swap rather than play around anymore with the two lenses. Thanks to everyone for the comments.
Last edited:
1. Leaving the OIS on at high speeds and either (a) complaining about or (b) trying to compare the sharpness seems a bit incomplete. (Common practice here seems to inject asymmetrical variables into "comparison" tests.) If I had left the OIS on in a comparison, I would have kicked myself (once per image) and then would reshoot the test -- unless I already had my mind made up.
2. Which distortions are you talking about? Pincushion? Barrel? Converging lines? Both rectilinear and fisheye type UWa lens have what many would call distortion. But often what is called distortion is just the way the image is projected according to the type of lens, focal length, and relationship to vertical. Barrel and pincushion, on the other hand, are the result of individual lens design. Did you actually describe the "distortion".
Here is a shot that I did when I was on the west coast a couple of weeks ago. It is shot at 12mm. Pay particular attention to the left side of the image especially the flower bed and the tree above it. While I fully expect some distortion from a lens at this focal length as well as the stretching of the people towards the edges, this is frankly about as bad as I have ever seen. The smearing is awful. I have shot extensively with the Nikon 14-24 and the Canon 14mm prime and neither perform this badly. Also look at how sharpness falls off on that entire left edge, again something that I have not seen to that extent with either the Nikon nor Canon lens. This looks more like the Canon 16-35 F2.8 which also leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to edges and corners.
Again though, I am not sure if a computer monitor shows this off as badly as a large print does. When I look at it here, I say ok, it's not that terrible. However, I've got a 19 inch print of this sitting in front of me and it is just not acceptable to me.
Last edited:
Astrophotographer 10
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,956
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 6,160
The 14mm is an exceptional lens. But the correction circle is not quite wide enough and there is a small section in the extreme corners that is not fully corrected. Now you may only be able to see that in extreme images like I take - which is a 2.5-15 minute exposure of a nightscape at night.
The stars are hard on lenses and show up defects. You will see elongated stars in the very extreme corners, like about 1/15th of the image. If they just had the corrected circle a tad wider it would be perfect.
This is not an issue when doing panoramas/mosaics as usually there is a considerable overlap.
A minor issue in an otherwise near perfect lens.
Greg.
The stars are hard on lenses and show up defects. You will see elongated stars in the very extreme corners, like about 1/15th of the image. If they just had the corrected circle a tad wider it would be perfect.
This is not an issue when doing panoramas/mosaics as usually there is a considerable overlap.
A minor issue in an otherwise near perfect lens.
Greg.
Tom Zimmer
Leading Member
I shoot everything in RAW, so there is no point in turning up the in-camera sharpness. Having said that, I always add a couple of clicks of sharpness in my Aperture post processing to add some crispness. I don't have the 10-24mm lens though, just the 18-55, 18 and 27.
I have done a few large prints, and sharpness and detail with those wasn't a problem.
I know you are talking about the 10-24, but I hope you are shooting RAW for large prints, that will make a significant difference in detail, with any lens.
Just my thoughts.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum