November 26, 2014, 12:28:59 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dafrank

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
16
Lighting / Re: Softbox Size question
« on: July 07, 2013, 02:18:31 PM »
Of course, this is one of those questions that are insoluble to those who are not actually living your own life. But, there are some rules of thumb to go by that might help you to understand diffuser (softbox light is diffused light) light sources.

Most people, even some photographers, mistakenly think that the softness (lower overall contrast, with lighter shadow values compared to harder lighting having comparable highlight values) comes from the evenness of the light source, such as light that is bounced off a large reflecting board or diffused through a medium such as translucent cloth, vellum or plastic. This is only about 1/4 right. The "softness" from these light sources is actually solely due to the overall size of the light emitting surface in relation to its distance from the subject. If a source is very uneven, with much brighter areas surrounded by those less illuminated, then the size of the source can mainly be measured by the part of the source which is most bright, like the light coming from an old fashioned photo flood fixture, and would actually measure as smaller overall than the size of the reflector. This is why the most efficient way of delivering soft lighting from a source of a certain measured area will usually be from an evenly illuminating source such as a softbox, light reflecting off a board or wall, or even a well made umbrella. But, the real data that counts is still how big the illuminating source is compared with the distance to the subject.

Understanding this should give you an idea how to calculate how big your softboxes should be to work for your subjects and your preconception of the quality of the light. If you cannot vary the distance from multiple illuminating sources to your subject by very much, then, in order to change the soft-hard quotient of the lighting from more than one softbox source, one would require different sized softboxes to accomplish the desired effect. Also, things such as overall space requirements, weight on - and position of - the lighthead (torque strain), portability, cost and many other factors might lead you to choose boxes of different sizes.

Think about what you may have to shoot and figure it out for yourself.

Regards, David

17
The Japanese Yen has fallen considerably in value in recent months. Japanese exports should therefore be much cheaper now for buyers, so why are Canon prices remaining so high? I'd love a new Canon 5D mk III but current MAP limitations are keeping prices high and stopping me from buying.

I have read many, but not all of the replies, so please forgive me if I repeat something someone else has already stated.

Unfortunately, you are thinking in ways that don't correspond to how businesses actually work. It is easy to do this because many of us tend to think of how we would behave - if we were perfectly selfless individuals acting on a one-to-one basis with a friend or relative - in setting prices on something or other ourselves. In this regard, corpporations, as well as individuals in business, who make and/or sell goods or services in the universal market environment in which we all conduct our financial transactions behave, at the most basic level, according to two principals: 1) they set their prices to maximize their income and profit, while always being careful not to set prices higher than would be the level to suppress demand, and 2) try not to churn the market by changing their prices too often or too rapidly, in order not to create ill will or confusion among their customer base and avoid pricing mistakes by basing their profit assumptions on too short a data sample.

Under the above realities, Canon has done two things: 1) when the value of the yen rose, it did not raise U.S. product prices as high or fast as the monetary valuations would suggest, and 2) when the value of the yen fell, it did not lower U.S. product prices as low or fast as the monetary valuations would suggest. And, if after testing the market for a period of time during which its competitors do not lower their prices and/or Canon's sales do not diminish or sales growth slow, they will probably take advantage of the period of lower yen evaluations to raise income and profit.

In short - no surprise here - the business world continues to operate under well known principles of supply and demand. "Fairness" in pricing is a principle that only exists in the minds of the naïve or schemes of various collectivist-minded "planners." The reality is that Canon will set its prices to maximize its income and profits, and only if the price levels they set punish them by reducing those two metrics, will they reduce their prices at all.

Regards,
David

18
Lenses / My wanted list -probably a little different
« on: May 14, 2013, 06:02:00 PM »
Since I shoot some different things than most, I'd like to have a few different lenses which not be found on most other peoples' radar:

135mm - 180mm TS-E f/4.0 with both great far field and very good close-up capabilities, plus 3 axis IS (dream on) for a long-ish product lens with nearly zero per cent color aberrations and killer sharpness out to the edge of the image circle. The 90mm doesn't cut it for very large objects (cars, cars, cars) at extreme oblique angles when trying to maintain a relatively "normal" size perspective between the near and far portions of the subject matter.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 50mm f2.0 L with IS.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 16-24mm f/2.8 L with IS.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 24-50mm f/2.8 L with IS.

