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!

Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Here's what is going on with "design for digital" including the final software correction in the total lens design. Capture One 11.1 (the standard edition) shows the example image this way, shown in the lens profile page with the crop tool selected in the top line:

Screen Shot 2018-05-05 at 7.11.32 AM (2) by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Very wide angle lenses, left to their own devices, will have barrel distortion, pulling in extra stuff in the corners. Optical correction of the corners leaves you with mustache distortion, which is worse. So today's designers pass the barrel image through for software to fix. In the screenshot, I have unchecked "hide the distorted area," and left distortion correction at 100%, so I see the scene that the lens has actually captured. The black area is the result of trimming this actual, but extrapolated image back to 6000x4000 pixels. If there is something interesting at the edges, I can push the crop lines out quite a bit. Here is the upper left quarter of the image, with distortion fully corrected (click through to Flickr to see it bigger):

L1120264_SL601_RMR_May_2018 by
scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Since the reconstructed image was extrapolated, creating each new pixel out of several raw pixels, some like to turn off the distortion correction, and just use the raw image. Here's what that looks like:

L1120264_SL601_RMR_May_2018 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Not a very good idea for bricks or architecture, but it adds a little extra crispness to foliage or rocks.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Thanks Scott for showing what you can still see in C1. Since my version can't deal with Leica files I wasn't sure what it looked like in the full version.

What surprises me however is that I have not found a way in Lightroom (6.14) to make these extra pixels visible, there the image is restricted to what is shown within the crop guides of the C1 screen (or the area that is shown on the embedded jpeg). Reducing scale or shifting the image vertically or horizontally immediately creates a white border and these pixels that are there in C1 vanished in Lightroom.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Yes, Adobe has decided what you should do, and that's what they give you. I like C1's approach better, even though I usually go with the defaults.

The information that corrects distortion is in the DNG files (a standard form derived from TIFF). In your C1 copy, can you go to the lens profile page (it's icon is () ) and click the options that I showed. If so you will see the transformed "true" image that I showed in my screenshot. My copy of version 11.1 also contains two profiles, generic DNG and camera-specific, for each of M9, M10, SL, CL, ... models. You might not have those. The DNG generic profile uses color mapping information in the DNG file. The camera-specific profiles are developed by Phase One and usually take some time to appear, but they are often better. Color mapping and distortion correction occur at different points in the pipeline and are independent steps.
 

RMR

New member
Wow, guys some great info here. I love learning about these kinds of things. Didn't know that LR was 'robbing' me of part of the image! :cool:
I find it interesting to see how wide angles can kind of distort what the human eye can see. I'll continue to post here as I'm really liking this lens but I do want rectilinear results, etc as opposed to distorted images. Here's one I just took the other day at 21mm, f6.3, iso 200 and 1/320 sec

Pegelli, thanks for the kind words on my processing. My 'strategy' is really this (and it applied to my Kodachrome days as well): If I'm taking a color image I want it to be colorful and sharp and detailed. I guess I kind of have a reputation with many folks here in New England for 'sharpness'! If it'll be processed to a B&W I (typically) don't want it to be gray & white (except for very rare occasions!). As I like to say for both color & B&W I like to "give it some gas".

I use LR and a few of the presets available with it for most images. Some images I will process with OnOne Software (OnOne Effects is my go to for a lot of my images as it does a good job for me). My experience is that OnOne Effects results in less additional noise whereas Nik Silver Efx Pro seems to add noise which I typically don't want.

L1120349_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
The funny thing is that if your scene doesn't have straight lines running through it, the barrel-distorted image may look better. Faces out near the edges are rounder and thus more pleasing in appearance. I think it is important to have the option.
 

RMR

New member
An afternoon walk on the boardwalk with the SL Vario 16-35 at 16mm, f7.1, iso400, 1/640sec handheld. Processed in LR.

L1000029_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Re: Images Of The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

We have to stop meeting this way...

S1010760 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

16-35 got as far as Washington DC, where I had a meeting, but only got here just in time before I have to leave. Maybe I'll get some pictures early tomorrow.
 

