Are you happy with your Canon 70-200mm f4 L ?

[Witness]

act...i could tell too...neatimage??

her face looks overly smooth and patchy....no pun intended, but honestly speaking it makes her look a tad "scary"

juz my 2 cts worth

cheers

 

[knneo]

Can't tell.

On my home desktop with 19" Sony CRT, the picture looks perfect. But on my 14.1" Laptop screen, I can see some differents on the shoulder.

 

[NE clicks clicks]

Oh my, the more I read posting on this thread, the more I view the lovely pic taken by Canonized, the more I wanted this lens.:heart: Its seems to me the 70-200 mm f/4L bug is getting to me fast and furious. Hope I can lay my hands on one by mid yaer and not end of the year.;p

Not to forget, A big thanks for sharing those wonderful pic of yours, Canonized:thumbsup:

 

[knneo]

Oh my, the more I read posting on this thread, the more I view the lovely pic taken by Canonized, the more I wanted this lens.:heart: Its seems to me the 70-200 mm f/4L bug is getting to me fast and furious. Hope I can lay my hands on one by mid yaer and not end of the year.;p

Not to forget, A big thanks for sharing those wonderful pic of yours, Canonized:thumbsup:

Don't need to wait. There's alot of pple selling out their mint copy of the 70-200 f/4L in the B&S section. Great price, I must say.

 

[donkuok]

Don't need to wait. There's alot of pple selling out their mint copy of the 70-200 f/4L in the B&S section. Great price, I must say.

hey..you finally bought the 2nd hand set. Congrats!

 

[knneo]

hey..you finally bought the 2nd hand set. Congrats!

OT:

Yap, bought it after much consideration. Hopes it does the job on the dance performance.

 

[solarii]

act...i could tell too...neatimage??

her face looks overly smooth and patchy....no pun intended, but honestly speaking it makes her look a tad "scary"

juz my 2 cts worth

cheers

Hmmm I don't think its noise reduction. The photo was taken in broad daylight so why would he need to use high ISO? Image noise for these kinda shots should be minimal.

I feel the patchy appearance is due to poor use of photoshop cloning/heal tools. Caucasians are quite prone to blemished/freckled skin (unless they cover it with makeup), so I guess he was a little too heavy handed with the edits. End result looks like you ran a median filter over the image and masked over it.

Also, noise reduction routines do not degrade image quality in the manner seen. The "damage" you see was done by manual applications by hand, rather than a filter. (Though he may have used a filter, I feel the most damage was actually done by hand... can see the applications of the healing/cloning brush)

 

[Zack]

End result looks like you ran a median filter over the image and masked over it.

Totally agree! The result looks a lot like applying a median filter!

 

[thw]

Personally, I think for a dance performance, an f/2.8 lens is more suitable. Oh well...

 

[Danntbt]

....would be more helpful if samples shown are untouched....othrewise images posted are irrelevant to discussion.....

 

[Castlesinthesky]

Hmmm I don't think its noise reduction. The photo was taken in broad daylight so why would he need to use high ISO? Image noise for these kinda shots should be minimal.

I feel the patchy appearance is due to poor use of photoshop cloning/heal tools. Caucasians are quite prone to blemished/freckled skin (unless they cover it with makeup), so I guess he was a little too heavy handed with the edits. End result looks like you ran a median filter over the image and masked over it.

Also, noise reduction routines do not degrade image quality in the manner seen. The "damage" you see was done by manual applications by hand, rather than a filter. (Though he may have used a filter, I feel the most damage was actually done by hand... can see the applications of the healing/cloning brush)

well, it doesn't mean you use noise reduction SW specifically for high ISO. Image reduction sw does EXACTLY that, just look at the shadow areas, totally smoothed out and no signs of noise whatsoever. You give me an image at ANY ISO level and i can make it exactly like the portraits shown. Have you even tried it?

 

[solarii]

well, it doesn't mean you use noise reduction SW specifically for high ISO. Image reduction sw does EXACTLY that, just look at the shadow areas, totally smoothed out and no signs of noise whatsoever. You give me an image at ANY ISO level and i can make it exactly like the portraits shown. Have you even tried it?

My beef is with the cloning/heal work he did on the face which is blotchy. Noise reduction may have contributed to the look but it'd be pretty unusual to apply it at such a high level since there are much better ways to smooth an image out.

