5D2 - am I expecting too much?

FlyTVR

FlyTVR

Messages
4,234
Edit My Images
No
Recently I found myself being less and less impressed by the sharpness of my images. I'm not sure if it's me, the lenses, the settings, or the camera. I have sometimes been blown away by the 5D2, but inexplicably sometimes not.

Anyway, here are two images taken today. I've not adjusted levels etc as I'm using a laptop that has not been calibrated.

Both images, 5D2, ISO 100, F8, 125th - studio lighting.

Image 1 - Nifty Fifty (F1.8)
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r276/DavHughes/nifty-IMG_4701.jpg

Image 2 - Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r276/DavHughes/70-300-IMG_4673.jpg
 
The first one looks fine to me, as sharp as I'd expect it to be from a nifty fifty. The Sigma on the other hand is very soft. Were you using AF? It's soft and lacking in a lot of contrast. Probably want to get that lens checked out if I were you.
 
I agree with what's already been said, in that the first image looks sharp but the 2nd looks very soft.

Have you previously had sharp images from the Sigma? Just wonder if it's a lens issue rather than something with the body.

If it's a focus issue on that particular lens would the 5D micro adjustment feature help?
 
Without wanting to sound like a parrot, I totally agree with what's been said.

The nifty is nice and sharp for me, the Sigma is pretty soft though, but to be fair, I've come to expect that from Sigma's zoom lenses. Their prime's are spot on for me though.
 
I think that the nifty looks great - I wouldn't be concerned about that at all.

Siggy? ............ I don't do third party lenses, but that looks like I would expect - Albeit from a very biased standpoint. There are of course loads of people who have third party lenses and really rate them - I don't touch them with a barge pole.

Are these the only demons with your 5D2? Or do you have other niggles with it too?
 
swag72 said:
I think that the nifty looks great - I wouldn't be concerned about that at all.

Siggy? ............ I don't do third party lenses, but that looks like I would expect - Albeit from a very biased standpoint. There are of course loads of people who have third party lenses and really rate them - I don't touch them with a barge pole.

Are these the only demons with your 5D2? Or do you have other niggles with it too?
Click to expand...

No other niggles. I just want to make sure I'm getting the best out of my equipment :)
 
FlyTVR said:
No other niggles. I just want to make sure I'm getting the best out of my equipment :)
Click to expand...

That's a tricky one as I do think that some photographers will get better results from some kit than others. Perhaps you are getting the best from the kit that you can at the minute - Just stop looking for issues and enjoy and take pictures that you are happy with :)
 
swag72 said:
That's a tricky one as I do think that some photographers will get better results from some kit than others. Perhaps you are getting the best from the kit that you can at the minute - Just stop looking for issues and enjoy and take pictures that you are happy with :)
Click to expand...

But if it's me - what could I be doing wrong? I reckon I've had better results out of a 400d.
 
Maybe it's just me, but the sigma shot appears to have the bridge of the nose more in focus than the eyes.
 
Nifty looks nice and sharp but it will be compared to a 70-200 surely?
 
that nifty picture is very sharp - i'd be happy with that level of sharpness.

i wonder if your sigma need calibration, i can't imagine that is normal - i don't have a sigma 70-200 but a friend has and it's fairly sharp on a crop from what i've seen.

btw, if it's one thing that comes as a bit of a shocker when using the 5d2... zoom in and you find all sorts of nasties on people's skin you didn't even notice was there at the time!
 
I think I am going to do some more comprehensive tests. If all else fails, L Series beckons!
 
FlyTVR said:
But if it's me - what could I be doing wrong? I reckon I've had better results out of a 400d.
Click to expand...

F Stop for F stop the 400D will be sharper than a 5D due to the crop sensor.

Doesn't mean the IQ is better though.

Something that's not been discussed yet is your proximity to the subject?
If you were really close anyway the focus might become jittery and the close proximity you'll also get much less depth of field.

On the 5D2 the only non L glass I use is the 50mm 1.4, that sensor needs good glass or else the sensor out resolves it. I don't consider the 1.8 a good enough lens.

I've seen images in focus that were taken at F/1.2 but the subject was 20ft away. Close up though and almost nothing would appear in focus.

Nice and sharp here with an 85L though! :thumbs:

kimberley%20james.jpg
 
Last edited:
the sigma shot looks like its front focussing! in the first example the brow is nice and sharp.. and at that focal length the dof is much shallower that at 50mm.. couple that with the lens its self isnt the sharpest lens on the block.. but the bits it has focussed on a sharp enough.. have a look, the second example you can see the lashes are sharp, its just not hit the eye..
 
Gel said:
F Stop for F stop the 400D will be sharper than a 5D due to the crop sensor.
Click to expand...
How is that? I always thought that larger sensors with larger photo-sites allow for smaller apertures, before diffraction takes its toll.
 
You did not mention how you focused in the two images, and especially on the Sigma image the focus is on the one eye rather than the other. Focus and recompose can cause problems with sharpness due to the moving of the focal plane.

