Canon 100mm macro 2.8 user error?

pete_vincent

pete_vincent

Messages
301
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, I would'nt normally post this sort of thing but for a little while i have had concerns about the titled lens. Its developed a rattle and I am not convinced of its sharpness though it is probably me. So I have posted these image to get some advice. All image are flash ring assisted shutter 1/300 tripod mount with cable release: only adjustments are aperture:
First image F2.8 focus point Queens nose 100% crop
6537658917_9781a844e5_o.jpg

Next image is original :
6537653503_b667e91ac0_o.jpg

This image is bubbles with the center one in focus at 2.8 again:
6537642367_77dde679fd_o.jpg

This is the 100% crop:
6537658467_04ed9e200b_o.jpg

I do have other image at different F stops and I appeciate this is wide open but I would have assumed a sharper image? Center focus point only used.
Any other info I can give I would be more than happy for advice.
Regards
 
Last edited:
How are you holding this and how far away are the subjects?
 
They don't look very sharp at all. what are the images like at say f5.6?

i'd expect something a lot sharper on a tripod with that typeof shutter speed:thinking:
 
Mirror lockup or not? Could the tripod be a little unstable?
 
They look reasonable to me bearing in mind the minute DOF you will get at f2.8 at 1:1 mag.

And the subjects themselves are not very good to test the lens with especially the bubbles.

And the very flat lighting also makes it very difficult to discern the areas of sharpness.

I would say you're always going to find difficulty getting the actual point you want sharp at such a wide aperture.

I've had this lens and it is a cracker but certainly wouldn't dream of using it for macro shots wide open.

However a rattle is something else entirely.

And the pics of the coin are just too dark to properly discern anything.

.

.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, They were just random test shot without alot of thought. I had noticed soft images using the lens a while back. I will setup something a little more appropiate and have another go. Believe me I am the first to blame user error and I certainly do not expect sharp images given the test, but overall I feel they could be better. It was more the rattle that started to ring alarm bells. I have seen similar shots with much better results in same kind of environment.
 
try some shots at f11 - f13 or even f16and the dof will improve greatly :thumbs:

Les ;)
 
With regards the rattle apparently this is normal.

I have a 100mm macro sitting in a box for my Christmas but before it went away I got to play with it. I was concerned about the rattle too so I phoned Colchester Camera Repair and Fixation as they are both CPS repair centres. Both said this was normal with the 100 macro.

Neil
 
I have the 100 f2.8 L macro so can't really say for definate but I have had sharper images than this handheld with my lens even at f2.8, and it doesn't rattle either. Try going up to f5.6, f8 and f11 and see what the output is like then as that should give you better DOF to check for sharpness. I usually work at a distance of 8 inches at f4-11 depending on the size of my object and how much DOF I want. At f2.8 the DOF is minimal and the slightest movement will throw focus out.
 
I can't really see how an unstable tripod or lack of MLU can have any real bearing on these images as they are primarily exposed by the flash. The 1/300th shutter speed is also erroneous as the flash duration is the defining speed and that is ridiculously fast in comparison.

Have you applied any sharpening after resizing the images we're looking at?

Bob
 
Hi, no sharpening just converted from RAW. As shot. I appreciate shooting wide open at min focal distance is playing with the soft focus monster and DOF will be an issue, but maybe I should have stated I have seen images produced with same model of lens, hand held with slower shutter speeds wide open etc give much better results. Of course like I said, I would be the first to admit user error but there is a little niggle thats saying hang on a cotton picking minute! Heres a shot at F9 with two speedlights. Focus point is on the eye.
100% crop
6540005707_dec981689d_o.jpg

Original image
6540005075_b5ce7cbfc0_o.jpg


Again quick setup and not a great image but for test purposes I see nothing wrong other than the direction of light. tripod steady on cable release etc
 
They should still look sharper than these.

They do look soft to me.
 
Hi, thanks for replies everyone, I appreciate I could apply sharpening but that kind of defeats the object. I will run a few more tests today, perhaps backing off a bit from minimum focal distance. If I have no more success I will look into having it looked at. I understand these lens rattle but I think its getting worse.
 
pete_vincent said:
...I appreciate I could apply sharpening but that kind of defeats the object.....
Click to expand...

It doesn't Pete, it's something you need to do if you shoot in RAW. The sensor's anti-aliasing filter will soften the details provided by the lens and you need to apply some sharpening to recover this. Part 2 of the process is downsizing for displaying the image here.....again, softening occurs during this process and some sharpening needs to be applied to counter this.

I'm not judging whether your lens has a problem or not but simply pointing out that your method of assessment is flawed to a certain degree.

Bob
 
Thanks Bob, Well they say its good to learn something new everyday! I really didnt know that, like I said I doubt if there is anything wrong with the lens, it will generally turn out to be the nut behind the lens as my signature suggests! Would the filter soften Jpeg's as it does RAW files; not that I ever shoot in Jpeg. I have been criticized in the past for over-sharpening. I guess this is the root of my problems, as I just fancied producing shots straight out of the box as they say. prehaps I will review my workflow. regards.:thumbs:
 
You're not using a uv filter are you?
 
