Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

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)

Clive22 Loc: Sacramento, CA

This may be nothing, but I recall on a trip to Kings Canyon years ago that even there smog caused a problem with with the horizon at 9,000 ft. It just came to me that it could be an issue if the photo was taken here in California. Thank goodness we have rain today. Tomorrow morning should be spectacular.

Haze filters?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Use DPP to convert the CR2 from your 6D (right?) to a JPEG so we can see the shooting details and the focus point. You'll get a better analysis and ideas to consider based on the data from the camera and lens available when the processing is performed by the camera and / or Canon software.

As a going in statement: RAW is raw and requires post processing. Simply pulling in your png 'raw' attachment into LR5 and running auto toning and sliding the sharpening to 70 (yes, higher than my typical workflow), the details of the center peak come out.

LR5 version from 'raw'

(Download)

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

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)

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

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

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'll was able to look at your question early this morning but won't be able to revisit until later today. I was thinking about the bridge and photoshop process. I'd suggest looking at the Canon settings in the PS/bridge RAW import for: use Canon picture style = landscape and Canon white balance = sunshine. This will give some initial sharpening to begin the edit process. I'll look and provide more details when I have a chance this evening.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

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

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

This is what I mean by object shots. A low light situation, 24 mm lens, F/2.8, 1/80, Iso 2000 mm, hand held. The lens performs very well here and also I think is a good example of the Canon d6's low light capabilities. 64 sharpening, 40 detail in camera raw.

My conclusion, I'm probably asking for it to do too much for detail in distant objects in landscapes. If I really want that level of detail, I need to learn how to do panoramas with a little longer lens, say 50mm.

Thanks again.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I don't find the jpeg titled "unedited version" anywhere as sharp as the other examples. I do think our tools and approach are different enough to make a discussion over posts rather difficult. Without being able to see your settings from the camera, I'm rather limited in my knowledge of the Adobe tools beyond Lightroom. Do give a try to my comments, above, about using the Canon values when RAW importing to PS, as another method if nothing else. The gears are very detailed, but you should look at noise processing of the grain in the background shadows. This discussion seems more overall about PP than your original question about the 24mm lens.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Thank you for your persistence.

My original post had to do specifically about the quality of the lens. Upon additional review of other images generated with this lens, I concluded, with the right operator, acceptable landscapes with sufficient detail @infinity can be captured. The image of the gear only confirms that indeed the lens is sharp, and in conjunction with the D6 can produce good images even at ISO 2000. This confirms of the hype on this camera and lens I have read. My conclusion however is that the lens has limits as far as capturing detail at long distances (like the distant mountain in the landscapes provided). And that is probably a characteristic of any 24 mm, but some will do better than others. Alternatively, the lens might be more successful at closer images, like the gear, but not for capturing detail on a clear day of mountains a couple of miles away without applying some significant post processing, which can degrade the image. Would it be better, alternatively, to apply a longer lens (50mm) under certain circumstances, to do a panorama with multiple exposures to capture the far detail. I'm thinking yes. Bottom line, I'm really glad I purchased this lens, but I need to understand its limitations for my objectives as far as distant landscapes are concerned. Closer applications, I am sure will be wonderful (light visiting Antelope Canyon in Page AZ), but when I really want to reach out and grab that detail far, far away, but have a broad landscape, use of a longer lens with multiple exposures on a solid tripod to generate a panorama might be more successful. This is all regardless of techniques of PP. I will however follow up on your recommendations on learning more about the Canon software as well as Lightroom. I need all the tools I can get.

Sometimes you reach out seeking answers to a question, and thru the process figure out the answer with out ever having a definitive answer, and then figure out that perhaps the question you asked was not the right one to begin with. I thought the then lens might be faulty, but no, its just fine and I just need to learn how to use it better for particular applications. Thanks for listening to my rant. It has been helpful to me and I hope I didn't bore you too much. But I learned something!, which is the whole objective for me on this forum.

Thanks again.

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

Have you tried using a polarizing filter? I've found that they help a lot when shooting long range landscapes like the one you showed.

Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

In your first post your title was 24mm f1.4 and in your 5th post you called the lens 2mm f2.8. Do you own both lenses, if not which one is it. I have the 24mm f2.8 and the Canon 6D. We can compare photos if you like, maybe that will clear up your questions.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Must have been a typo. There have been two lenses in the discussion, the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L II and the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 DG. I have both lenses. In one of the posts, I provided two shots taken at the same time, one with the 24mm and one with the 50 mm. I thought the distant detail was better in the 50mm than the 24 was better, most likely only due to the additional magnification. So, I concluded that if I want to try to capture the detail in the distance better, perhaps I should consider doing panoramas, putting a series of photos together in photoshop.

If you would like to share a couple of shots taken with your 24mm f/2.8, I would love to see them and it would be a good learning experience. I am new to this lens and camera and the more data the better. I'm 65 years old now and want to go on those photo expeditions I always dreamed of when I was much younger and want to know my equipment as best I can.

Thanks for your reply.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I agree with your comment on the relationship between lenses and sharpness in the distance. I long ago switched to panorama shooting for top IQ photos of large landscapes. The attention to detail - careful leveling, sturdy tripod, manual mode only (ISO, Aperture, speed), is essential, and very worth the effort. For 35 mm DSLRs, I have had my best results with 50 to 85 mm lenses.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Thanks for that comment. I'm going to dig out my old Bogen tripod I used with my Linhof 4x5. Weighs a ton, but should be worth it. I knew I kept that for something!