Problem; Pen F w/Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6 focusing on the moon

ex machina

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
2,576
Location
Baltimore, MD
Well, you may need some post-processing too? I took a picture of the moon some days back with the Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6, which should be similarly not-exactly-that-sharp at 140mm and not in a class above the Olympus 40-150mm at 150mm.

First image from RAW -> default settings in darktable 3.4 plus lens correction plus exposure bump, cropped a lot (likely less sharp than SOOC jpg).
Second image through some postprocessing, DxO lens correction then back to darktable for contrast, sharpness, curve tweaks, cropped a lot.

Sharpness aside, the amount of noise in your image is a bit weird to me given that it's ISO 200?
I believe the Panasonic is known to be a tad sharper than the Oly at the far end, but good point.

One thing I forgot to recommend to OP is to use point metering mode so that only the moon is being metered. I recall that helped a lot with my early efforts.
 

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,383
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
Very impressive. Thanks.

The protective filter was removed for this shot, in fact, for all my moon shots, it's removed. The only post processing done here, was an increase in exposure, otherwise this is straight out of the camera. I purposely posted it this way to show what I get straight out of the camera with this lens.
I have been doing moon shots for years with Nikon FF & crop sensor cameras & Nikons better glass & got great results. but the results at 150mm from this lens, are pathetic. I was just wondering if everyone, using this same lens, is getting these same results.

I've seen that you're more than competent with photoshop, so I know it's not your processing :)

Was the camera on your Gitzo for this particular particular image? If so, was IBIS left on (don't even know if it would be active at 1/500 sec though)?

Do you get the same issue at shorter f/l?

Looking at my old images in daylight at 150mm - they are pretty soft by the standards of my current crop of lenses. I'm even wondering if you're simply not going to get any better of that subject with that optic.
 

ata3001

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
218
Location
Niagara Falls, NY USA
I've seen that you're more than competent with photoshop, so I know it's not your processing :)

Was the camera on your Gitzo for this particular particular image? If so, was IBIS left on (don't even know if it would be active at 1/500 sec though)?

Do you get the same issue at shorter f/l?

Looking at my old images in daylight at 150mm - they are pretty soft by the standards of my current crop of lenses. I'm even wondering if you're simply not going to get any better of that subject with that optic.
Yes, IBIS was turned off and you're right, it needs to be off for any tripod photography, but I figured 1/500 sec exp was fast enough to freeze the movement of the moon. I don't use this lens very often & there have been many shots at 150mm that I was very disappointed with. In fact, I just looked thru all the images shot with this lens & found every image over about 80mm to be soft & unacceptable. This tells me this lens isn't even worth a spot in the bag.
I guess all these posts, answers my question. Thanks to all, for your responses.
 

Mack

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
1,649
This got me curious so I took my arsenal of five cameras out into the cold at 2AM with the moon overhead and tried this with the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro lens.

Shots were one-time SOOC JPEGs (The things better work right as it's 2 AM!). No retouching at all and all at same exposure of ISO 200, 1/1600 sec. @ f/4. Shot on left is S-AF and one on right is C-AF JPEG straight out of camera other than cropped to same size. The Nikon Z7 II was with its 300mm f/4 PF so equivalency is same for the 150mm on the m43 cameras. Single point AF used too in all. Tripod on all with stabilization off. All with self-timer too.

Pen-F:
Issue I had was it hunts - and a lot! - on both S-AF and C-AF with the moon and single point AF.

Pen-F.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


E-M1 Mark II:

E-M1-Mark-II.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


E-M1X:
Don't know why it hiccuped in the S-AF and lost focus, but it did.

E-M1X.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


E-M1 converted to Full Spectrum:
Color cast was from IR set WB.

E-M1-Full-Spectrum.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Nikon Z7 II:

Nikon-Z7-II.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

ata3001

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
218
Location
Niagara Falls, NY USA
Comparing your EM 1 MII w/40-150/2.8 at 150mm to my 40-150/4-5.6 at 150mm images are worlds apart, (pun intended).
At this point, my lens will probably become a shelf dust bunny.
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,161
Location
UK
I think you are unfair to the lens. The original photo showed abnormalities which are nothing to do with a lens. These are worm like artefacts, they are not blur, I think they probably result from the processing. You have not said how you processed it. If you had not said it was taken at ISO 200 I would have said they were noise processing related:
1619816622236.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Here is an example taken using an E-M1 first version, with that same lens at ISO 250, f5.6, 1/1000, 150mm. It seems very sharp and clear to me:
126 TARIFA.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

ata3001

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
218
Location
Niagara Falls, NY USA
I think you are unfair to the lens. The original photo showed abnormalities which are nothing to do with a lens. These are worm like artefacts, they are not blur, I think they probably result from the processing. You have not said how you processed it. If you had not said it was taken at ISO 200 I would have said they were noise processing related:
View attachment 886118