Super high resolving, super high contrast 50-105mm f/2.8 L with IS.

Modestly priced 400mm f/4.5 L IS

In all of the above lenses, except the TS-E, my purpose for specifying them as I did, is to trade aperture or zoom ratio for better image quality, something I would prefer to have, especially in light of the (hopefully) very high resolution per image area sensor cameras coming pretty soon. Whether these cams use smaller pixels, true color pixels, pixel-shifting multiple exposure techniques or some other method to yield their higher image resolution, better lenses will make them all the more useful.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
David






19
Software & Accessories / Shame on you Adobe
« on: May 07, 2013, 09:08:01 PM »
I am a professional. I do treat all my business related purchases as business deductions, I own the Creative Suite Master Collection version CS6.0 and previously had Master Suite in version CS5.5 and CS5.0, and Design Premium in CS4, CS3, CS2 and the original CS, plus had Photoshop with multiple licences in almost every version before that going back to PS2.5, different versions of InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat and several other pieces of miscellaneous Adobe products. In other words, for a very small business, probably the backbone of Adobe profitability, I am the very customer Adobe should want to please. I am not a troglodyte, I am all for new forms of service and product delivery when it makes sense and adds value to the customer and his business. I HATE THIS SUBSCRIPTION MODEL, WILL RESIST IT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, SAW IT COMING A MILE AWAY, AND DO NOT VIEW THIS AS ANY SORT OF POSITIVE, NECESSARY OR INEVITABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR ADOBE'S CUSTOMERS.

The only value added by this is to Adobe's bottom line. I don't think profit is a dirty word. I don't begrudge Adobe their profit, and I would like to do whatever I can to raise my own business margins, but my experience has long proven to me that I can't do that by simply unilaterally raising prices, complicating the product delivery process, giving clients products that they didn't ask for, changing the terms of payment and asserting total control over what used to be up to the discretion of my clients. The profit that is best is that earned from pleasing your customers by offering great choices, not forcing them in an unequal power relationship, by offering your clients real product innovation and quality, real productivity gains, continuity of exceptional service, and just plain respect. Adobe has done none of this, but has unilaterally decided to try to impose a scheme to just force its customers into forking over more money, at their pleasure, on their schedule, for either no, or nearly no, added value to its customer base whatsoever.

Shame on you Adobe. This will not end well for you or your customers.

Regards,
David

20
Lenses / Yikes
« on: May 03, 2013, 03:00:36 PM »
Yikes; you've got a lot of questions and, obviously, very little knowledge about lighting and image making.

There is no "magic bullet" available to transform you into someone who can take excellent jewelry pictures, unless and until you take a lot of time, and invest some more money, in order to gain the experience and make the mistakes necessary to learn the craft of photography. Your gear is minimally adequate already. It's you that need s to learn. The suggestion to buy a book on lighting is excellent. Also, you may want to attend a workshop or take a class if either is available to you. In the alternative, there are a few concepts to understand which may help you to develop a better skill set through practice.

It is always helpful, when shooting any shiny reflective object - and jewelry is certainly one of these - to understand that such objects are exactly like mirrors; they reflect whatever is in their environment, according to a well understood principle of optical physics, the "law of reflection," that when a light ray strikes a reflective (flat) surface, then the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. Think of a perfectly constructed pool table: when you strike a billiard ball with your cue stick, rolling it towards a rail on the table, then, at whichever angle off the perpendicular that the ball travels to the rail, after striking the rail, it will bounce and then roll onwards at exactly that same angle, but in the inverse direction from the perpendicular. Hard to describe in words, but you get the picture. Similarly, your camera lens, at whatever angle it lies to the "flat" surface portion of your jewelry that you are trying to light, is literally viewing a "picture" of whatever lighting device, reflector or any other surface area, is reflected in that "flat" surface portion of the jewelry from the equal but inverse angle of the lens to jewelry surface angle. Since almost no jewelry is truly flat, and most reflect light from either a full 180 degrees of view or close to it,  you must take into consideration a very wide range of area to control the lighting.

