Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 17 of 17

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

    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

  2. #2
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,782
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I owned (own) 2 of them and all are tack sharp!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Would you be willing to look at two or three RAWs and tell me what you think of mine?

    Tony

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    231
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    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.
    maurice da silva solis

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Knorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,796
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    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 by Knorp; 14th November 2018 at 14:43.
    Bart ...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Bart,

    Would you be willing to look at two or three RAWs and tell me what you think of mine?

    Tony

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Knorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,796
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    Bart,

    Would you be willing to look at two or three RAWs and tell me what you think of mine?

    Tony
    Yes of course, Tony.
    Iíll dig in my archives and willing to share some of mine too for comparison.

    Krgds.
    Bart ...
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Knorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,796
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    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.
    Bart ...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,782
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    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

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    231
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    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
    maurice da silva solis

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    231
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    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
    maurice da silva solis

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Thanks Maurice,

    I'm downloading them now.

    Most kind.

    Tony

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    231
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonygamble View Post
    Thanks Maurice,

    I'm downloading them now.

    Most kind.

    Tony
    Have you been able to reach any conclusion with respect to your lens
    Kind regards
    Maurice
    maurice da silva solis

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •