Night time photography with the 24-35 f/3.5L

[gregory_nicholson]

Hi All,

 

This is from Canon's Lens Works book "One of the most difficult color

situations is an outdoor scene at night lit by unshielded tungsten

lamps. With ordinary lenses you can expect a noticeable degree of

color fringing, with a consequent loss of sharpness and proper

color. Aspheric elements enable superb color even under the most

difficult conditions." Also, and this is the important point, "No

flare nor any halo that is often associated with pictures taken in

low light at a wide aperture." I have two questions;

 

1) Are these benefits only at the wider apertures or can we expect

the same clear light points at f/5.6 or smaller with the 24 f/1.4L or

the 85 f/1.2L?

 

2) Does either wide angle L zoom have this "no flare nor any halo"

quality as well? Canon gives these characteristics for the 24 f/1.4L

and the 85 f/1.2L (maybe the 50 f/1.2L too) but for the 20-35 f/3.5L

they only mention the aspheric element helps for edge sharpness,

distortion reduction and color balance.

 

I want a lens for night photography that will be free from halo's or

the star filter effect. The 24-35 f/3.5L seems to be the low cost

aspheric lens alternative to the 24 f/1.4L. But, if the results from

street lamps still come out with flaring light streaks then I don't

see any optical advantage over the other excellent non-L wide angle

choices. I'm wondering if I have to purchase the 24 f/1.4L if I want

to accomplish this. Thanks for any input and all reply's will be

appreciated.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I've shot with the 24-35L (BL mount) and it was quite nearly completely flare free. The only problem with a lens like that (now) is that it may have accumulated dust and grunge on the inner element, and need a cleaning.

[timothy_fitzgerald]

I can't really speak to the FD 24mm f/1.4 L or FD 24-35mm f/3.5 L, as I've never used them at night. However, I have shot my FD 85mm f/1.2 L wide open at night using plain ol' Kodak 400 film, and the lights were pretty sharp and well-defined (<B><A HREF="http://timfitz.billwendt.com/Images/Miscellaneous/Photography/Pittsburgh/night.JPG">click here</A></B> to see an example; incidentally, this is my hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at night).<P>

 

Due to the inherent sharpness of the "L" lenses, I personally wouldn't expect any of these halo/starlight effects to worsen at the smaller apertures using these lenses, but I guess I can't say that with absolute certainty, as I've not tried it.

[gregory_nicholson]

Yes Tim, your picture is exactly what I'm looking for. See, my 85, the f/1.8, would have made star bursts out of all those lights. The 24 f/2 and 17 f/4 also. The weird thing is the T/S 35 f/2.8 does not do this if shot wide open but stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller it does. That's way I asked if the 24 f/1.4 or the 85 f/1.2 did this stopped down. I'm curious why the aspheric lenses eliminate this. Now I want to find out if the 24-35 f/3.5 L or 20-35 f/3.5 L can keep these points clear and round. Otherwise, like I said it's the 24 f/1.4 if I want to get this level of quality.

[timothy_fitzgerald]

Truthfully, I'm not surprised that the FD 85mm f/1.8 would give you a more pronounced starburst effect under these conditions; I've been told and have read that this lens was designed to have a much "softer" effect that Canon purposely reduced the sharpness of the lens to give it a somewhat "dreamy" portrait effect. The FD 85mm f/1.2 L has a well-deserved reputation for sharpness; some have even described it as "punishingly sharp." The image that I posted really doesn't do the photo justice; the original is far sharper than the scan you were able to view online.<P>

 

That's curious about the TS 35mm f/2.8 giving starbursts at closed-down apertures! But since you mentioned it, I checked my copy of the lens, and one thing I noticed is that the aperture leaves close down a bit differently on the TS 35mm f/2.8 lens than they do on just about every other FD lens: the opening on the TS 35mm f/2.8 actually has a star-burst shape throughout most of its aperture range and it's most pronounced at f/5.6 and f/8! The aperture opening on the other lenses that I checked (FD 24mm f/1.4 L, FD 24mm f/2, FD 24-35mm f/3.5 L, FD 85mm f/1.2 L, FD 85mm f/1.8) has a shape that ranges from round to octagonal, depending on the size of the opening. I'm speculating that the shape of the aperture opening on the TS 35mm f/2.8 lens is what causes the star-burst effect at closed-down apertures, whereas it's the relative lack of optical sharpness in the FD 24mm f/2, FD 85mm f/1.8, and other "non-L" FD lenses that creates the effect at wide-open apertures.<P>

 

I'm guessing that the FD 24-35mm f/3.5 L, like all "L" lenses, will provide the wide-open sharpness you are seeking. The price difference between it and the FD 24mm f/1.4 L is primarily due to the difference in lens speeds, although I would still expect the prime to out-perform the zoom in a head-to-head comparison. When you close them down, I would expect the same sharpness from the "L" lenses that you got wide open; perhaps even better sharpness.