Relax dude, you've made yr point. No need to get so personal. Your last statements are virtually challenges. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. If you feel strongly against some of the views feel free to say otherwise, as you have done in the first 2 sentences of yr post. Openly challenging and belittling another's abilities (no matter how gd you may be) isn't in the right spirit.

 

[Castlesinthesky]

My beef is with the cloning/heal work he did on the face which is blotchy. Noise reduction may have contributed to the look but it'd be pretty silly to apply it at such a high level since there are much better ways to smooth an image out.

Relax dude, you've made yr point. No need to get so personal. Your last statements are virtually challenges. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions.

Urm, that's a challenge? I was merely offering demonstrations and pointing out the truth. Clone/healing tools do not "destroy" the entire texture of the picture. It wouldn't even take me 2 minutes to do the entire image just using neat image or noise ninja right now. Like you said dude, everyone's entitled to their own opinions and i offer mine along with a demonstration.

 

[user111]

nice lens but f4 is slow

 

[Discreet]

I would recommend it as a long zoom if you need one. Check out how I used it for shooting portraits of animals:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/258889/thread/1140857618/

Even at f4 it is sharp and at f8 super sharp. Useless indoors? Well get a good strong flash and learn how to bounce off ceilings and you can do very well with it. BTW its a myth that the f2.8 is better indoor portraits. Portrait subjects sit still so at f4 you can still work well and shoot with flash and at ISO800 at 1/60s and f4. ONLY for sporting or moving subjects do you really need f2.8 or faster. Even then the f2.8 can manage a marginal benefit.

I would beg to differ here. For portraits, nothing beats having a bigger aperture. People including myself have paid $$$ just for extra stop so we can get better bokeh and less DOF. Granted that not all portraits have to be the super thin DOF, a f2.8 lens simply makes the background less distracting too and make the model pop up more too.

Also, you say you are shooting at ISO 800, 1/60s @ f4. Can you even handhold at such a speed? are you using a monopod? If the flash is main souce of light, shutter speed is irrelevant and you will be better off shooting at 1/125 or faster, because 1) there is the slight chance of blurring at lower shutter speeds 2) you dont want to mix flash and ambient light color temperture. With a faster shutter speed, you will have less light mixing in with the flash output.

You also say that f2.8 provides a marginal benefit for sporting and moving subjects which i disagree. When you shoot sports, there is a very very distinct difference shooting between 1/125s and 1/250s or 1/500s and 1/1000s. While motion blurred shots are pretty cool, the bread and butter is still action stopping tack sharp photos and there is no such thing as not having enough shutter speed. There is a reason why people pay more than 10K for a 400/2.8.

All i am saying is that for what you are shooting , the 70-200/4L suits your purpose and i cannot argue with it but for the f2.8 users out there, we have a need for the extra f stop and it is no way marginal as you imply. While some people just want a bigger lens or get the extra f stop for kicks, it does not in anyway undermines the overall usefulness of the f2.8. (I hate the weight of my 70-200/2.8 IS FWIW. I have a 200/2.8L for the light stuff)

 

[solarii]

Urm, that's a challenge? I was merely offering demonstrations and pointing out the truth. Clone/healing tools do not "destroy" the entire texture of the picture. It wouldn't even take me 2 minutes to do the entire image just using neat image or noise ninja right now. Like you said dude, everyone's entitled to their own opinions and i offer mine along with a demonstration.

No need for a demonstration. Your abilities, I do not doubt. Your arrogance, I take to heart.

 

[knneo]

nice lens but f4 is slow

Could very well be true, I wouldn't know as I don't own the F2.8L version. But then F2.8L is 2 x heavier thus making it tiring to hold for couple of hours to shot. (From product specification)

 

[n0d3]

Ok, the point is that the images whoever showed are not a very good example of the kind of photos the lens can produce due to obvious post processing (extensive cropping, smoothening/whatever), enough said.

 

[knneo]

Ok, the point is that the images whoever showed are not a very good example of the kind of photos the lens can produce due to obvious post processing (extensive cropping, smoothening/whatever), enough said.

I notice alot of Canon CS'ers do own a 70-200mm f4L, pls post the image taken with it. I'll try to post my tomorrow once I get the chance to test it.

Cheers and firm on.

 

[Discreet]

Personally, i think the picture posted are not very well done. I mean if you want show off this lens, you should show unprocessed picture and let the audience decide. While post processing does sweeten the picture abit, i think this picture is overprocessed and the jpeg compression is just terrible. Not to sound rude, but i agree with most people here that the healing brush/cloning tool was not applied correctly leading to a very unrefined look to the skin.