RMR

New member
May 15 here in New England and it was a summer-like day (hot & humid) with summer-like storms. I went out to the coast (Plum Island, MA) and here's one with my SL & 16-35mm SL lens at f7.1, 16mm, iso400 at 1/320sec (processed to taste)

L1000508_SL601_RMR_May_2018-Edit_FB.jpg

And another at 19mm in the rain at f7.1 at 1/40sec on a tripod (processed to taste)

L1000522_SL601_RMR_May_2018-Edit-Edit_FB.jpg
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I like the moonscape shot near Plum Island. Do you ever fly from there? Actually that part of the coast is easy to reach from Beverly or Hanscom, but the little Plum Island strip has always looked appealing. I have pretended to lose an engine and prepared to land there power-off a few times, but have not actually been on the ground there.
 

RMR

New member
I like the moonscape shot near Plum Island. Do you ever fly from there? Actually that part of the coast is easy to reach from Beverly or Hanscom, but the little Plum Island strip has always looked appealing. I have pretended to lose an engine and prepared to land there power-off a few times, but have not actually been on the ground there.
I live about 15 mins from Plum Island! If you ever come to this area plan to spend a day and we can go over to Cape Ann if you're interested (Rockport, Gloucester, etc)
Bob
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I live about 15 mins from Plum Island! If you ever come to this area plan to spend a day and we can go over to Cape Ann if you're interested (Rockport, Gloucester, etc)
Bob
I've spent quite a bit of time in the Boston area, hope to be back again this summer although no definite plans just yet. Here's a shot from the Cape Ann area with my M8, 24 Elmarit about 10 years ago:

 

RMR

New member
I've spent quite a bit of time in the Boston area, hope to be back again this summer although no definite plans just yet. Here's a shot from the Cape Ann area with my M8, 24 Elmarit about 10 years ago:

Cool shot. I go out to Cape Ann often as it's got a lot of subjects to photograph and it really seems to say "new england" for me!
 

RMR

New member
AUTO GARAGE: I took this yesterday morning as I had the opportunity to photograph in and around a garage that repairs and services all kinds of autos. The owner had helped me with my '68 Chevelle Malibu (obviously not the car in the doorway!). Photo with the SL and 16-35mm and (of course) processed to my taste which is give it a little extra color!) at 16mm, iso400, f6.3, 1/250 sec

L1000726_SL601_RMR_May_2018_AuroraHDR2018-edit_FB.jpg
 
Last edited:

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Use latest firmware for The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

I wanted to check something so I saved some test shots made with firmware 3.1 and my new 16-35 and compared them with the same situations using the newest firmware 3.2. There are some changes in the distortion corrections at the wide end of the range. The corrections applied when the lens is focused at its closest limit are the same for the two firmware releases, but the corrections have been reduced a bit when the lens is focused at longer distances. For the 16 mm setting, I would guess that longer distances are merely a few meters. I tested at 5 meters, across the kitchen. Short distances are lens hood to object distances of as little as 7 - 8 cm. So this is a reason to be sure to upgrade to the new firmware.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I'm, well, skeptical about all aspects of the US decision to establish an embassy to Israel in Jerusalem, and I was away during the dedication festivities this week. I grabbed an SL and 16-35 to go looking for the signs of the event today. Didn't find much in the city itself (we get national delegations every week, and decorate for them appropriately), but the new embassy is now gloriously decked out in flags:

S1020050 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

S1020058 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

but the actual changes are quite underwhelming to date:

S1020061 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr



scott

album at: https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/vaiC0w has more. I posted more commentary on the LUF with a few pictures.
 

RMR

New member
'Nuts and Bolts' on the counter of an auto repair garage I went to last week. Had the 16-35mm sitting on the counter top at iso200, 16mm, f8 at 1/15sec
L1000552_SL601_RMR_May_2018-Edit_FB.jpg
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I like the closeup in depth idea with similar shiny objects as an interesting test of the promising close focus potential of the 16-35 SVE. The technical data memo shows that it promises significant benefits, over traditional super wide angles such as the R's 15mm lenses, and even over the impressive (and much less expensive) CL 11-23. So I filled a small album with shots of a complex table-top model taken with these three at focal lengths from 15 to 35mm (ff effective). It's viewable at https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/88X8MR
Guess what -- they all work just fine once stopped down to f/16 or more, but the SL is much easier to use for this task, because of the joystick and back button AF. Here's my favorite, the (Schneider designed, I think) Elmarit-R, with uncorrected barrel distortion:

R1020161 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr with R Elmarit-R@f/22

I guess shiny objects, some of them out of focus, with lights in the background, will be a more relevant test. I'll do that soon.
 
Top