Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 21 Jun 2016 (Tuesday) 18:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 2.8LII extreme sharp shots or special pp ?

 
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,488 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Post edited over 4 years ago by CanonYouCan.
     
Jun 21, 2016 18:48 |  #1

This photographer uses the 70-200 2.8LII for portraits, but her shots are extremely sharp.
Did you ever get such sharp shots with your 70-200 2.8LII, or do you think she used extra post-processing?
https://www.facebook.c​om/sanbiancophotograph​y/ (external link)


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | Sigma 85 1.4 Art | 70-200 2.8L II
Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Choderboy
I like a long knob
Avatar
6,727 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Likes: 5245
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 21, 2016 23:30 |  #2

What is "extra post processing" ?

I think there is unprocessed, ie direct from camera or post processed.
So if the question is "are these post processed" I would guess yes, simply because it would be unusual to shoot portraits and do no post processing.
These could be shot JPG with in camera sharpness set to maximum., but I doubt it.
If a 5DSR was used (with no AA filter) the results should be sharper than your 6D.

I think they appear to be sharp but not unusually sharp or unexpectedly sharp for a 70-200 2.8L II and assuming not shot with 5DSR they have had some sharpening applied.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Motor ­ On
Senior Member
Avatar
941 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Feb 2007
     
Jun 21, 2016 23:48 |  #3

Considering that Facebook page has a link to an editing workshop/class/webinar (I didn't follow the link and don't necessarily want to advertise for it); I'd certainly say there's post processing going on. Take a look at her own before/after samples.

Trick is starting with the right ingredients as no amount of sharpening can make an out of focus shot in focus. Which if you can check MFA and it needs adjustment do it; and spot focus over the eye and take a few, when chimping, zoom in and check the eye. Pull up a DOF calculator and you can do the math even in the 100-200mm range, if you're wide open, the slightest of movements camera or model could mean it's time to adjust again.

Some but definitely not all are also helped by subject separation from the background in color and distance, make what is in focus crisp against a smooth monotone bokeh wall.


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jun 22, 2016 01:05 |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

I think just about any Canon lens is capable of that degree of sharpness. Some at f/5.6, some at f/2. There is a LOT more going on here than native sharpness. I have no complaints about sharpness from any of my lenses. Most of them don't even have red rings.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,866 posts
Gallery: 2026 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12291
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jun 22, 2016 11:01 |  #5

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18046276 (external link)
This photographer uses the 70-200 2.8LII for portraits, but her shots are extremely sharp.
Did you ever get such sharp shots with your 70-200 2.8LII, or do you think she used extra post-processing?
https://www.facebook.c​om/sanbiancophotograph​y/ (external link)

Lots and lots of editing to get that look. It's not the lens, at all.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EightEleven
Car enthusiast and an all around nice guy
1,676 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 143
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Northeast Georgia
     
Jun 22, 2016 11:40 |  #6

I have the 6D and 70-200 ii.. I found that I was not getting the sharpness I knew was possible. I micro adjusted my 6D using the "Dot tune method". THere is a great 18minute video on youtube about doing this. It took some time to get in my head on what I was doing but once I understood it, its super simple!!
HUGE difference in my image quality!!!
I recommend trying it out!
Good luck!


Ron Snarski
flickr (external link)
C&C always welcome!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 535
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by absplastic.
     
Jun 22, 2016 13:00 |  #7

Lens sharpness (resolving power) doesn't really factor in that much when a photo is shrunk down for presentation on the web. Even slightly motion-blurred or focus-missed shots can look sharp when downsampled from 20+ MP originals to 1MP web jpegs with sharpening. I think there is some other quality or combination of qualities about this photo that are making them stand out to you, which likely have nothing to do with the lens's sharpness. Contrast and the difference in level of detail between in and out of focus areas also affect image quality in ways that people perceive and refer to as "sharpness".


