Trying out new 70-200mm L f2.8 is it working?

Chaz Photos

Chaz Photos

Jack Elam
Messages
6,282
Name
Chaz
Edit My Images
Yes
I am not sure yet if its spot on took them at f2.8 ISO 200 as I am looking to see how good it looks.
ALSO can anyone tell me why on has a gray bill?
C&C please
1
4105560191_df4b3ee613_o.jpg

2
4106329478_d2d439cffd_o.jpg

3
4105560629_cb198e7aaa_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice lens Chaz (y) as for the bill I would say a combination of the angle of light and the fact the first two shots are overexposed slightly, and the highlights have been blown.
 
They grey bill would suggest it's either a juvenile or there is a little something else other than mallard in there!
 
I'm not an expert in any sense, but I have just bought one of these lens's from a TP member on here. If this is what I get when I test I'll be very disappointed - Once I've eliminated user error of course ;)

I understand that this lens is a sharp as a tack, these look soft and out of focus.
 
Last edited:
swag72 said:
I'm not an expert in any sense, but I have just bought one of these lens's from a TP member on here. If this is what I get when I test I'll be very disappointed.

I understand that this lens is a sharp as a tack, these look soft and out of focus.
Click to expand...

I was hoping for better but I have not done any adjustments for the lens yet first test, today been wating for a day with light.
 
swag72 said:
I'm not an expert in any sense, but I have just bought one of these lens's from a TP member on here. If this is what I get when I test I'll be very disappointed - Once I've eliminated user error of course ;)

I understand that this lens is a sharp as a tack, these look soft and out of focus.
Click to expand...

Surely f2.8 DOF is what's putting you off here?
 
Last edited:
Have you checked the white balance, it looks slighty out in the first shot but it might just be my moniter (y)
 
Chaz Photos said:
My apologies Chaz for the misunderstanding about the colour of the bill :bonk: However I would still say that imo the overall appearance of this shot is looking bright. Obviously I would not expect to see pin sharp detail in the feathers ;) a bit more info about things such as did you use IS? hand held or tripod makes it easier for people to look at the image and give their opinions. When you say you are not sure if it is spot on, in what way Chaz? :shrug: Also out of curiosity what does this edit look like to you on your monitor?

duck.jpg
Click to expand...
 

That edit is much better on my calibrated monitor. The original looked blown to me too!
 
EdBray said:
That edit is much better on my calibrated monitor. The original looked blown to me too!
Click to expand...

A question as I note often people say they have a calibrated monitor and have seen different then I do When you calibrated you monitor are you just running the software or do you do any manual adjustment first?
 
Chaz Photos said:
A question as I note often people say they have a calibrated monitor and have seen different then I do When you calibrated you monitor are you just running the software or do you do any manual adjustment first?
Click to expand...

I followed all the steps as described by the software (most required some brightness and contrast adjustment prior to the calibration process starting)for each monitor (four) in the house. Strangely enough, after the calibrations were complete my images looked the same regardless of what monitor they were on.
 
EdBray said:
I followed all the steps as described by the software (most required some brightness and contrast adjustment prior to the calibration process starting)for each monitor (four) in the house. Strangely enough, after the calibrations were complete my images looked the same regardless of what monitor they were on.
Click to expand...

That is interesting as you have said about setting the contrast of your monitor BUT not about the colour temperature I do most of our club monitors with the club Spyder Elite 3 and some have had much too high a setting for this. Nearly all monitors and projectors that I have done are set too high for a lot of the settings; it seams like the makers like to have them set too high for photography and more for documents where you do have a higher setting.
 
I too used a Spyder 3 Pro and did what it required.

I do not see what difference the colour temperature would make to whether an image is too bright or not.
 
it was just a comment of observation and yes it will make a difference check the histogram when you change the temp in ACR and you will see it move as you take the tem Up you will see how the reds can go over the top and as you lower you see the blue go up
Changing colour tem is like winding up or down each of the three channels RGB like in levels
 
One way to tell if there is a colour cast is to searck on line for gray/grey (try both UK and US spellings) point tutorials for photoshop, follow the instructions which will involve putting a 50% gray layer over the original image, anywhere where there is a match in the original image will then show as black pixels, by selecting one of these pixels you can then take out any colour cast.

