how to do MFA?

[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!   

[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. 

[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

[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]

---

@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

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[iphonemaster93]

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.