Small, directional and "contrasty" lighting sources created with open face, spot and "pin" spot type fixtures, coming from several different directions, sometimes works best on multifaceted stones, where many small "hard" highlights better define their surface texture and dimensionality. Diffuse lighting spread out onto a very large surfaces placed relatively close to the jewelry produces larger "soft" highlights which best define flatter surfaces, such as watch faces and metal bands. Carefully combining both techniques when necessary yields a very good look, but great care must be taken to separate the different lighting schemes' effects in order to maximize the quality.

Care must be taken to control color, not only matching the proper white point for the light sources, but also the color of any reflecting or light diffusing surfaces, whether intended or accidental. One can also use "improper" color sometimes, as in reflecting gold surfaces onto gold jewelry show the jewelry color more effectively without also adversely affecting the background.

Last tilt-shifting lenses can be used to better control focus, to either appear to increase or decrease effective focus depth, and the somewhat onerous technique of focus stacking can be used as well. But, keep in mind that a narrow focus, limited depth-of-field look, when the focus itself is placed strategically, can sometimes be just as, or even more, effective than having everything all in focus all the time.

Regards,
David

21
Lenses / Re: Fair price for a used 85mm 1.2L II
« on: April 29, 2013, 02:04:40 PM »

"Well first, do not buy most of the stuff from the pro, as they abuse gear most. Having said that 85 1.2 is studio lens, may not have had hard life, so your call."

Hey, I'm a long-time pro, and I can tell you that I take better care of my gear than 95% of the amateurs I know, keep gear carefully stored in fitted cases and in moderate temperature and humidity conditions almost all the time - except, of course, when actually shooting. Even in the infrequent circumstances where I must shoot in less than good circumstances, I never abuse lenses or cameras in the "elements" and protect them from harsh environments by always being prepared to take adequate precautions. As far as dropping or knocking gear around, I have almost never done so, because I need to earn my livelihood with it and need to have it in perfect working order every time. On the extremely rare occasion when any gear of mine does get messed up (two lenses and one body in over 30 years working), I have it repaired by the best available means immediately, test it for myself, and would notify the seller if it had required repair in any subsequent sale. And, if some gear looked great but had an awful lot of use - much more than the looks would ordinarily indicate, I would also let potential buyers know that as well.

When I sell my used gear, if I say it is mint, it really is. To do or say otherwise is foolish, as it can easily be discovered if you are not being truthful. I would guess that the majority of pros are more like me than what you apparently imagine. I doubt very much that you have to worry that buying from a pro would be more risky than from an amateur, and, I think that it would likely, in fact, be a safer option than buying from most amateurs. Yes, there are some pros who beat the heck out of their gear and who are deceptive about its condition, but the same could be said about many amateurs as well. The best thing to do is to judge each case individually and know that the odds aren't against you finding gear as it is represented in a sale from a pro photographer.

Regards,
David

22
Lenses / My thoughts
« on: April 18, 2013, 05:30:10 PM »
In terms of image quality and out-of-focus rendering or (also?) “bokeh”, does one of these lenses have an edge for portraits and head shots at 100mm?

70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (8 rounded aperture blades)
100mm f/2.8L Macro IS (9 rounded aperture blades)

If there is no substantial/significant/notable/etc. difference between the two lenses at 100mm, I would be inclined to use the 100mm macro on a shoot because it is lighter.

However, if the 70-200mm lens (at 100mm) has some sort of appreciable advantage over the 100mm macro lens, then extra weight would be unimportant to me, and I would use the bigger lens.

From what I believe I have read elsewhere in Canon Rumors , but am unable to find exactly, is that the macro lens is not recommended generally for portraits (?), and that the 70-200mm is preferred, along with primes such as the 135mm f/2L or the 85mm f/1.2L.

