If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
My 2nd attempt at a mandrill in which I incorporated some of the
suggestions he The guy is the boss: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mamdro%3B%3B%202nd%20try.jpg In this image he looks friendlier. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mandrill3648.jpg -- PeterN |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On 2014-07-29 00:47:40 +0000, PeterN said:
My 2nd attempt at a mandrill in which I incorporated some of the suggestions he The guy is the boss: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mamdro%3B%3B%202nd%20try.jpg Much better! I see you went with the 70-200mm this time, good decision. You just couldn't resist the TC though. Bad decision! In this image he looks friendlier. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mandrill3648.jpg With this one you pushed the TC to its limit and the image has suffered with the very soft edges, even though you were at f/11 Just leave the TC at home and crop in post. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On 7/28/2014 10:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-29 00:47:40 +0000, PeterN said: My 2nd attempt at a mandrill in which I incorporated some of the suggestions he The guy is the boss: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mamdro%3B%3B%202nd%20try.jpg Much better! I see you went with the 70-200mm this time, good decision. You just couldn't resist the TC though. Bad decision! In this image he looks friendlier. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mandrill3648.jpg With this one you pushed the TC to its limit and the image has suffered with the very soft edges, even though you were at f/11 Strange, My exif shows 2.8. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Untitled-1.jpg I suspect what you see as soft was light scatter caused by my strobe: being to far from the glass; and I had accidentally left the diffuser on. I have been looking for a mounting bracket to fix the first issue. Just leave the TC at home and crop in post. -- PeterN |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On 2014-07-29 11:55:14 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/28/2014 10:00 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-07-29 00:47:40 +0000, PeterN said: My 2nd attempt at a mandrill in which I incorporated some of the suggestions he The guy is the boss: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mamdro%3B%3B%202nd%20try.jpg Much better! I see you went with the 70-200mm this time, good decision. You just couldn't resist the TC though. Bad decision! In this image he looks friendlier. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mandrill3648.jpg With this one you pushed the TC to its limit and the image has suffered with the very soft edges, even though you were at f/11 Strange, My exif shows 2.8. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Untitled-1.jpg That is the metadata ID for the lens "70-200mm f/2.8". That doesn't mean that evreything is going to be shot at f/2.8. It means the widest aperture for that lens is f/2.8 and it can maintain that maximum throughout the zoom range. The aperture you shot at was f/11. You shot with aperture priority https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_823.jpg I suspect what you see as soft was light scatter caused by my strobe: being to far from the glass; and I had accidentally left the diffuser on. I have been looking for a mounting bracket to fix the first issue. Perhaps. However, unnecessary elements added to an excellent lens makes better sense. Just because TCs exist doesn't mean they are a particularly good choice. they will always be a compromise, and there is never a free lunch with regard to IQ. Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8 lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8. So take my advice below. More is not always better. Just leave the TC at home and crop in post. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On 7/29/2014 10:13 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-29 11:55:14 +0000, PeterN said: On 7/28/2014 10:00 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-07-29 00:47:40 +0000, PeterN said: My 2nd attempt at a mandrill in which I incorporated some of the suggestions he The guy is the boss: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mamdro%3B%3B%202nd%20try.jpg Much better! I see you went with the 70-200mm this time, good decision. You just couldn't resist the TC though. Bad decision! In this image he looks friendlier. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mandrill3648.jpg With this one you pushed the TC to its limit and the image has suffered with the very soft edges, even though you were at f/11 Strange, My exif shows 2.8. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Untitled-1.jpg That is the metadata ID for the lens "70-200mm f/2.8". That doesn't mean that evreything is going to be shot at f/2.8. It means the widest aperture for that lens is f/2.8 and it can maintain that maximum throughout the zoom range. The aperture you shot at was f/11. You shot with aperture priority https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_823.jpg I suspect what you see as soft was light scatter caused by my strobe: being to far from the glass; and I had accidentally left the diffuser on. I have been looking for a mounting bracket to fix the first issue. Perhaps. However, unnecessary elements added to an excellent lens makes better sense. Just because TCs exist doesn't mean they are a particularly good choice. they will always be a compromise, and there is never a free lunch with regard to IQ. Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8 lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8. So take my advice below. More is not always better. I misread my exif file. Just leave the TC at home and crop in post. We do not agree on that issue. Just look at the smooth skin tone on this subject. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Thanksgiving%20escapee.jpg -- PeterN |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8 lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8. depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture while others just pass the lens data on through. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:
In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8 lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8. depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture while others just pass the lens data on through. When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7 at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on. Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him? Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my BS meter twitches. I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to compromising the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under some circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion not one of them. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:38:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to compromising the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under some circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion not one of them. Some months ago I read very good things of the TC20-III on the last two 70-200mm lens, with the warning that the TC2-20-II is a waste of money with those lenses. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said: In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8 lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8. depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture while others just pass the lens data on through. When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7 at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on. Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him? Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my BS meter twitches. The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a factor, especially with the TC 17. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to compromising the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under some circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion not one of them. -- PeterN |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
2nd try
On 7/29/2014 10:57 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:38:43 -0700, Savageduck wrote: I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to compromising the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under some circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion not one of them. Some months ago I read very good things of the TC20-III on the last two 70-200mm lens, with the warning that the TC2-20-II is a waste of money with those lenses. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it. Can't say. This shot was made using the TC17II. I have some reasonably sharp, cropped images, using that combination. This one from a canoe: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg Hand held: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140103_more%20birds%26%20test%20shots_3839.jpg -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|