The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Has anyone had a soft 12-40 f2.8?

Over the last month I have shot several jobs with my zoom and several with 1.2 primes.

Most posts enthuse about the 12-40 f2.8 Pro

Post processing my RAWS from two of those jobs yesterday made me wonder whether I have a bad 12-40. I am wondering whether to get another one as the prices are pretty low these days. The odds of getting two bad ones in a row must be slim.

BUT has anyone been unhappy with their 12-40?

Tony
London UK
 

archiM44

Member
Over the last month I have shot several jobs with my zoom and several with 1.2 primes.

Most posts enthuse about the 12-40 f2.8 Pro

Post processing my RAWS from two of those jobs yesterday made me wonder whether I have a bad 12-40. I am wondering whether to get another one as the prices are pretty low these days. The odds of getting two bad ones in a row must be slim.

BUT has anyone been unhappy with their 12-40?

Tony
London UK
I have 2, both tack sharp wide open and when compared equally so at 100%. Would be glad to check out your ORF files. Would probably be quite inconclusive as I couldn't replicate the situation.
You might be better off trying to rent or borrow one from a dealer so as to be able to compare.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Over the last month I have shot several jobs with my zoom and several with 1.2 primes.

Most posts enthuse about the 12-40 f2.8 Pro

Post processing my RAWS from two of those jobs yesterday made me wonder whether I have a bad 12-40. I am wondering whether to get another one as the prices are pretty low these days. The odds of getting two bad ones in a row must be slim.

BUT has anyone been unhappy with their 12-40?

Tony
London UK

Although it's been awhile since I last used it, I can't recall seeing any issues that would make me doubt my copy.
 
Last edited:
Overnight it occured to me to re-visit my converting from RAW routine.

I use Qimage Ultimate and it has an Automatic Noise Removal option in the convert from RAW setting. Although the camera was set at 200 iso the Qimage converter was pushing it to 410 and Noise Removal starts to come in at 400. I removed the ANR and certainly the images became sharper.

There are some shots here and a good test is the one of the man next to bunches of black grapes.

https://we.tl/t-G64BmpciQP

He is wearing a herring bone patterned jacket. With QU and ANR turned on it is hard to see the pattern. It is much more distinct when turned off. Maybe QU is pushing the convertion to 410 as it does not like his right hand sleeve which is shaded.

Anyway I think this is my clue and I am chatting to the folk behind QU and starting to get advice.

As things are progressing I am concluding there is nothing wrong with this lens - more what I am doing with my RAWs.

Yes, I could abandon QU and go to Lightroom but, as this is the first time I have had a problem, I plan to stay with QU and let their highly effective support team sort me out.

Tony
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Overnight it occured to me to re-visit my converting from RAW routine.

I use Qimage Ultimate and it has an Automatic Noise Removal option in the convert from RAW setting. Although the camera was set at 200 iso the Qimage converter was pushing it to 410 and Noise Removal starts to come in at 400. I removed the ANR and certainly the images became sharper.

There are some shots here and a good test is the one of the man next to bunches of black grapes.

https://we.tl/t-G64BmpciQP

He is wearing a herring bone patterned jacket. With QU and ANR turned on it is hard to see the pattern. It is much more distinct when turned off. Maybe QU is pushing the convertion to 410 as it does not like his right hand sleeve which is shaded.

Anyway I think this is my clue and I am chatting to the folk behind QU and starting to get advice.

As things are progressing I am concluding there is nothing wrong with this lens - more what I am doing with my RAWs.

Yes, I could abandon QU and go to Lightroom but, as this is the first time I have had a problem, I plan to stay with QU and let their highly effective support team sort me out.

Tony
Agreed - your lens is fine, Tony. Nothing wrong with it as far as I can see using Capture One Pro and viewing at 100%.
There's one image (22222154.ORF) where the focus plane was not on the subject (man with grapes) but actually somewhere behind him.

Brgds.
 
Thanks Bart,

That makes me feel much better. Focus plane out - yes, that shot was rushed as we were nearing the end of our viewing.

I'm getting more reaction from the Qimage team now the US is rising for breakfast. Up to now I have been helped by the guru who lives here in the UK.

So much to learn.

And thank goodness for internet groups like this. Remember the days when one had to rely on going back to a shop for 'advice'.

Tony
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Overnight it occured to me to re-visit my converting from RAW routine.

