cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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

iphonemaster93
Rising Star

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!   

68 REPLIES 68


@amfoto1 wrote:

@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 


 

Yeah I figured as much after looking around. If $650 is the lowest for a 70-200 EF lens then I might as well haha, that's why I'm not purchasing the lens that ebiggs recommended yet, my priority is the long telescopic one for race track use as a spectator and occasional drone flying at a car show LOL

"As obsessed as you are with sharpness and IQ, you should get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM"

 

I totally agree with this.  Plus it is the only one that is $650 bucks.  New anyway.  Except it is the least sharp of the three 70-200mm mentioned.  Scoring 15 P-Mpix.

But you should never consider one spec of a lens.  They are a sum of their specs since you can't cull one out and ignor the others.  Always go with a real Canon EF lens unless there is no option in EF lenses or a specific need dictates it.

 

Disclaimer:

I must admit I am using DXO measurements and I generally do not like DXO and I don't recommend people to use them.  But this is a simple comparison of precieved mega-pixels on target. I assume we can trust DXO to have measured each the same way.  But it doesn not actually tell the whole story.

EB
EOS 1D, EOS 1D MK IIn, EOS 1D MK III, EOS 1Ds MK III, EOS 1D MK IV and EOS 1DX and many lenses.

haha i just want something that's just as sharp or sharper than the 17-55 that I have and can reach a further distance. Bringing my 17-55 to mazda raceway laguna seca this past weekend to shoot some of the races was a very difficult job, even standing right by the fence on some of the turns was too far from the race cars themselves XD.

"... something that's just as sharp or sharper than the 17-55 that I have and can reach a further ..."

 

And the EF 70-200mm f4 non-IS delivers on both of those goals. Smiley Happy  It is nearly twice as sharp as your lens.

(9 P-Mpix vs 15 P-Mpix)

(55mm x 1.6 = 88mm vs 200mm x 1.6 = 320mm)

 

Remember to stay away from f4 and f22 (f5.6 to f11 is likely the best area).  Try to keep the ISO as close to 100 as possible.

 

EB
EOS 1D, EOS 1D MK IIn, EOS 1D MK III, EOS 1Ds MK III, EOS 1D MK IV and EOS 1DX and many lenses.


@iphonemaster93 wrote:

haha i just want something that's just as sharp or sharper than the 17-55 that I have and can reach a further distance. Bringing my 17-55 to mazda raceway laguna seca this past weekend to shoot some of the races was a very difficult job, even standing right by the fence on some of the turns was too far from the race cars themselves XD.


Yeah, 17-55mm doesn't work real well at the race track, except maybe in the pits.

 

70-200 would help, but may not be enough for some things, either.

 

These are Turn 2 at Laguna Seca, 50D camera (APS-C, same as 7D/7DII), with 300mm f4L...

914Ks in turn 2

 

And using 300mm f4L + 1.4X teleconverter (effective 420mm)...

GT40 in turn 2

 

It's different off the track, when you can get in and work closer.

 

12-24mm lens at 12mm...

Daytona in the paddock

 

12-24mm lens at 17mm...

Roush GT40

 

 

135mm lens...

956 in the paddock

 

28mm lens...

Out standing in the field

 

***********


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 


@amfoto1 wrote:

@iphonemaster93 wrote:

haha i just want something that's just as sharp or sharper than the 17-55 that I have and can reach a further distance. Bringing my 17-55 to mazda raceway laguna seca this past weekend to shoot some of the races was a very difficult job, even standing right by the fence on some of the turns was too far from the race cars themselves XD.


Yeah, 17-55mm doesn't work real well, except in the pits.

 

70-200 may not be enough, either.

 

These are Turn 2 at Laguna Seca, 50D camera (APS-C, same as 7D/7DII), with 300mm f4L...

914Ks in turn 2

 

And using 300mm f4L + 1.4X teleconverter (effective 420mm)...

GT40 in turn 2


dang seriously? O_o well I was thinking I could use the 70-200 F.4 for cars and coffee/cars and croissants as well, however I'm not sure how well the 70mm with F4 will work out in comparison to the 17-55 2.8 I already have. The 17-55 does really well at close range so even though the sigma 1.4 is $200 more than the 70-200 F.4, I'm stuck on which one to get haha. I'll get both eventually but only one first.

 

Where were you standing though? I was on the center island watching turn two leading to turn three and on the bridge watching turn four.


iphonemaster93 wrote: 

Where were you standing though? I was on the center island watching turn two leading to turn three and on the bridge watching turn four.


For those long lens shots I was just outside the safety fence, shooting through one of the lens openings about halfway in between Turn 2 and Turn 3. There were one or two openings in the fence a little closer to the corner, but they didn't have as good angle on it. I didn't have a press pass to go on the other side of the safety fence.

 

The bridge was too crowded to shoot from...

They are among us

 

I did get some wider shots OF the bridge...

LG bridge

 

I was really glad I left my 500mm at home...

Big lens

 

***********


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 

holy crap you have awesome examples. I don't have the money to get all different sorts of lenses yet Smiley LOL only a few at the moment, purchased over the last year. Since I won't be going to laguna seca that much, I'm leaning more towards the sigma 35mm 1.4. The only time when I will possibly use the 70-200 will be when I'm capturing a car from far away at cars and croissants/coffee events or doing rolling shots, but I haven't tried doing rolling shots with a wide angle lens yet as I know a lot of people use wide angle for those.

Never been there or done that but if I were to go I would take my 1D Mk IV with the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.  Along with it I would take my 1Ds Mk III with the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 USM.

EB
EOS 1D, EOS 1D MK IIn, EOS 1D MK III, EOS 1Ds MK III, EOS 1D MK IV and EOS 1DX and many lenses.


@ebiggs1 wrote:

Never been there or done that but if I were to go I would take my 1D Mk IV with the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.  Along with it I would take my 1Ds Mk III with the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 USM.


I don't have any of those LOOOL Robot Sad I'm actually really leaning towards getting the sigma, since I honestly really don't know when I'll be at Laguna Seca next time.

Announcements