how to do MFA? - EOS 7D Mark II pictures coming out dull

[iphonemaster93]

Hi guys

So after a few weeks of owning the 7DMKII, I realize that even when I manually focus my shots (I don't use a tripod and I do automotive photography), If I zoom in to the maximum in Lightroom, the photo is still dull (on the lowest ISO at 1/320 as I realize that 1/320 is when the photos are 'sharpest'). Is this because the lens that I'm using isn't calibrated to the camera (using a 17-55 2.8) or is it because I'm just shooting wrong? I've tried both manual focus and the different AF zones, all of them, when zoomed in on LR, are dull. Thanks!   

[iphonemaster93]

hoping I did it correctly XD

[ebiggs1]

Yes that is a pretty good sample.  It tells me your equipment is working as well as expected.  You are still doing an exposure compensation of +1 2/3rd?  Why?

Despite what other comments made about your lens this is probably as good as it gets with that lens.  On your camera it scores a 9 P-Mpix on sharpness. Overall at a 16.

Compared to a EF 35mm f2 which has 12 P-Mpix (overal at 25)  with your camera.  (Your shot was at 35mm)

This is your photo sample with just lens correction applied in LR.  No aditional sharpening applied.

It does appear that it is sharper with lens correction.  Agree?

[iphonemaster93]

my exposure was at + 1 2/3 because I was doing portrait photography in aperture priority mode last week and I forgot about that, so I didn't realize that until I took the camera out again later last night to the mall and started shooting, that my exposure was up that high. So would the sharpest be at 35mm, shooting at above 1/125 with 5.6 at ISO100? (Probably going to start taking two different photos, one with aperture wider than 5.6 and another one at 5.6 for both a shallow depth of field image as well as a sharp image). Yes it definitely is a little sharper. 

[ebiggs1]

OK, first no lens is at its best at either extreme.  f2.8 it is not going to be as sharp as f4 for instance.  Conversely f22 will not be as sharp as f8.  Now these are just rough figures for comparison because all lenses ae different. However, I would guess your lens is sharper at 35mm than it is at 17mm for example.

The SS, 1/125, in its self is no more sharper than any other.  Given certain limitations such as more camera  movement at the slower speeds for instance.

ISO 100 will be sharper that any other as a general rule.  My favorite lens in this range is the EF 24-70mm f2.8.  It scores a pretty good 16 P-Mpix and overall of 26.  But I doubt it can do that at f2.8!  Now if you are really into wanting sharp photos the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lens is King.  At 23 P-Mpix and an overall of 39. But there again not at f1.4.

Is this helping you understand lens and sharpness?  For the sharpest results stay in the middle of your lens and ISO of 100.

Use a SS that reduces any camera shake or movement.  Focus carefully on the thing you want most in focus and sharp. Always use Lens Correction in LR.

[iphonemaster93]

Ah ok gotcha, so I basically have to stay at the lowest ISO possible but in terms of aperture and shutter speed, it's all just basically playing around and taking several different shots at different settings. I will take the Sigma 35mm into future consideration as I'm currently looking for a long telephoto lens at the moment. A buddy recommended me the 70-200 4.5-5.6 (I think if I remember correctly?) as that's $200 cheaper than the Sigma.

[ebiggs1]

"A buddy recommended me the 70-200 4.5-5.6 ..."

I have no idea what lens that is.  So I can not comment on it.  If you want the sharpest 70-200mm, than the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II is it.  It is not cheap.  In second place is the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 A009 at about half the cost of the Canon.  Less build quality with slightly less IQ, as the Canon rules the 70-200mm market.

[iphonemaster93]

Sorry LOL I meant 2.8 XD. I was going to go with the $650 as currently I can't afford any one of the models that are over $1000. 

[ebiggs1]

OK I am throughly confused. I hope it fits your requirement. 

[amfoto1]

---

@iphonemaster93 wrote:

Sorry LOL I meant 2.8 XD. I was going to go with the $650 as currently I can't afford any one of the models that are over $1000. 

---

As obsessed as you are with sharpness and IQ, you should get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM. It's got a fluorite element (as do the f4 IS and the f2.8 IS Mark II), helping to make it one of the sharpest. It's also likely to be the only one within your budget... you simply won't find any other Canon 70-200mm for $650 or less.

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & EXPOSUREMANAGER 

[iphonemaster93]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

OK I am throughly confused. I hope it fits your requirement. 

---

I was going to go with this one: 70-200 F/4L USM