Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

lens correction

Permanently deleted user
hello,

I used P1 for six month for Nikon DSLR raw files, but I only find my SIGMA lens with Canon mentioned.
what does it mean exactly?
do these file can provide an good correction with Nikon DSLR?
If yes why when I select "show only recommended", nothing is selected ?

regards
0

Comments

8 comments

Date Votes
  • Christian Gruner
    It is listed on the Canons only, as the profile was made of a Canon mount Sigma lens.
    From looking into same lenses on different mounts it seems they are similar, however, we have not been able to verify this officially, and thus we only display it from the mount is was originally shot with.

    However, you can use it with the Nikon cameras as well just by selecting it.
    0
  • Michael Sonshine
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    It is listed on the Canons only, as the profile was made of a Canon mount Sigma lens.
    From looking into same lenses on different mounts it seems they are similar, however, we have not been able to verify this officially, and thus we only display it from the mount is was originally shot with.

    However, you can use it with the Nikon cameras as well just by selecting it.

    For some reason I just don't understand the number of supported lenses for distortion correction is small. For example there are no Canon lenses supported in the 70-300 range. None at all. Not even high-end expensive lenses like the Canon 70-300 DO. Why?

    I find that half of my lenses are not supported for distortion correction by C1 and I just don't understand why a professional level lens has no automatic distortion correction.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    It is listed on the Canons only, as the profile was made of a Canon mount Sigma lens.
    From looking into same lenses on different mounts it seems they are similar, however, we have not been able to verify this officially, and thus we only display it from the mount is was originally shot with.

    However, you can use it with the Nikon cameras as well just by selecting it.

    For some reason I just don't understand the number of supported lenses for distortion correction is small. For example there are no Canon lenses supported in the 70-300 range. None at all. Not even high-end expensive lenses like the Canon 70-300 DO. Why?

    I find that half of my lenses are not supported for distortion correction by C1 and I just don't understand why a professional level lens has no automatic distortion correction.


    Getting them from the vendor is proving difficult, and especially those lower grade lenses, as they usually not part of popular pro loan units.

    As I said in a another thread, if you can spare them for 2-3 weeks, ship them to our main office in Copenhagen, and we will make the profiles and include them in Capture One when they are ready.
    Create a support case, be sure to include your email, and reference this thread. Then I will contact you.
    0
  • Michael Sonshine
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

    As I said in a another thread, if you can spare them for 2-3 weeks, ship them to our main office in Copenhagen, and we will make the profiles and include them in Capture One when they are ready.
    Create a support case, be sure to include your email, and reference this thread. Then I will contact you.

    Could you supply an address including any department or section location where the lens should go? I would not want it to be sent and then sit someplace because it was delivered to the wrong office or building.

    How long would you need the lens? Sending a lens from the US will probably require transit through customs both when entering the EU and when returning to the US it would be nice to know how long it would be out of my hands. My 70-300 DO is the only lens of that length that I have and I would miss it if it were gone for too long. I use it heavily.

    Who would pay for shipping the lens? Would C1 cover the cost, including insurance? It is very expensive lens and would need to be insured in case of damage.

    And, out of curiosity, there are a variety of lens rental locations, at least here in the US. Why has C1 not rented the lens if they can not get a sample for testing from Canon? The cost should not be too high for a short term and low risk rental like a C1 lab for analysis.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

    As I said in a another thread, if you can spare them for 2-3 weeks, ship them to our main office in Copenhagen, and we will make the profiles and include them in Capture One when they are ready.
    Create a support case, be sure to include your email, and reference this thread. Then I will contact you.

    Could you supply an address including any department or section location where the lens should go? I would not want it to be sent and then sit someplace because it was delivered to the wrong office or building.

    How long would you need the lens? Sending a lens from the US will probably require transit through customs both when entering the EU and when returning to the US it would be nice to know how long it would be out of my hands. My 70-300 DO is the only lens of that length that I have and I would miss it if it were gone for too long. I use it heavily.

    Who would pay for shipping the lens? Would C1 cover the cost, including insurance? It is very expensive lens and would need to be insured in case of damage.

    And, out of curiosity, there are a variety of lens rental locations, at least here in the US. Why has C1 not rented the lens if they can not get a sample for testing from Canon? The cost should not be too high for a short term and low risk rental like a C1 lab for analysis.


    Please post your email (here or in a Support Case), and I will send you all the details.
    We have considered rental lenses, however, they are usually pretty banged up, and the lens-data gathered cannot be trusted.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:

    As I said in a another thread, if you can spare them for 2-3 weeks, ship them to our main office in Copenhagen, and we will make the profiles and include them in Capture One when they are ready.
    Create a support case, be sure to include your email, and reference this thread. Then I will contact you.