And why are you shooting at 1/125 when the sync speed of the 5D2 is 1/200?

Finally are you sharpening correctly for these images? I know the images out of my 5D2 is softer when viewed in bridge than in lighroom (which I have setup to automatically sharpen images).

And calibration is a possibility. I had noticed that compared to my other lenses my 35 F1.4 was producing very soft results a couple of months ago, and I sent it to be calibrated (also needed to be fixed as the AF button fell off) and it seems to be much better since the calibration.

And finally I have never been a fan of the 50 F1.8 (or any of the other canon 50s for that matter) Probably why I don't own one.
 
Last edited:
Job done with the nifty fifty.

Why worry about what the other lens did - it will no doubt come up trumps another time.
 
King_Boru said:
Looks like it or you are outside focusing limits? Too close?
Click to expand...

Too close yet front focused :thinking:? It doesn't work like that.

50mm looks absolutely fine to me. I.e. I would be personally happy with it.

The major problem with Sigma is the lack of contrast :gag:. The second shot suggests there may be a centering defect too, given both eyes are within the focus plane as it seems. In other terms it is time to wave goodbye to that lens. If f/2.8 is not a must, then 70-200 f/4 L is a wonderful super-sharp alternative for the same cash at half the weight. There are also some great primes like 135mm f/2L and 85mm+100mm variants out there.
 
Cistron said:
How is that? I always thought that larger sensors with larger photo-sites allow for smaller apertures, before diffraction takes its toll.
Click to expand...

It isn't about diffraction.
A lens is sharpest at the centre. The crop sensors don't use the whole lens area where as the full frame one does.
It's why you need good glass on full frame.

A 24mm on full frame ia 38mm on a crop, it's using less of the lens area making it sharper however factor in other variables such as noise etc.

I can't comment on diffraction, I have no understanding of that side of things.
 
That first image is fine btw, I always use 1/160th in the studio (but never 1/200th as I sometimes get shutter drag).
 
Gel said:
It isn't about diffraction.
A lens is sharpest at the centre. The crop sensors don't use the whole lens area where as the full frame one does.
It's why you need good glass on full frame.

A 24mm on full frame ia 38mm on a crop, it's using less of the lens area making it sharper however factor in other variables such as noise etc.

I can't comment on diffraction, I have no understanding of that side of things.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that crop sensors cannot be sharper than full frame, based on physics.

I think what you're referring to is using full frame lenses on crop bodies, vs crop lenses on crop bodies, then yes, FF lenses will indeed have an advantage.

But as the pixel density will be lower on a FF body (generally) it's less dependant on the resolution of the lens. Which is why you need insanely good glass for the 7D to work at optimum.
 
The 50mm one looks great, the 70-200, even the second shot, looks soft. If you're at f8 that should cover depth of field.

Depends which bit of the cotswolds you're in but I could always pop up with my L glass for you to try. I've got 50mm f1.4, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 100-400.
I may have to bring the TVR though - double jeopardy, could be expensive for you :D
 
I'm no real expert but I've just looked at your camera bag.

You're using a 5D II which is a very good body indeed.

I have the Sigma 70 - 200 and while it is a good enough lens it is not up to the standard of your body. If you could get hold of a an L lens, say a 24 -105, 24 - 70, 100mm macro and do similar tests you might find that the quality of your images is nearer to your expectations.

If they are not then either you have a problem with the 5D II body, your techniques is off, or you have cripplingly high expectations.
 
The first thing I would do is to set the body up on a tripod, manually focus the lens using live view x10 and take some shots of a subject with a full range of tones and a good contrast, take them at 2 and 3 stops below maximum aperture (so for the nifty f4 and f5.6 and for the Sigma f5.6 and f8), and ensure you are more than 100x the focal length away (5 mtrs for the nifty and 7 mtrs to 20 mtrs for the Sigma).

Then you can decide whether the lens is actually soft lacks contrast (can also help to make the lens appear soft) or just mis-focussing which you may then be able to adjust with the 5D2's micro adjustment!
 
Diego Garcia said:
Sigma 70-200 is a very ropey lens at 2.8. Much better at 4-5.6 sadly.
Click to expand...
I purchased one used from here and it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, even wide open it produces some striking images.
Original shot
img7741g.jpg

100% crop
img7741e.jpg

Shooting data 122mm f/2.8 - looks sharp to me, never mind f/8. Lots of posts about various Sigma lenses purport to all sorts of 'alleged' problems, sometimes by people who have not even owned the lens in question, these kind of things nearly put me off making my own purchase
 
mumrar said:
I purchased one used from here and it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, even wide open it produces some striking images.
Original shot
img7741g.jpg

100% crop
img7741e.jpg

Shooting data 122mm f/2.8 - looks sharp to me, never mind f/8. Lots of posts about various Sigma lenses purport to all sorts of 'alleged' problems, sometimes by people who have not even owned the lens in question, these kind of things nearly put me off making my own purchase
Click to expand...

I think it just again highlights Sigma's problems with qaulity control compared to Canon or Nikon. Nice duck btw :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top