Here is an example taken using an E-M1 first version, with that same lens at ISO 250, f5.6, 1/1000, 150mm. It seems very sharp and clear to me:
View attachment 886119
Actually, I did say how processed it was. The only processing done to my image was to increase the exposure (1.2 stops) & to resize it. There is no other processing done to it. The reason I did no other processing was to show what the unprocessed image looked like. Any artifacts seen would have to have been caused by either increasing the exposure (1.2 stops) or upsizing it since that was all I did to it. The real purpose of this image was not to get a nice image of the moon, which we all know isn't realistic at 150mm, but to show how soft this lens is, at 150mm, as compared to other lenses at 150mm. The camera was mounted on a CF Gitzo tripod, IS turned off, ISO 200, f/6.3, 1/500 sec to stop the movement of the moon tracking thru the frame, shutter release timer set. Weather was also not a factor in this image, nor were city lights.
I also have shots of barns at 150mm, also using the came camera/tripod, etc... technique that are also unacceptably soft & unusable. Looking back thru my library, at all images shot above 80mm or so on up to 150mm get progressively softer.
I also know not to expect the same image quality from a lens that costs less than 10% of the cost of the 40-150/2.8, but hoped it was somewhat better than it seems to be. Lens weight is a huge factor for me since I have severe nerve damage that limits me to what I am able to carry.
Thanks for your input.
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,161
Location
UK
I meant a full description of how you processed it. You used what software. That software had all sorts of settings such as noise, sharpness.
Your image as I showed has nasty abnormalities which cannot be made by a lens. You say you also upsized the image, that could help account for the problem. My point was really just that the the moon shot is flawed and doesn't give any indication about how good the lens is.

I also showed you a really good sharp image with that lens at 150mm. I'm not claiming it is a wonderful lens, but it can be pretty good.

It is possible that the lens you have happens to be bad, while mine happens to be good.
 

ata3001

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
218
Location
Niagara Falls, NY USA
I meant a full description of how you processed it. You used what software. That software had all sorts of settings such as noise, sharpness.
Your image as I showed has nasty abnormalities which cannot be made by a lens. You say you also upsized the image, that could help account for the problem. My point was really just that the the moon shot is flawed and doesn't give any indication about how good the lens is.

I also showed you a really good sharp image with that lens at 150mm. I'm not claiming it is a wonderful lens, but it can be pretty good.

It is possible that the lens you have happens to be bad, while mine happens to be good.
Sorry not to include the software used. Lets try this over again. Here is the basic image, first taken in the Raw format, first opened in Adobe Camera Raw 13.2. I zeroed out all Camera Raw defaults (sharpening, Noise Red, Color Noise Red), however Camera Raw applies Adobe Built-in lens Profile which, apparently, I have no way of disabling. I then opened it in Photoshop 2021 for sizing per Mu-43 requirements. Here is the very basic file. I was both manually focusing as well as AF'ing & I don't know which was used on this image. In this image, I have made no other adjustments to it. No exposure changes or resizing as was done as in the original image I posted, just cropped for this. This is as basic as I can give it to you.
P4260344_200 crop_.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Mack

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
1,649
Sumptin's messed up. :confused-53:

Olympus shows 4 versions of the 40-150mm on the Imaging Resources website. Couple of the f/4.5 are under 2 blur units and maybe only 1/2 above the Pro f/2.8 version. The f/3.5 version is a real dog at 3 blur units. Even the worst one is less than 3 blur units at 150mm.

Olympus-40-150-zooms.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Given their tests aren't too bad for sharpness on the two f/4.5s, are you sure there wasn't any atmospheric haze or condensation going on?

My Pen-F just doesn't like to try and focus on the moon with the 40-150 f/2.8 and it oscillates back-and-forth a lot before it gets to where it thinks it should be. All three of the E-M bodies did a lot better to lock-on. Also, did you try Manual focus with peaking on?

Aside, I did buy a new Nikon lens in LA once where it refused to focus to infinity when I snapped it onto a body I had with me back at the car. I took it to Nikon Service nearby and they told me to take it back to the store for another, but it was the last one the store had so Nikon Service had to fix the infinity part. Repair order said it needed shims. Works fine since.

Below is a lighter version of same SOOC JPEG shot above from my Pen-F once it stopped hunting with the 40-150 f/2.8 lens since my initial 2AM run was all the same SOOC JPEG shots off the SD card and a bit under-exposed (S-AF on left. C-AF on right). No post sharpening at all.

Pen-F Contrast.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Growltiger

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,161
Location
UK
Thanks for the additional information. I had a detailed look at the basic image and the wormy artefacts are no longer there. But the image is, as you say, really poor.
I wonder about atmospheric conditions. It also didn't help that it was underexposed. But I agree it is very disappointing.

I found that the image I posted was not taken with that lens. It was taken with the OLYMPUS 14-150mm1:4-5.6 II, so I was mistaken to compare them, sorry.
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,529
Location
Canada
The trick to getting lenses to AF on the Moon is to aim the focus point so it's at the edge of the moon (with half the focus point being on the dark sky, the other half on the Moon). AF needs that contrast to figure out where things are. If you point it straight at the moon, it just sees a bright blob and takes a wild guess. This method has always worked for me. :) Good luck!

Oh, and I have a 40-150R and it can be a very sharp lens. I imagine there's some copy-to-copy variation, but mine is incredibly sharp!
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom