70-300 L and a beautiful girl..

Started Nov 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,571Gear list
Like?
Re: 70-300 L and a beautiful girl..
In reply to Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee, Dec 2, 2012

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

joger wrote:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

..and having eaten it, halts maul!

Sony nex much poohooed standard zoom.

So you compare 48 mm focal length and f/5.0 on a crop sensor in a controlled environment with 300 mm on FF at f/2.8 in the field with a completely arbitrary situation?

Let's do the math - distance to the subject in your case is probably 1.2 m (further away would make it easier) - so let's take the more challenging approach) - the DOF calculator gives me 120 mm DOF.

In my situation the distance was probably 4 m at f/2.8 I get 20 mm DOF - your initial images has roughly the same metrics - maybe 5 to 6 m which should give you 100 mm DOF with the given geometry on your 1D IV - so it should be everything tack sharp in focus - right?

Yet it is not and it looks mushy and low contrast too - might be a conservative post processing though - but let me post an image in dim and shadowed condition to proof that the appropriate craftsmanship can also work in these conditions even at ISO 800:

ISO 800 shot with 300 f/2.8 II handheld from some 5 m distance

detail of the above image (100% crop without further sharpening compare to the above image)

I have to admit that the ultimate sharpness is sometimes not the way to go for female faces - since you emphasize the things we would rather like to hide - BUT you can still do work on critical parts of the image and make them unsharp if you like - what you can't do is getting more sharpness where it has not been before.

On your utterly rude and inadequate comment I'd just like to answer with a sentence of 'A fish called Wanda': "At least we're not irretrievably vulgar"

I've tried to be nice and talk about the technical aspects rather then the content of the image you posted.

For me the budget tele zooms are good for occasional walk around work but neither the 70-300 nor the 120-300 are anywhere near to a good primes and if you can live with the shortcomings it saves some kg of your equipment - but you're more a gear collector then photographer - right

another story is the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM which is just gorgeous even at f/4.0 at 200 mm - this is the only "budget-zoom" I'd buy - and actually i own it - it's fantastic - almost on par with my 300 f/2.8 II - which says a lot

70-200 L IS USM f/4.0 at 185 mm wide open - handheld in a crowd of "wrestling" photographers

-- hide signature --

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow