First Shot with 70-200 F4-L

[rp1600]

Just looking for general critique on this photo, the first shot I took with my 70-200mm L. It's hard to imagine the difference in optic quality until you've shot with this thing. Anyway, thanks for looking.
Ron.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

It's a good shot, but it's impossible to see the quality with a resized image.

 

[mattman3680]

switch... if the resizing takes much of the quality out then how can you make the pic with original quality but smaller?

Thanks,

Matt

 

[miltphoto]

I have the same lens, look at the colors, they are very good and sharp. I think cannons L lens are the best I also have a 24-70L.:hail:

 

[Alex_B]

switch... if the resizing takes much of the quality out then how can you make the pic with original quality but smaller?

Thanks,

Matt

you cannot. simple answer

actually resizing does not reduce "the quality" of the picture, but it makes it impossible to judge the resolution and sharpness of the lens.
If you want to technically demonstrate the latter, post the image resized, and in addition post a crop of a small area of the image, which you do not resize but give in full resolution. Would be wise to chose an area which is in focus

 

[ashleysmithd]

It still gives a rough idea of the lens contrast.

I always go for contrast over resolution.

 

[LaFoto]

you cannot. simple answer

Dang!
Again this Alex was faster.

I was going to say the very same.

But if you want to give him a print (and he will appreciate one, I am sure) you will see how good your lens is, for even though this downsized version has lost some of its original quality, I can still appreciate the sharpness of the person, the blurriness of the background, the luminosity of the colours ... I can see all that.

But what was your ISO setting?
This photo looks noisy.
Nothing that NeatImage couldn't solve, though...

 

[Alex_B]

It still gives a rough idea of the lens contrast.

I always go for contrast over resolution.

but contrast you can push in post-processing, resolution not that easily though.

good glass often gives both though... fortunately.

 

[ashleysmithd]

but contrast you can push in post-processing, resolution not that easily though.

At the expense of more noise... (maybe I'm just paranoid but I hate doing any major post-grading now)

good glass often gives both though... fortunately.

Well I have no idea what the MTF ratings for sigma lenses are, but that looks like one contrasty image... unless it has had any post-grading (which would explain the noise) I'd probably go with it being a relatively low resolution lens. (in comparison)

But hey, I'm no pro.. so I may be mistaken somewhere here.

 

[MrMatthieu]

At the expense of more noise... (maybe I'm just paranoid but I hate doing any major post-grading now)


Well I have no idea what the MTF ratings for sigma lenses are, but that looks like one contrasty image... unless it has had any post-grading (which would explain the noise) I'd probably go with it being a relatively low resolution lens. (in comparison)

But hey, I'm no pro.. so I may be mistaken somewhere here.

Sorry I am completly amazed by all these comments which are really meaningless to me.

I have never see that resolution/contrast are some of the most critical parameter of the good quality lens ( I am not talking about USSR lens )

To my opinion what makes the quality of a lens is :

1/ The range
2/ The luminosity of the lens, 4 constant is really very very good
3/ The low distortion
4/ The low chromatic aberation

All the other parameters are not linked to lens but to digital sensor of the camera. Maybe I have wrong idea but that s my opinion

To come back to your picture even if it is croped and low resolution, a good picture remains a good picture. I can show you professionnal website where pictures of 100k look with very good quality, that s not the case in your picture and it is not due to the lens.

SO keep trying you will do better next time because you have a good lense no doubt about it.

Mat

 

[ashleysmithd]

Sorry I am completly amazed by all these comments which are really meaningless to me.

I have never see that resolution/contrast are some of the most critical parameter of the good quality lens ( I am not talking about USSR lens )

To my opinion what makes the quality of a lens is :

1/ The range
2/ The luminosity of the lens, 4 constant is really very very good
3/ The low distortion
4/ The low chromatic aberation

All the other parameters are not linked to lens but to digital sensor of the camera. Maybe I have wrong idea but that s my opinion

To come back to your picture even if it is croped and low resolution, a good picture remains a good picture. I can show you professionnal website where pictures of 100k look with very good quality, that s not the case in your picture and it is not due to the lens.

SO keep trying you will do better next time because you have a good lense no doubt about it.

Mat

Those are without a doubt key measurements of a lenses quality, but one factor that I'm interested in is it's resolution/contrast. The more the resolution, the more contrast, and vice versa. I go for contrast.

However the poor quality lenses don't have either.

For instance Zeiss have always gone for resolution. Cooke for contrast.

 

[Alex_B]

At the expense of more noise... (maybe I'm just paranoid but I hate doing any major post-grading now)

If you would display the image data as it comes from the sensor, that would always have very little contrast and look extremely flat. It is only in the RAW conversion process (done in camera or in external software) that you get the contrast you see in the image.

The variation in contrast which comes from having different lenses is not of the same order of magnitude as this contrast push which is done in RAW conversion, hence it does not really induce much more noise than already there.

Of course if you push it beyond limits it will become visible.

I might be biased here though, as I have a low-noise sensor anyway.

 

[Alex_B]

To my opinion what makes the quality of a lens is :

1/ The range

No, the "range" decides how useful and practical and versatile it is, but it does not belong to "quality" (if you refer to the focal range). My best quality lens is still a 50mm f/1.4

2/ The luminosity of the lens, 4 constant is really very very good

The maximum aperture tells you a lot, true. Often large aperture lenses are very sharp if stopped down just one stop, so this in a way also related to "resolution"/"sharpness".

f/4 as a max. ap. is certainly good, in fact many of my favourite lenses are constant f/4, but for some images I like to have a more shallow depth of field, or simply more light, and then I am happy to have my f/1.4 lens.

3/ The low distortion

Very important, in particular when it comes to architecture or abstract photography.

4/ The low chromatic aberation

Especially important in high contrast images.

And then I would add

5/ Sharpness / resolution. In particular I like to have the sharpness distributed evenly over the image, which it is usualy not. Corners tend to be more soft. This sometimes bothers me.

6/ All lenses which are acceptable for me with respect to 2-5 usually also have acceptable contrast for me personally.

Now, which of 2-6 are most important for you, mainly depends on what type of photogrpahy you are addicted to, and on what you want to use your images for afterwards, and it depends on where your personal emphasis lies with respect to perfection.

As for myself, 3 is very important for me... I hate a bent horizon or straight lines in modern architecture which become curves. None of my lenses really gives me what I would love to get in that respect

4 I usually correct in post processing if it becomes visible.

 

[Alex_B]

Anyway, coming back to that image and the lens.

I am sure it is a good lens and contrast is OK! Although we cannot judge it from this image perfectly.

The noise I suspect coming from raised ISO and not from increasing contrast in post processing.

The 4 L is very light and small for it's quality. which makes it a good carry-around lens.

I like the expression in the golfer's face, this concentration, and maybe a hint of content.
The crop is a bit tight for me, I would give it some more pixels on the left border, but not many.

 

[rp1600]

Image was shot at 400 iso which contributes to much of the noise, not to mention this is a much tighter crop from the original image.

thanks for all the input.