Might anyone share thoughts or insight regarding this question?

Here are my thoughts: first, you should loosen up your perception of what a "portrait" lens is.

I have the 85mm f/1.2 lens, usually thought to be the near-perfect lens for portraits in the Canon lens lineup. It is wonderful, but I take a minority of my portrait assignments with this marvelous beast. One can take a great portrait with almost any lens, from ultra-wide (fisheye to 24mm) "environmental" portraits, to "normal" 35mm to 60mm lens "medium" shots, to super-tight, very long focal length portraits, with lenses up to even the 300-400 mm range. Think creatively. It's not that a 100mm lens would not produce extremely pleasing head and shoulder - and even tighter head-only shots; it's just that it would be preferable to have more focal length options, especially in the 70-200mm range which covers most of the best focal lengths for people shooting. That is why you should strongly consider the f/2.8 zoom, in addition to, or instead of the 100mm macro. It also affords you the cropping and perspective that you might prefer when you can't necessarily change the distance between you and your subject, all things for you to consider.

As to bokeh, well, as in all high contrast zooms like the great 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS II, bokeh is a little busy compared to many simpler single focal length lenses, but it is still very good compared to most zooms and is usually more than acceptable for narrow aperture portraiture. Significantly better bokeh than the zoom would require the 85mm f/1.2, the 135 f/2.0, the 200mm f/2.0, or, perhaps, yes, maybe (by a hair) the 100mm 2.8 macro.

Good luck finding what you want and using it for what you need.

Regards,
David

23
EOS Bodies / Adding info to plastic bag routine
« on: April 07, 2013, 11:56:12 AM »
Hey y'all! So next week I'll be shooting a tournament outdoors. It is likely it will rain but I still need to shoot. I'd be using my rebel XSi and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens. The latter is weatherproof -so I don't need to worry about covering my lens right? but I can't say the same for my rebel.

Any ideas on making a makeshift dslr rain cover?

I've quite frequently gone the plastic bag route and have never needed any commercial solution; it isn't elegant or pretty, won't allow you to appear very cool, but it just plain works.

Let me add a little more information about how to best do it. This may seem blindingly obvious, but always use a clear plastic bag, just barely big enough to contain your biggest useable lens and your hands inside the bag, with room for the bag to drape pretty far down past the bottom of the camera with your hands inside. The clear bag will allow you to see the controls and LCD display. Besides the hole for the lens, you can also create a smaller whole for the eyepiece and gaffer tape around it, and you may want to add a light UV filter to the lens and rubber band the bag to the end of the lens, over the filter, rather than at the base of the lens as has already been suggested; there's no sense tempting fate, even with a "water resistant" (not waterproof), lens in use like the 70-200.

That's about it, except to repeat the advice of others on bringing one or two backups for all the materials you use for this, in case of an unanticipated problem, and to bring a dry terrycloth towel stuffed inside your personal raingear to dry anything that does get wet. Plan ahead!

Regards,
David

24
Lenses / My answer
« on: March 27, 2013, 09:48:58 AM »
I too once had a 17-40 f/4.0 for a while, then bought the 16-35 f/2.8 version II. I use the lens quite frequently, mostly for architectural work - both interiors and exteriors - as well as many outdoor environments, and any time I need the either the extreme wide angle to cover my subject at close quarters, or to achieve a desired exagerrated "perspective" look to my picture. I usually use it only from about 16 to 28mm, because my version is not very good at 35mm and I have other, better lenses at that focal length. The center resolution is wonderful for an extreme wide angle zoom, and I find the lens excellent, except in the far corners where the uneven plane of focus, gives somewhat unpredictable results.

I would rather have the new 17mm TSE lens if I could (and the new 24 to replace my older version) for my architecture, but my budget won't quite stretch that far for now; the 16-35 will do fine for now, plus, as a zoom, it is very convenient to use. The only thing I might add is that for architectural work, you should have a good understanding of post processing tools in Photoshop to help with the inevitable tilted perspoective issues that pop up with a non-shifting lens.