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I like a long knob
Avatar
6,727 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Likes: 5245
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 22, 2016 18:00 |  #8

absplastic wrote in post #18047063 (external link)
Lens sharpness (resolving power) doesn't really factor in that much when a photo is shrunk down for presentation on the web. Even slightly motion-blurred or focus-missed shots can look sharp when downsampled from 20+ MP originals to 1MP web jpegs with sharpening. I think there is some other quality or combination of qualities about this photo that are making them stand out to you, which likely have nothing to do with the lens's sharpness. Contrast and the difference in level of detail between in and out of focus areas also affect image quality in ways that people perceive and refer to as "sharpness".

Agree that other factors than lens sharpness can result in an image appearing sharp.
While still significantly reduced in size, the image of the girl with her arm on the rock is 2048 x 1463 pixels which does allow a pretty good assessment.
https://web.facebook.c​om …469927427/?type​=3&theater (external link)


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,231 posts
Gallery: 136 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 516
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Jun 22, 2016 22:15 |  #9

To my limited knowledge, the only real quantitative assessment of sharpness (at least at a practical, consumer level) is done through a program called Focal. I forget that actual term they use, but the software actually assigns a value to the sharpness of a target image.

In real life, sharpness is completely subjective. Some of her images look razor sharp because of the shallow DOF and the resulting RELATIVE sharpness of the eyes/face in comparison to the strong surrounding bokeh. My guess is that the models eyes in an f/2.8 shot would appear significantly sharper than an f/5.6 shot, but a program like Focal would actually identify the eyes of the f/5.6 shot to be significantly sharper from a quantitative standpoint since most lens are sharper stopped down than they are wide open.

As a side note, I think the engineering has reached a point where almost all modern lenses are "sharp enough" when viewing digital or printed images at common sizes.


---------------
5D4, 5D3, Sony ZV-1, Panasonic Lumix FX7, Nikon L35AF, Minolta SRT-102
35Art, 50 f1.8 STM, EF 85 f1.8, EF 16-35L f4, EF 100-400L II
My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 535
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jun 23, 2016 02:51 |  #10

Choderboy wrote in post #18047306 (external link)
Agree that other factors than lens sharpness can result in an image appearing sharp.
While still significantly reduced in size, the image of the girl with her arm on the rock is 2048 x 1463 pixels which does allow a pretty good assessment.

I think it's enough resolution to see that the shot was acceptably in focus, but not anywhere near enough for any meaningful assessment of the capability or sharpness of the lens. 2048x1463 is about a 3 megapixel image, which even Canon's worst quality lenses (e.g. 75-300 models) can out-resolve by a factor of 2 or more. One does not need a 70-200mm f/2.8 mk II to make a perfectly sharp 3MP image.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,583 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6539
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jun 23, 2016 02:59 |  #11

You can get these results even with the 70-200 2.8 is 1 IMO. There's a lot of processing in these shots. then lens makes life easier, but it's the processing that makes these stand out.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,723 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Jun 23, 2016 22:22 |  #12

Sometimes you just get lucky.
I don't do a ton of post possessing, but on occasion a photo will seem extremely sharp.
I shoot with nice equipment and have high expectations. My skill is the biggest limiting factor. :rolleyes:


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thijs
Member
128 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 93
Joined Aug 2013
     
Jun 25, 2016 13:09 |  #13

Could be the way the photographer uploads the pictures to Facebook as well...

Facebook does some pretty heavy compression on JPEG's, but not on PNG's.


www.thijsvanluijk.nl (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,380 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3278
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 28, 2016 11:25 |  #14

Choderboy wrote in post #18047306 (external link)
Agree that other factors than lens sharpness can result in an image appearing sharp.
While still significantly reduced in size, the image of the girl with her arm on the rock is 2048 x 1463 pixels which does allow a pretty good assessment.
https://web.facebook.c​om …469927427/?type​=3&theater (external link)

the only size i see for that photo is 960X685...

i don't think you can really use facebook images to judge how sharp a lens is...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I like a long knob
Avatar
6,727 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Likes: 5245
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 29, 2016 07:21 |  #15

DreDaze wrote in post #18052348 (external link)
the only size i see for that photo is 960X685...

i don't think you can really use facebook images to judge how sharp a lens is...

2048x1463.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,725 views & 1 like for this thread
70-200 2.8LII extreme sharp shots or special pp ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is maharaj.2000
654 guests, 195 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.