You need to do some proper tests first. The first lot tells you nothing - shoot your subject in the focal plane, and find one that has plenty of fine detail. Maybe try something bigger like a book with very very fine text for the start, or dowload and print some charts.
The green toy shot screams front focus. It may need a little adjustment to compensate. Is it any good at portraits?

The rattle is normal. Mine does that too and when I spoke to Canon they confirmed it's OK - their's did the same. Sharpness wide open is good but never impressed me as much as 85/1.8. But once it around f/5.6 it is the sharpest thing on the planet - as it should
 
pete_vincent said:
Thanks Bob, Well they say its good to learn something new everyday! I really didnt know that, like I said I doubt if there is anything wrong with the lens, it will generally turn out to be the nut behind the lens as my signature suggests! Would the filter soften Jpeg's as it does RAW files; not that I ever shoot in Jpeg. I have been criticized in the past for over-sharpening. I guess this is the root of my problems, as I just fancied producing shots straight out of the box as they say. prehaps I will review my workflow. regards.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Filter would only soften the image if it were crap.
 
Canon Bob said:
It softens the detail captured by the sensor. The JPG's will be sharpened "in camera" before they are written to the card.

Bob
Click to expand...

The degree JPEGs are sharpened in the camera depends upon the camera settings.

I always set mine to 0 sharpness to help minimise noise at high ISOs and then sharpen after NR outside the camera.

.
 
petersmart said:
The degree JPEGs are sharpened in the camera depends upon the camera settings.

I always set mine to 0 sharpness to help minimise noise at high ISOs and then sharpen after NR outside the camera.

.
Click to expand...
Setting sharpening to 0 doesn't stop the JPG's being sharpened. The 0-7 scale used is a span from an arbitary "Less to More" and not "None to Maximum".

Bob
 
fixedimage said:
Don't start that argument.
Click to expand...

Why not? He made a valid point. It is a very wild claim to make that any UV filter would suddenly make IQ poor. I have used mine 100mm with crappy filter, no filter and now good filter getting very similar results. Crappy filter needs to be very bad (non-coated) and used in contra light to really show up so get please get the facts right. Shooting JPEG is far more detrimental to the IQ (about 10-100 fold)
 
I have this lens and find it to be sharp as a tack so your images do look a bit soft to me. Here's one photo I took on a miserable wet day wide open:


dof/texture practice by Iris_255, on Flickr

I think it looks way sharper than yours instantly, admittedly it has been sharpened but I'll go and get a 100% unedited crop for you now

EDT: here's a 100% crop from the original image and you can see my focus was actually a bit off but it shows how small the dof is wide open:


IMG_3893 - Version 2 by Iris_255, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Why not? He made a valid point. It is a very wild claim to make that any UV filter would suddenly make IQ poor. I have used mine 100mm with crappy filter, no filter and now good filter getting very similar results. Crappy filter needs to be very bad (non-coated) and used in contra light to really show up so get please get the facts right. Shooting JPEG is far more detrimental to the IQ (about 10-100 fold)
Click to expand...

I know that, you know that and POAH knows that but sure as night follows day if you mention it in a thread it'll no be long before someone will be along to tell us that filters are the devils work and should never ever ever be used. Ever. Then they will be followed by 5 pages of arguing over whether or not filters soften images, none of which will have helped the OP.
 
UV FILTERS ARE THE DEVILS WORK AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED.
 
Last edited:
The problem is what's said. Quotes like "very bad (non-coated) and used in contra light to really show up so get please get the facts right. Shooting JPEG is far more detrimental to the IQ (about 10-100 fold)" are a little too absolute and can be argued with. I have a perfect example, but it isn't relevant to this thread, so no point adding to it as you're right, it doesn't help the OP.
 
Hey, Sorry for late reply; have been away for a few days. thanks all for the replies, on topic and off topic, I guess they all help and allways raise a smile! I am going to have a play with the lens again today and post results. When compared to Iris image there is clearly a difference, but that said it is probably still down to me. The Jpeg issue isnt really relevant to me as I only shot RAW and I don't use any filters. However it is interesting to know. I will take some shots and post sharpend and unsharpend.
 
Well its been a few days and I thought I'd just shoot the nearest thing to me....that happened to be toy's! well I have applied sharpening to both images: Still look soft to me though the detail is clearly there; perhaps just a bad choice of subject, but then compared to Iris image i don't know. for that matter I'm not sure what I want to achieve? Knowing that the lens is not tack sharp or I just cant take sharp images!!!:bonk:

First image wide open F2.8 / 1/300 tripod mounted, cable release, flash fired
6596549473_106a2ee10f_o.jpg


Second image F16 / 1/300 tripod mounted, cable release, flash fired
6596563327_167a4d8b00_o.jpg


Well feedback would be much appreciated :help:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top