[timothy_fitzgerald]

Greg:

 

Another thought to continue the previous response: although the sharpness may be maintained or improved with closed-down apertures on the "L" lenses, I suppose it's possible for the aperture diaphragm itself to begin introducing those star-burst effects because of the octagonal shape they make. I would imagine that Canon tried to minimize the sharp corners in the aperture openings of the "L" lenses, but since they are there, they could begin to cause these star-burst effects as the lens is closed down. About the only way to avoid it would be to have a perfectly round aperture opening, and aside from their widest setting, none of the FD lenses have that to the best of my knowledge. Still, the star-burst effect is probably less pronounced than in the "non-L" lenses.

[gregory_nicholson]

The dreamy portrait effect of the 85 f/1.8 is more myth than real. It�s a little soft on the edges wide open but nothing like a Sima 100 f/2 soft focus lens. I have plenty of pictures where the edge sharpness is okay and they were taken at f/2 or 2.8. But the light flare occurs at f/1.8 so I don�t think it has to do with the blades. But then again the number of blades usually determines how many lines come off the lights. I�ll have to shoot a $1 roll of film and see which lens has how many lines and if it does match up to the blade number. I�m really unsure about what causes this effect. I guess I�ll just buy the 24-35 f/3.5L and if it doesn�t do what I want I�ll resell it.

[john_s1]

Gregory,

I'm going out on a limb, but here are my recollections from using a very simlar lens (FD 20-35 3.5L) for a number of years. I believe the "starburst" effect you discuss is more an effect of aperture size and shape and less of "L" aspherics. I could be wrong but I thought, smaller apertures cause a more pronounced starburst effect lessening to round points as the aperture opens (rounds out in shape). I was under the impression that,"L" aspherics lessen comma (round pinpoints looking more like comets), color fringing (white points with colors around the edge), and that fuzzy halo effect. I will attempt to attach a night scene taken with the above mentioned lens about 15 yrs. ago that definitely has the starburst effect. While my scanning abilities leave much to be desired, the slide itself shows practically no signs of comma, or color fringing, or halo even to the extreme edges. The "starburst" effect however, is present. As I recall, I shot this at a smaller aperture, however I can't prove it. While I'm likely to be corrected by much more knowledgeable optical experts, the main point for you is that most likely, the 24-35L(like my later version 20-35L) will "starburst" at certain apertures. I sure loved that lens however. That lens is long gone, but there's no doubt that at the extreme edges, it kicks the "tookis" of my current EF 20-35 af lens, which is no slacker itself. Hope this helps.

[john_s1]

Greg,

Sorry, I'm not computer knowledgeable enough to figure out why there was no opportunity to attach a photo to my thread so I'll post a new thread with my examples on the FD board.

[john_s1]

Apologies Gregory, look in the "General (Not Archived)" section for my pictures. It's the first place I found that allows me to post a picture in the only way I know how. I'm sure theres a good reason for my not being able to post a picture in this thread/forum, just be gentle when explaining to this computer illiterate photographer : )

[gregory_nicholson]

John, Don't feel bad I've been posting responses for a year now and still can't figure out how to insert a picture or make bold letters or italics. I've asked a few patrons but never got a response, must be an insider secret. Maybe you'll get answer to your question in the general threads and we can all figure it out. Your picture is just as you described it, clear and sharp, free from everything but those annoying lines. My T/S 35 does the same thing, at wider apertures it does not have this effect but stopped down it does. I'm wondering if the added time to the stopped down pictures make the flaring lines appear? The only way I'm going to find out is if someone takes or has a night scene picture taken with a lens like the 85 f/1.2L or the 24 f/1.4L that is known to not have this effect at an aperture of f/5.6 to f/11. Then we'll see if it is a matter of aperture or the aspheric element. At one time I figured the 85L does not do this because it can give a super sharp picture wide open, therefore it is crisp and clear. But when I tried this with the 24 f/2 and 85 f/1.8, ignoring the sharpness just to see if the lines appeared and they did. So, it must not be a function of either shutter speed or diffraction around the aperture blades. I don't know, I was planning on getting the 24-35 f/3.5L anyway, it's half the cost of the 20-35, which I won't use the 20 part and it will make a good travel lens to complement the 35-105 f/3.5 and the 200 f/2.8. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, I'd assume after looking at your picture that the 24-35 f/3.5L will have the lines problem too.