    Could you supply an address including any department or section location where the lens should go? I would not want it to be sent and then sit someplace because it was delivered to the wrong office or building.

    How long would you need the lens? Sending a lens from the US will probably require transit through customs both when entering the EU and when returning to the US it would be nice to know how long it would be out of my hands. My 70-300 DO is the only lens of that length that I have and I would miss it if it were gone for too long. I use it heavily.

    Who would pay for shipping the lens? Would C1 cover the cost, including insurance? It is very expensive lens and would need to be insured in case of damage.

    And, out of curiosity, there are a variety of lens rental locations, at least here in the US. Why has C1 not rented the lens if they can not get a sample for testing from Canon? The cost should not be too high for a short term and low risk rental like a C1 lab for analysis.


    Mike,

    I have a 70-300 DO.

    It's an interesting lens. When it works nicely it gives quite pleasing and somewhat unique results.

    It is, however, erratic. Could be that it has been heavily used by its previous owner (Journalist Photographer I was told) but it has been serviced and re-calibrated by Canon (twice) and it's still erratic - especially the AF and especially at the long end of the zoom range.

    Here in the UK there are usually a few of these lenses for sale on eBay. My guess is they are mostly unused or very little used and come from the collections of enthusiast amateurs who liked the look of the spec but never found a real purpose for owning the lens.

    You may not have seen this review of the lens and it might be helpful to you now without having to wait for possible lens profiling.

    http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/54 ... 4556doisff

    It was performed using a Full Frame body.

    The result seems to be that, for the unit tested, distortion levels are quite low across the zoom range and probably would not be noticeable in most subject matter.

    Sharpness, however, is a different matter. In general my experience suggests that the review analysis is well worded.

    Given good light the lens can work well - both AF and the image quality results when stopped down somewhat. However I have some concerns about the consistency (of my unit) and if they are found to be genuine concerns then they may apply more broadly to other examples of the lens and thus make testing somewhat problematic. It could be difficult to find a "standard" to offer.

    For most longer lenses I am less than convinced the lens correction counts for much in typical use unless one is being ultra critical and can prove the benefit of the adjustments.

    For the "modern" smaller systems it's a different matter. Limitations in optical physics means that such systems would be unlikely to exist without digital corrections being possible. But even then the designers seem able to create lenses that really only benefit form correction at the wider end of a zoom range (and presumably for wider fixed length lenses as well but I have no personal experience of modern small primes of that type).

    So, my personal take on it is that not having a lens correction profile for my 70-300 DO is really no big deal since I very much doubt I would find a regular need for it and if the odd image does require some adjustment a little barrel or pincushion adjustment should do the trick providing the error is not too decentred.

    For some wider lenses I could well have a different opinion ...


    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Michael Sonshine
    SFA:

    Thanks for your post about the 70-300 DO. It is a lens that usually brings out strong opinions, pro or con, from people.

    I should make a couple of admissions up front. First, I bought the lens new when I first got into serious (but amateur) photography. I bought it for a number of reasons - (1) I liked the range covered by the lens, (2) I did not like the size of the other 70-300 lenses that I tried as they felt far too long and (3) I wanted a "long" lens that did not particularly draw attention as the Canon white lenses tend to do.

    I used the lens quite a bit after I bought it but found that it was softer than I wanted and, much as I regretted it, I mostly left the lens on the shelf and relied on other lenses. When I bought a Canon full frame that could handle higher ISO values I started using the lens but kept it at 7.1 or 8.0 or higher and ate the high ISO values as needed. I found that the lens did much better at 7.1 (and even better at 8.0), that its stabilizing system was particularly good and that the lens worked well for birding when I was out camping. It was easy to hold, focused well and gave me excellent results. When Dxo came out with their lens softness corrections I found it was nearly as sharp, when adjusted, as my 100-400 and far less noticeable.

    I now use this lens a lot and it has taken a semi-permanent place in my camera bag. I have not found it to be erratic, but then I was the first owner of this lens and it has always been treated carefully. It lives in a nice soft padded case and is generally pampered and has usually given me first class results, even if they need to be sharpened a bit.

    It is also true that my most common use for this lens is when taking shots around the nature areas I am camping in and thus there is probably little actual need for distortion correction. I am generally not using it around architecture and thus the distortion is probably not noticeable. However when I do check the correction in Optics Pro (which does have a module for this lens and my camera) it does show what I think of as considerable correction. It is far less needed when taking photos of birds in trees or wildlife wondering around the campground, but it is noticeable. I could easily live without the correction since there are no obviously distorted sides of buildings, but there is distortion. My chagrin at not having automated lens correction for this lens is probably more centered on the idea that C1 is a pro piece of software and ought to have this kind of thing included. While I could understand not having a correction module for the 70-300 DO as it is not a very commonly used lens I find myself not understanding why there is no correction module for any Canon 70-300 lens. There are for 70-200, but none for 70-300 and that just seems like a glaring error to me. I like C1 and want it to be as complete as possible.

