Bird looks a little off

[RScottie]

I took the picture below with my Canon EOS Rebel T7 and my 75-300mm kit lens. I had the camera set on auto and used manual focus.

To me, his white feathers appear to "glow". What would be the cause of this?

I would like to add that I took this on a moving boat on the river and the lens has no stabilization.

Here is the full image.

 

[KJ_North]

Over exposed me thinks.

 

[PhotoHobbyist]

The glow looks like purple fringing to me. That is a flaw in a lens called chromatic aberration.
Photo editing software maybe able repair it. Getting a better lens would be the best solution.

I think that 75-300mm Canon lens gets poor reviews by Christopher Frost on youtube.
Frost gave high marks for the newer Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM "nano" Zoom Lens. This lens has a little LCD window on the side. Pricey as a used one Is roughly $400.

The Canon 55-250mm STM lens is highly regarded and only costs $100 for a used one.
Be sure to get the STM version as earlier versions were mediocre in reviews.
If it doesn't state STM on the front of the lens then it is not an STM.

 

[smoke665]

As noted above, this particular lens is known to exhibit excessive chromatic aberration, especially at longer focal lengths and wider apertures. This manifests as color fringing, often purple or green, along high-contrast edges in images. While stopping down the aperture can reduce the effect, it can also lead to a need for higher ISO or slower shutter speeds, potentially impacting image sharpness and creating motion blur. If you have it saved as a raw file, LR can likely clean it up, but ultimately you should look at replacement.

A quick look at the histogram indicated a full exposure with no clipping, and surprisingly sharp focus for manual.

 

[RScottie]

As noted above, this particular lens is known to exhibit excessive chromatic aberration, especially at longer focal lengths and wider apertures. This manifests as color fringing, often purple or green, along high-contrast edges in images. While stopping down the aperture can reduce the effect, it can also lead to a need for higher ISO or slower shutter speeds, potentially impacting image sharpness and creating motion blur. If you have it saved as a raw file, LR can likely clean it up, but ultimately you should look at replacement.

A quick look at the histogram indicated a full exposure with no clipping, and surprisingly sharp focus for manual.

I've only shot manual focus my entire life.

I was hoping this was simple over-exposure because the sand, IMHO, along with his white "mane", seems to be too bright. I was thinking that the auto-exposure saw too much of the dark riverbank behind the bird and tried to balance for that dark area making the white and sand areas too bright.

Back in my manual days, I would have metered both the back ground and the sand and picked a stop in the middle, which likely would have been a couple or three stops from what the camera chose. I wish I still had the light meter the school got for me. It would come in handy!

My goal was to figure this lens out and how to get good pictures out of it. I'm not done trying!

 

[smoke665]

@RScottie according to the histogram it isn't overexposed. In studio I'm on full manual with a light meter, but outside unless the shot requires it I'm on auto focus and one of the priority modes (AV, TV) and adjusting with the EC. Today's cameras are so much faster at adapting to changing light than you can by metering and setting your exposure manually.

I took the image into LR it cleaned it a little, but without the raw file, it wouldn't do much. Even with the raw, there's a lot of chromatic aberration, so it's doubtful that you could fix it all. As to learning how to get a good shot with the lens, I'm afraid you're facing an uphill battle, with not much hope of success. I was surprised at how much negative information on the lens was out there when I Googled it. You might try backing off to 150-200mm as sometimes they're better in the middle, trying a smaller aperture, using a lens hood, avoiding scenes with high contrast edges, and only saving RAW, but the problem is the design/coating of the lens, and there's no fix for that.

 

[RScottie]

@RScottie according to the histogram it isn't overexposed. In studio I'm on full manual with a light meter, but outside unless the shot requires it I'm on auto focus and one of the priority modes (AV, TV) and adjusting with the EC. Today's cameras are so much faster at adapting to changing light than you can by metering and setting your exposure manually.