Well worth a go and quite easy once you get your head round it.

Have to agree the top 2 do look to be a tiny touch overexposed, did you have eny exposure compensation dialed in, most canon digitals tend to need about -1/3 and sometimes -2/3.
 
mini_mad216 said:
One way to tell if there is a colour cast is to searck on line for gray/grey (try both UK and US spellings) point tutorials for photoshop, follow the instructions which will involve putting a 50% gray layer over the original image, anywhere where there is a match in the original image will then show as black pixels, by selecting one of these pixels you can then take out any colour cast.

Well worth a go and quite easy once you get your head round it.

Have to agree the top 2 do look to be a tiny touch overexposed, did you have eny exposure compensation dialed in, most canon digitals tend to need about -1/3 and sometimes -2/3.
Click to expand...
-any amount is the worst thing you can do you need to ETTR to get max info in your shot NEVER under expose as you will get more noise in your shots
 
Dont agree there Chaz depends how bright the light is you sometimes do need to under expose else you will have blown whites especially on birds such as blue tits,great tits etc I think you could have under exposed just a tad on your ducks
 
First two are blown mate.I know you don`t want to hear it, but they are.
 
I agree, first two are over exposed, and look like they have been "burnt" the white looks more grey to me :/
 
Looks like the selective colour craze has spread to our avian friends :p

The shots look alright - 100% crops would make it easier ;)

I have this lens and it doesn't take a lot of subject movement to give out of focus shots at the long end wide open; perhaps a better test for front/backfocus would be a static target.

To add fuel to the fire photshop says bits of the first two are blown, but it's not hugely relevant to this post anyway, is it?
 
tbm said:
The shots look alright - 100% crops would make it easier ;)

To add fuel to the fire photshop says bits of the first two are blown, but it's not hugely relevant to this post anyway, is it?
Click to expand...

Looks like you have been sucked into the 100% crop craze tbm :D
Not sure what you mean by it is not relevant :shrug: the OP was looking to see how good it was and asked for C&C. Hard to tell in what context he wanted C&C, so I gave my opinion that the first two shots looked slightly blown, be it the settings he used, the editing or even his monitor is out slightly,so really it is difficult to judge the quality of a lens if the shot looks slightly blown. Here is a pic I took ages ago when I first bought a DSLR, it may not be the best edit in the world but gives you an indication that there is some colour detail to be shown on the wings.

d2-1.jpg


This edit is imo still kind of acceptable, even with what I class as being blown, but as I say ( no disrespect to Chaz ) if I personally wanted to judge the quality of my lens when I had not edited the picture to the best of its content, then I would find it hard to pass judgement :shrug: Maybe I missunderstood the post altogether ;)
d3-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
u8myufo said:
Looks like you have been sucked into the 100% crop craze tbm :D
Not sure what you mean by it is not relevant :shrug: the OP was looking to see how good it was and asked for C&C. Hard to tell in what context he wanted C&C, so I gave my opinion that the first two shots looked slightly blown, be it the settings he used, the editing or even his monitor is out slightly,so really it is difficult to judge the quality of a lens if the shot looks slightly blown. Here is a pic I took ages ago when I first bought a DSLR, it may not be the best edit in the world but gives you an indication that there is some colour detail to be shown on the wings.

d2-1.jpg


This edit is imo still kind of acceptable, even with what I class as being blown, but as I say ( no disrespect to Chaz ) if I personally wanted to judge the quality of my lens when I had not edited the picture to the best of its content, then I would find it hard to pass judgement :shrug: Maybe I missunderstood the post altogether ;)
d3-1.jpg
Click to expand...
I confess, I do like a good 100% Crop :D

Since the post related to the testing of a new lens I assumed that Chaz was after opinions on the properties of the image as influenced by the glass - i.e. sharpness, chromatic abbs, focus and dof.. which would all be easier to judge at 100%.

Assuming the question was related to lens performance, I don't see the blown highlights as particularly relevant (although I see your point about judging detail), however, were the OP just after a general critique of the image then the highlights would become more of a concern. That said, they're not hugely obvious in this case.

I agree, if assessing lens performance I'd be going with an unedited image too :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top