Regards,
David

25
Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?
« on: March 11, 2013, 05:16:35 PM »
I've been in a lot of scary situations doing my photo work for national news magazines, mostly feature stories in big cities, where I was variously threatened with guns, knives and assorted blunt objects by various citizens because I was often interrupting their street business or venturing onto turf where I was an inviting target with expensive bangles on my shoulders. Amazingly, by either guile, luck, inspiration or 45 caliber solutions, I was able to make it through many such adventures with only vivid memories and amazingly high levels of adrenaline in my bloodstream as a consequence.

Another scary moment, this time with a wild animal, is also worth the telling and the telling is devoid of any politically correct risk.

I was on a really fun assignment to shoot vacationers all over the state of Michigan. One innocuous location was the bank of the Huron River, not far from Ann Arbor, where canoers launched their crafts for a day trip on the river. All in all, a very non-risky job.

Just before sunset, when I finished shooting the boaters, I turned into the very tree shaded, dark forested land adjoining the river bank which would take me, by shortcut, to where my van was parked. I had a 300mm lens on the camera with ISO 50 Fuji Velvia loaded aboard (all you people who started with digital only, take note - this was FILM) Just short of the van, my assistant, about 30 feet away from me at the vehicle, in an exaggerated stage whisper called out "don't move, David." I stopped in my tracks. I asked him what he was talking about. He said to turn around 180 degrees, very, very slowly. I did. What I saw was literally unbelievable. Staring right into my eyes, about 15 feet away, was what looked exactly like a black panther, weighing about 150 to 175 pounds, with some huge fangs showing in his open mouth! I was too freaked out for a moment to know what to do but stare. And, stare I did, until my autopilot idiot photo genes kicked in. I very slowly backed straight back a few steps and asked my assistant to hand me a camera loaded with ISO 400 film and an f/2.0 short lens to get a shot of this insane scene - black panthers are definitely not native to Michigan. I quickly got the camera, not taking my eyes off the big cat, and slooooowly walked forward to try to get a decent shot with the fast wide angle. For every step I took towards him, he backed up, making the distance between us constant. Finally, after about 20 steps in our mutual dance, he sidestepped behind a rock about 10 feet in diameter. When I slowly moved forward, afraid he might leaped around the rock at me at any moment, he had to have run straight back behind the rock, further into the dense woods, so that when I finally mustered the courage to peak around the rock, he was nowhere to be seen.

Just about then, the utter stupidity of my behavior dawned on me; there I was, actively invading the space of a very large predator cat, instead of trying to do the opposite. All of a sudden, my knees felt awful rubbery, and I hit myself on the forehead about twenty times, counting my naive blessings.

When I went home that night, I told my wife (then girl friend) about my adventure and tried to decide if I should inform some authority, or even a news organization, about it. I decided not to, because I didn't have a picture proof and I felt they'd just think I was a crackpot of some sort, because "there are no black panthers in Michigan." Then, much to my surprise, about two weeks later, newspapers and local TV stations in the metro area started reporting horses, cattle and dogs being killed at night in the same area I spotted the panther in, and some people even reported seeing what they too thought was a black panther fleeing the scene of some of the kills. The matter was never resolved as far as I know, but, as I was definitely the only person of those reported to have seen this cat close-up, I was probably alone in knowing that it was not just a story but a very real predator cat -  most likely to be a potentially deadly black panther, probably a lost exotic (and illegal) pet or zoo/circus animal loose and lost in the not too wild woods of suburban Michigan.

Regards,
David

26
Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?
« on: March 11, 2013, 02:13:55 PM »
I've had a couple moose encounters in Montana and Wyoming. They can be aggressive and deadly! A moose is a HUGE animal!