I took the image into LR it cleaned it a little, but without the raw file, it wouldn't do much. Even with the raw, there's a lot of chromatic aberration, so it's doubtful that you could fix it all. As to learning how to get a good shot with the lens, I'm afraid you're facing an uphill battle, with not much hope of success. I was surprised at how much negative information on the lens was out there when I Googled it. You might try backing off to 150-200mm as sometimes they're better in the middle, trying a smaller aperture, using a lens hood, avoiding scenes with high contrast edges, and only saving RAW, but the problem is the design/coating of the lens, and there's no fix for that.

I have not been shooting raw as I have no editing software, other than the viewer that comes with Windows that I have only used to crop JPeg images. I was thinking it would be best to learn to do everything I can with the camera before I get any good software as I do not want my knowing I can always edit making me lazy and forsake learning to do it the best I can first.

That lens came with my Camera so it's what I have now.

I have been looking at others but am thinking I do not wish to invest in really expensive lenses because I will likely upgrade the Camera body itself and probably to a full-frame...eventually.

There is the Canon EF-s 55-250 that seems to get decent reviews. I have also been looking at some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

 

[smoke665]

I was thinking it would be best to learn to do everything I can with the camera before I get any good software as I do not want my knowing I can always edit making me lazy and forsake learning to do it the best I can first.

Here's the progression for those who get into editing. Wow this is so cool, I can do this....and this.....and this....and this....and this. But after awhile you realize you've been spending hours at a computer fixing stupid S***T that you wouldn't have to if you had a good SOOC.

That lens came with my Camera so it's what I have now.

I have been looking at others but am thinking I do not wish to invest in really expensive lenses because I will likely upgrade the Camera body itself and probably to a full-frame...eventually.

Whoa Nellie.....the T7 is a solid entry level camera with a 24.1mp sensor that has the capability of delivering a lot higher IQ than I suspect you're currently capable of asking of it. I understand the money thing, been there, done that, it's taken me over 50 years to accumulate my gear. I've made mistakes along the way, but the one thing I've learned, the camera body records, but the glass makes the image. Price doesn't necessarily mean something is better, I've accumulated lenses that cost in the thousands, and they get a lot of use, but one of my favorites is 135mm that I found in a thrift store for $35. The lens is sharp as a tack, can have some CA under certain conditions, but when the image gods smile on me, it produces a dreamy almost film quality, unequaled in my more modern glass. Rather than upgrade your body just yet I suggest looking at the used market, you can pickup a "nifty 50" EF50mm f/1.8 STM for less than $100 used, longer focal length primes used will be bumping $300, and a zoom goes up from there. Look at some the off brand models they may be full manual but they can be solid performers. If you decide to upgrade glass, do your research, read the reviews on it, otherwise you'll end up back where you started. Before you do anything try the steps I suggested above on your existing lens.

​

 

[PhotoHobbyist]

I have been looking at others but am thinking I do not wish to invest in really expensive lenses because I will likely upgrade the Camera body itself and probably to a full-frame...eventually.

There is the Canon EF-s 55-250 that seems to get decent reviews. I have also been looking at some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

I read somewhere," You date your camera body, but you marry your lenses. ". The body is far less important than the lens. Your T7 can't be improved much as it is a 24meg with latest processor. The lens are the key to good pics, and they don't have to be expensive. My sharpest lens is a prime Canon EF 50mm macro that is 35 years old that I got for $50. The Canon EFS 55-250mm STM is $100 used. Frost highly recommends the Sigma Zoom 17-50mm 1:2.8 EX DC OS HSM which is about $200 used. Beware that this Sigma lens is fragile though.

Christopher Frost's lens reviews on Youtube was my main source for learning what lenses are good or bad. If you watch his reviews you will become knowledgeable on what to buy. Learn about quality lens that interest you, then patiently wait for a good deal to show up on ebay, Goodwill online, or Facebook Marketplace.

Good luck and have fun!