I use Qimage Ultimate and it has an Automatic Noise Removal option in the convert from RAW setting. Although the camera was set at 200 iso the Qimage converter was pushing it to 410 and Noise Removal starts to come in at 400. I removed the ANR and certainly the images became sharper.

There are some shots here and a good test is the one of the man next to bunches of black grapes.

https://we.tl/t-G64BmpciQP

He is wearing a herring bone patterned jacket. With QU and ANR turned on it is hard to see the pattern. It is much more distinct when turned off. Maybe QU is pushing the convertion to 410 as it does not like his right hand sleeve which is shaded.

Anyway I think this is my clue and I am chatting to the folk behind QU and starting to get advice.

As things are progressing I am concluding there is nothing wrong with this lens - more what I am doing with my RAWs.

Yes, I could abandon QU and go to Lightroom but, as this is the first time I have had a problem, I plan to stay with QU and let their highly effective support team sort me out.

Tony
I have long time ago decided to only use LR and/or C1Pro. All other RAW converters never ever ticked my boxes.

LR and C1Pro both work very excellent with Olympus RAW files, C1Pro applying a bit more noise reduction - so high ISO shots look cleaner - but actually one can achieve the same in LR - just needs a personal Preset.

So I would highly recommend to use one of these 2 packages and simply no longer fool around with other stuff - I have tried most what is out there and in the end nothing came close to both LR and C1Pro.

Just my 5c :thumbs:
 

archiM44

Member
Thanks Bart,

That makes me feel much better. Focus plane out - yes, that shot was rushed as we were nearing the end of our viewing.

I'm getting more reaction from the Qimage team now the US is rising for breakfast. Up to now I have been helped by the guru who lives here in the UK.

So much to learn.

And thank goodness for internet groups like this. Remember the days when one had to rely on going back to a shop for 'advice'.

Tony
I also downloaded and looked at your files. Indeed there were a couple with the focus plane well behind the subject. However most were at small apertures 6.3 and 7 as I recall and at those any lens will be sharp. I'd try wide open to judge the lens and try developing with Capture One Pro for which you can download a 30 day free trial.
kind regards
 
Thanks for the last two.

Qimage has a limited following and it could be that one reason is that it simply is not as good as LR and Capture One. I guess I am lazy and that is what is mainly stopping me changing. On the other hand the operation is still in the hands of the developer so when I come across a problem I get help quickly.

Over the last couple of days it has become evident that an auto setting is over-reacting to the ISO the software is interpreting. By interpreting I mean that even if I shoot at 200 the software will push the shots upwards and some of the rogue shots were being pushed to 420 and higher. I had the auto noise reducer set to come in at 400 so all these shots were being softened.

I have changed the setting and gone back over some folders with that 12-40 lens. That was where my problem lay.

Yes, I see the back focussing. Clearly I need to be more carefull. The camera was locking on those vines and ignoring my chum with the grapes. No wonder I could not make him sharp enough to see the pattern in the jacket.

Thanks for the interest and the comments. Both much appreciated.

Tony
 

archiM44

Member
Thanks for the last two.

Qimage has a limited following and it could be that one reason is that it simply is not as good as LR and Capture One. I guess I am lazy and that is what is mainly stopping me changing. On the other hand the operation is still in the hands of the developer so when I come across a problem I get help quickly.

Over the last couple of days it has become evident that an auto setting is over-reacting to the ISO the software is interpreting. By interpreting I mean that even if I shoot at 200 the software will push the shots upwards and some of the rogue shots were being pushed to 420 and higher. I had the auto noise reducer set to come in at 400 so all these shots were being softened.

I have changed the setting and gone back over some folders with that 12-40 lens. That was where my problem lay.

Yes, I see the back focussing. Clearly I need to be more carefull. The camera was locking on those vines and ignoring my chum with the grapes. No wonder I could not make him sharp enough to see the pattern in the jacket.

Thanks for the interest and the comments. Both much appreciated.

Tony
here are some random files at f/2.8 which you can play with
https://we.tl/t-BNTx2Tzeot
 
Thanks Maurice,

The lens seems to be fine.

I was getting softening coming in too early (400 iso) due to a Qimage setting.

My other main lenses are f1.2 and I keep the ISO low to ensure the lenses are wide open and my backgrounds are akin to FF.

With the 2.8 even if I have the camera set at 200 sometime Qimage will 'fill' a RAW when converting to 400+ so I am getting pre-softened images.

I have reset my RAW 'preferences'.

Thanks again for your interest - and the lovely pix

Tony
 
Top