Here are two other shots in the same area with a different vantage. Both have been post-processed in the workflow I previously described. In my mind, the 50 mm has a little better detail simply due to the closer view. The canon 24mm shot is much more successful than the files I shared yesterday, meaning to me, the lens quality is just fine. I am a fiend for detail, and maybe, after watching a video this am on panoramas, perhaps I should be considering using the longer lens with multiple exposures then "stitching" them together on the computer, while using the 24 mm in more appropriate applications. As I said, taking shots of objects, vs landscapes, shows this 24mm to be extremely sharp. Maybe I am simply asking too much of it for landscape shots. You thoughts are appreciated and thanks again.

Sigma 50 mm 1/4 dg


canon 24mm 1.4 L II

Taken south of Tucson, AZ. Not much atmospheric degradation there, like S. Cal.

I know this is not quite what you requested. I am not familiar with Lightroom (yet). My workflow is typically through Bridge, into Camera Raw for initial edit, then Photoshop. The attached jpeg file has no edits. I am old school, and this photo was taken completely manual, including focus. I use manual focus to attempt (?) to assure I am getting the DOF where I want it. DOF should not be an issue at F/13 with this lens (Approx. 3' to infinity). Initial question on my part, with your edit of this example, do you consider it acceptable. From my perspective, it's not satisfactory. Or, am I too picky. I would like to see the horizon sharper, or am I asking too much. I will comment, with object work, like a photo of a gear box for instance, the lens is nice and sharp. But landscapes don't seem to be cutting it. Maybe its my eyes and I should should use auto focus.

Appreciate your thoughts.

unedited version

(Download)

Hi you all. I recently purchased this lens to hook up with my D6 for landscape stuff. I seem to be having an issue however with the horizon focus with this lens. It just seems to me that the horizon is not quite as clear as I would like.

I have provided a couple of screen shots out of camera raw for consideration. I take all the necessary precautions, tripod (fairly decent), cable release, mirror lockup, ISO 100, f/13@1/30th. Speed should not be an issue on a tripod, Iso is good and f/13 with a 24mm should be more than enough to provide sufficient FOF.

The modified image is ok, but the raw is definitely unacceptable and it seems to me that the amount of sharpening applied is overkill.

I would expect more from this lens. What am I doing wrong.
suggestions?

raw version

(Download)

sharpened plus curves

(Download)

Yep, looks like global warming to me!

WOW!!!!!! That's where I got. Thanks for the confirmation. I'm excited, or, based on comments on this forum, I got a lot of GAS!

Just make sure you do your research on the hook up of the 100-400 to your camera body with an extender (1.4 or 2X) attached and still be able to keep your AF. I have had a lot of correspondence on this subject with folks on this forum because I was considering the same move to the new 100-400 for my D6. The D6 will not AF at an aperture greater than 5.6, so use of an extender with the combo of the D6 and 100-400mm will be a problem. Of coarse, a crop sensor will provide additional reach with the 100-400 so an extender may not be necessary Check my link and you check out the comments. Have fun. I am now considering the new 400mm f4.0 with a 1.4 extender to fix my gas for birds. Is that the way you use that term?

Based on all the correspondence, that's what I concluded. So, if you want to extend the 400mm you need a lens with f4.0 or 2.8 with the 1.4X connected to the D6 in order to maintain AF. The 2.8 should work with a 2X extender, but you are talking about a lot of money and a lot of weight. Considering I don't want to carry 8# of lens and want the option to hand hold, the 400 DO seems like the right choice for me, in conjunction with a 1.4X extendor for the addition reach as necessary. Additionally, based on numbers associated with the 100-400, both old and new, compared to the DO, seems like the fixed DO should provide better results, especially associated with the full sensor of the D6.

A crop sensor body is also an option to get the additional reach, and a faster camera would be a benefit, but I think I would choose the full sensor and keep the benefit of the full sensor. My objective for photos to to print at a large size, 11x17, 16X20 and more. Full sized sensor is a must.

This has been an interesting journey trying to evaluate the best option to upgrade from the 100-400. I will keep this lens for the flexibility, it really does generate some great images. But, having a fixed 400 mm allowing the use of a 1.4 extender (hand held) is going to be a step above in my opinion. Thanks to all of you for the advise and helping me make a decision.

Of coarse, more comments are always appreciated.

I live in the high desert of so. cal and have recently been in S. Utah and AZ. I use D6 and for landscape work typically, with a 24-70 find myself shooting at 24mm. As mentioned in other comments on this subject, rendering of depth is associated with shadows. Mid day shots are flat. Considering my priority for 24mm and my obsession with detail, I splurged and got the fixed Canon 24mm f1.4II. This is a phenomenal lens if you serious about your landscapes and can fork over the cash.

Thanks for sharing that article. I am not sure what the units represent in the lens comparison tests (some sort of resolution determination, sharpness?), but I am assuming the higher the number the better, considering all other variables are constant. So, making that assumption, if you compare the numbers between the new fixed 400mm DO against the either models of the zooms, the DO has higher numbers so I guess better. Again, not knowing the units, I assume sharper. Am I reading the results correctly?

Thanks again

I really appreciate the time you spent putting this all together.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, with the suggestion of a crop sensor camera for birds and other wild life fotos I am seeking to capture. I got turned on to this again during a visit to the Sonora Desert Museum where I was able to get some really good shots of some raptures with my older version of the 100 to 400. I was looking with envy at the reviews to the newer version of this lens and was considering upgrading, however want to reach out a little further, hence the discussion about the 2xiii converter. Your suggestion of a crop sensor combined with the 100-400 will give me that little additional reach over 400, and looking on the image size of the 7DII, seems like the info gathering is close to the 6D, which I purchased for landscapes and large print sizes. With the purchase of say the 7DII and the new 100-400, I can get similar image quality, longer reach, and better yet, a faster camera and not loose the light associated with the converters. The difference of approximately one
stop (or less) between the fixed 400 f.4 vs the 100-400 should not be significant and the zoom provides additional flexibility. I could acquire the camera and lens for less than the fixed 400, not to mention the subject of going to the 400 f2.8.

Thanks for your help. Still thinking, but getting my "you know what" together with all the help I have received on this forum.
Thank you all!

Please see the attached shots that are making me want to do more of this, but better. Both were shot with my older 100-400 on my new 6D. Not bragging, I am fairly impressed with the detail in these shots, and if the newer version of this lens is 10 fold, as a previous comments suggests, how could I go wrong. But then again, would the fixed version, either f4 or 2.8 be a little better yet. Oh GOD!, here we go again.

Sonora Desert museum

(Download)

Sonora Desert museum (2)

(Download)

Appreciate the comments re the new 100-400II. I had read that the new version is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor, and was seriously considering it, but am also looking for the option of more reach. Hence the inquiries about the compatibility of the 2Xiii extender. Based on the responses so far, it seems the maximum aperture the 2X will AF with is 5.6. Considering the 100-400II in conjunction with the 2X will have a max aperture in greater than 5.6, my read is it will not work. The real frustration here is that in order to get that longer reach, assuming I still want to stick with 400 mm and jump to 800 with the 2x, I need to consider the 400 f2.8 and the associated hunk of change that goes along with that option, much less carrying it. I finally got to sleep about 2:30 last nite mulling over this scary option. I am working with a full frame D-6, and love what it offers re image quality and really don't want to move to a crop sensor on loose some of that. What to do? Its causing some heart burn.

I'm using a D6, full frame.

thank you, this helps

meaning with the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM, af would not work but the 1.4 x would, correct?