    I suppose that most people don't care and, as I said, I freely admit that my use of this lens as a nature lens means that lens correction is less necessary, so perhaps there is no reason for me to send mine in for analysis. I suspect that the time it would take for transit, customs processing and lens profiling would be several months and I am extremely reluctant to have it out of my hands for that long. I use it all the time. In addition, if the lenses vary that much, then mine may not be a good sample and might only benefit me rather than others having the same lens. I do seem to be the only person complaining about the lack of auto correction for this lens and I suppose there is a lesson there somewhere ...

    Thank you for the lens review I found it very interesting. As it is I can probably just resign myself to either not doing any correction for this lens or using Optics Pro (or PTLens) if I feel the need.

    Thank you again for your post.
    0
  • SFA
    Hi Mike,

    A superbly considered response!

    You have reminded me that I forgot to mention that it is a lens that, in my view, does seem to "enjoy" the application of what one might think of as rather excessive sharpening. However whilst that can work very well with the right shot and the right light I rarely find I can spot the ones that will work without actually trying them.

    I would gladly provide my lens for assessment but I really doubt it would be a good example.

    At one point it was somewhat exposed to a rainy day (not for the first time) and the zoom mechanism become a little stiff. So I sent it for service. On return if felt and looked good but within a few shots the focus at anything much more than 70mm was very poor. I returned it and it was repaired (apparently something new in the mechanism has broken - coincidence perhaps) and recalibrated once more. It hasn't had that much use since (I like it for the same reasons that you do, especially when travelling) mainly because I don't trust it to perform when a one-off opportunity arises. If I'm looking at repeatable set up shots - landscapes of something - its a different matter because one can take time and shoot multiple images. It works well at the short end and makes a pretty nice portrait lens although a wider minimum aperture would be handy.

    Looking through the lost of lenses supported by correction data it's clear that there are not so many long lenses provided compared with the number in the market. From any manufacturer - Sigma being a slight exception.

    I would guess there are 2 primary reasons. Firstly the longer lenses (unless they offer wide angle and the shorter end) are probably not often used in adjustment critical conditions and probably do not exhibit great enough extremes of optical distortion to warrant a lot of attention. If they do warrant adjustment they may not sell very well - especially at the sort of price ranges into which they fall. That would be the second reason for there being no support.

    Basically no need or no great demand.

    I could be wrong.

    For the shipping question - I think things are pretty quick these days subject to Customs clearance and making sure the paperwork is correct each way. However the cost may be quite high fir one-off air freight. The international sellers presumably negotiate huge savings by buying volume deals.

    It's an interesting thought that by supplying a lens you could be sure of the profile being for that lens (more or less I assume) but carriage and insurance costs may outweigh that benefit - especially if it proves to be slight.

    I do wonder if there may be an innovative alternative approach, possibly involving rental companies as they receive new units. Or even buying what seems to be quality items on eBay, testing and then selling on again. For example The 70-300 DO seems to sell "pre-owned" but seemingly hardly ever much "pre-used" for about £500 on average in the UK if bought on eBay. The problem would be knowing the history and functional status of the lens at the point of purchase. It may not be suitable for analysis - as mine isn't! But at least with mine I could see that it had been well used before I bought it (not on eBay I might add! And for less than £500 at the time.)

    The third idea might be some form of crowd funding to buy a lens and then sell it on after evaluation. (OK, just a wild idea that passed rapidly through my mind ....). That might work IF there is ready availability of the lens. That is not always the case, especially for the high end items. Then again if they are really high end it might be assumed that correction should rarely be an issue in reality. Moreover units made from exotic optical material in small batches may not always be consistent enough, batch to batch, for the same very fine adjustments to apply to all batches. There may even be engineering modifications involved over the years of production that would alter any fine tuning needs.

    I suspect, from re-reading the lens test, that C1's barrel distortion and pincushion distortion adjustments would work pretty well for the 70-300 DO if and when needed. I would have some slight concerns about how much the lens was de-centred (if at all for an individual example) but otherwise there does not seem to be much that is optically complex to fix.

    What I really need these days is a something to do perspective correction for my vision. the natural "warping" of what we see was never a problem until I became especially aware of perspective correction for compact camera lenses and realised that our eyes present us with similarly inaccurate results by the time our brains have worked out what the data are reporting!


    Have fun.


    Grant
    0

Post is closed for comments.