Noise with 17-40mm f/4

[ciprian]

I have a real problem with my 17-40mm f/4 lens.I shoot with a Canon 5D and when

I use the 17-40 I get an incredible amount of noise with it(I also have the 85mm

1.2,35mm 1.4,70-200mm 2.8)This is the only lens that produces noise even if I

shoot at low ISO.

I've been using this lens for over 5 years now and I was thinking it might need

to get serviced?!

Do any of you have an idea to why this is happening?

Attached are two pictures taken with this lens;one is at 100% magnification of

the original.

Metadata:

Canon 5D

Canon 17-40mm f/4

ISO 160

f/9.0

1/125

Thank you

[sattler123]

Do you have a filter on that lens - did you use a polarizer?

[steve torelli]

I was going to ask the same question Juergen did. I don't know how a lens would affect digital noise levels or film grain, noise isn't an attribute of the lens AFAIK.

[david_amberson1]

Have you used a tripod and shot the same picture with your 35mm and then the 17-40 set to 35mm to see a side/side difference. I'm with these guys. Never should a lens cause a noise issue. That's totally chip related. Maybe its something inside the lens. Do you use the same aperture with the 17-40 as with other lenses. I notice all your other lenses are of a "fast" glass type and wonder if maybe because the 17-40 is an "f4" lens that its picking up something the other lenses are not if used wide open. Maybe on the Sensor or inside the lens. Im real curious now.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see noise in the image. A lens can't cause noise anyway. Are you seeing the "noise" on the computer monitor AND in prints? If the prints look OK, it's probably just the way your monitor displays subtle color variations of things like sky. I've noticed in my own images that sometimes PhotoShop will display subtle color gradations unevenly, so that it does resemble noise. But it doesn't appear in my prints.

[anov]

" Never should a lens cause a noise issue"

 

Not really.

 

http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/news/canon_eos_5d_banding_problems.php

[david_amberson1]

>A Novisto: Never can a lens create noise. Noise is created on the sensor. Also, the link you posted also refers to "Banding".

 

I see some vey light noise, but this is also a 100% crop at ISO 160 which is an intermediate step. Also, I have one of those HD 24" monitors with the "Vivid Color" and while it is "Vivid", it doesnt do color gradations as well as you would think. Shows blotchy sometimes which sort of the way this "Noise" looks.

[g dan mitchell]

There is some noise in that image, but because the subject is essentially

monochromatic (basically the blue channel) and almost completely monochrome it

becomes more visible. If this is a 100% crop I don't think you are seeing anything

really unusual.

 

I don't see the EXIF so I cannot comment on exposure, though underexposure also

increases apparent noise.

 

There is really nothing in the _lens_ that would affect the amount of noise in the

photo.

[anov]

David:

 

The article by Chuck Westfall said : "There may be cases where random noise or pattern noise [banding] stands out in images taken at high ISO settings"

 

Clearly in this context the noise is the banding.

 

You also said: Noise is created in the sensor. Of course it is created in the sensor, caused by interference created by electronic circuit in the lens. Because different lens does not create this banding (noise).

 

If you check here:

 

http://www.f20c.com/stuff/canon/partslist/EF%2020-35%203.5-4.5%20USM.PDF

 

(I could not find the part list for the 17-40mm)

 

You'll see that the parts mentioned (Part No. YG2-0268-009) is the circuit board on the EF lens. If Canon replace the CB then the noise problem will be minimized.

[ciprian]

I forgot to mention the polarizer!I did use a polarizer!I have a NEC 2690 monitor calibrated with Gretag Macbeth (Spectraview II ) so the monitor problem is out of the question.

Like I said this is the only lens that causes this "mud" on the images.

As far as I'm concerned the 5D is on par with the 20D when it comes to noise(no improvement there).The attached is a 100% crop of a image shot with the 17-40 at ISO 800,the details in the image are so muddy I'm terrified to even look at it!

Every time I have to work above ISO 200 I get scared.

I mostly use the 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.2 and I shoot mostly wide open so I can afford to keep the ISO at 100,unfortunately the 17-40 is not close to being a fast lens and so I have to sacrifice by using higher ISO speeds.

I'm thinking about ditching the 17-40 and getting something else in that range.

Thank you all for your help/

Ciprian.

[mendel_leisk]

I have no idea what the fuss is about.

 

To my myopic eyes the samples look fine. Of course, this is from a guy who *leaves* his camera set to ISO 400, by default. I can think of a lot of things that terrify me: public speaking, rock climbing, for example. But higher ISO's, hah! Bring them on.

[sattler123]

Ciprian, take off the polarizer and test your 17-40 again - I would bet that it is the polarizer that causes the "noise". Ever since I went digital I hardly ever use polarizers anymore - I do not like the outcome, especially with WA lenses. The same is true for grd ND filters - I get the same type of pattern that you experienced in your shot with them - es. with small apertures.

 

Mount the camera on a tripod, pick a scene with lots of blue sky (it's always the sky that gets screwed up!) and shoot with and without the polarizer - you will see the difference immediately.

 

BTW - I use a B&W top-of-the line polarizer and it still produces that strange pattern in the sky.

[ciprian]

Juergen,

I was thinking the same and I was going to go for it,now that you confirm my suspicions I will try to work without the polarizer.

I also use the B&W polarizer and I was thinking thinking the B&W is the culprit.I also have a new Canon polarizer so I'll do a test using both see if there is a difference between the two(probably not!)

Thank you.

Ciprian.

[sbrauchli]

I use a multi-coated $200 polarizer and have discovered that IQ with my 17-40 and 24-105 takes a toll. So I rarely use the polarizer now. I am not sure why this is especially since I am using a high quality filter. The only polarizer I have come to like with my digital SLRs is the drop-in polarizer for my 300 2.8 IS lens, maybe it does not have the problems because it is inside the lens? - beats me....

[bluphoto]

"the 5D is on par with the 20D when it comes to noise(no improvement there)."

 

Really? I found the 5D performed far better than my 20D when it came to noise - especially when printing large, and particularly after havign recovered a slightly underexposed frame.

 

Hope the polariser issue fixed it for you - let us know.

 

cheers,

Guy

[sbrauchli]

Yeah, the 5D has much lower noise than the 20D

[jason_hall4]

Not according to the test performed here....

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp

 

There you will find these two quotes.

 

"The EOS 5D exhibited slightly lower chroma noise (colored speckles) than both the EOS-1Ds Mark II and EOS 20D,"

 

"The overall noise performance from the EOS 5D is very good and by our measurements almost identical to the EOS 20D"

 

 

Jason

[w_t1]

I'm not sure what all the noise (literally) is about. Go shoot that blue sky on chrome film and you'll quit b*tching about the "noise" in the digital image. Tom

[bernie_beckerman]

Are you shooting RAW? A jpeg setting would severely compress the available colour range, especially with a polarizer and give you that odd transition with the blue?

[steve torelli]

I don't know what kind of test Dpreview is doing ( I suppose I could check it out ) but having the 5 and also having had the 20, there is just absolutely no doubt, all else being equal, that the 5 will outperform the 20, or the 40D ( have that one too ) at higher ISO. With the 5, I don't even concern myself with it until around 800.

[ciprian]

I must agree that the 5D is far superior than 20 D from all aspects,when I refer to noise I have in mind ISO 1600 in general(and ISO 160 in this case),ugly,ugly,ugly.I saw picture out of a Nikon D3 shot at ISO 3200-no noise there!

I know you can't compare the two ...I'm just saying!Probably the 5D mark II will be much improved in the ISO category(maybe 3200!) and I hope some weather sealing.

Tom! soon enough you'll be able to see film cameras only at the museum !

Bernardo,I am shooting RAW.

[keith reeder]

"I'm not sure what all the noise (literally) is about. Go shoot that blue sky on chrome film and you'll quit b*tching about the "noise" in the digital image"

 

Unless you still ride a horse to work and use candles instead of light bulbs, what film did *is utterly irrelevant*. Seriously - who gives a toss about "redundant" technologies like film in the context of a discussion specifically about digital camera noise?

 

It might also be that your standards are a *lot* lower, Tom.

 

In any event, references to film in threads like these are just a waste of typing.

 

I can see a lot of noise in that sky, and I wouldn't be thrilled about it either - and I'm blaming the polariser too.

[trebor_navilluso]

I don't think it's noise per-se but the 17-40's inability to resolve with great detail. I had one that yeilded similar "mud" images. Not sharp, not quite noise ether, just off somehow, hard to describe. Canon couldn't fix it so I ebayed it.

 

I went to the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.