You are right. Most people think of a moose as a sort of whacky (see Bullwinkle, the cartoon character) deer. However, stand next to one, and that idea dissolves rather quickly. A moose almost killed me without me even seeing it. I was headed to a scenic location in upstate NY in the second truck in a caravan of trucks, some of which were to be shot by myself and one other photographer for a car manufacturer. Driving over a twisty mountain road, a moose jumped out of the roadside foliage onto the road in front of the lead Chevy Suburban, giving the driver no time to avoid him. A mighty collision took place; the moose, although deceased, won. Over half of the huge Suburban was crushed into an accordian shape and totalled. The driver miraculously survived with nothing more than whiplash, while I, unable to stop in time, was able to skid terrifyingly onto the shoulder, missing the Suburaban/Moose combo (a sort of Borg synthesis, for you Star Trek fans) by inches.

There you have it - my moose story of the week.

Regards,
David 

27
The doctor is in the house ;).

Having owned and used professionally: three different horribly expensive drum scanners, a Nikon Super Cool Scan 9000 ED, an Epson V750 and several other scanners over the years, I feel pretty confident that I can give you some good advice here.

First, buying an accurate light box and decent loupe is very advisable to pick your winners to scan and winnow out the rest. You don't need the very best loupe and it doesn't need to "see" the whole 6x7cm area at once. Buy a cheap large round glass magnifying lens with handle to examine the whole image at once - maybe a 3x or 4X model - for composition and exposure. To examine it for critical sharpness, you need a quality loupe, but it needn't cover the whole image; you can move it around to check critical sharpness. A good quality 6X to 10X loupe meant to cover 35mm, used, should be pretty reasonable, much cheaper than one made to cover 6x7. Next, the box. Definitely try to find an old, even fairly beat up, box of good quality, a true 5000K photo lightbox, such as a Graphic Lite or Acculight, or even an old MacBeth (Gretag/Xrite), and you don't need one bigger than about 12"x12" either. Just clean the heck out of the plastic diffuser (discard and replace if it is visibly yellow) and replace the special fluorescent lamp(s) if it has been used for a very long time as is. Don't try to save money by buying what amounts to a tracing table instead. You can also find some very good deals on newer, but still used, ultra thin profile (LED lit) 5000K lightboxes built by serious companies like Cabin; these are "good enough."

As to a scanner, either buy a used Nikon 8000 or 9000 Coolscan or an Epson V700/V750; don't waste your time on anything else for 6x7 film. If you want a drum scan, depending on the scanner and operator, they can produce better, sharper and bigger scans. But a good operator with a Nikon 9000 can deliver a scan as good or better than one from a top rated Heidelberg or Crosfield or ICG or Screen drum scanner, made by a mediocre or indifferent operator. So, know your supplier, and when and if a very special scan is necessary for an extremely big enlargement, or from a very difficult, contrasty or poorly exposed original, you can exercise the drum scan option. For literally 90% or more of professional or passionate amateur work, the output from a Nikon 9000 or an Epson V750, made by a truly competent operator, will be more than sufficent.

Good luck in finding your gear. You will find that a good 6x7 scan is a beautiful thing, and learning to make it is not that hard and, eventually, even a lot of fun.

Regards,
David

28
Tough question to answer completely, but here goes.

Since you "do mostly 3-D" (I have done my share as well), what you most need, if your are rendering the images or animations yourself, is a monitor that covers, as close as possible, the NTSC gamut, which is larger than even the typical  "wide gamut" monitor. In the alternative, at least have a small real NTSC gamut "video" monitor to also check your work on, in addition to your primary computer monitor which can vary significantly from a true video monitor by gamut, format or resolution.

Secondly, their are many different definitions of "wide gamut," usually expressed as a percentage of one particular gamut, and you should understand the definitions of the various gamuts, their relationships to each other (usually expressed in colorful graphs) and their significance. Do some research on the web. Bing and Google will be your friends. Note that a true NTSC gamut monitor requires a bigger or "wider" color space than even one which can display 100% of Adobe RGB, usually the gold standard for wide gamut monitors. Therefore, it would be best, if one does high-end 3-D which is destined to be mixed with video or displayed on video monitors, to choose a computer monitor with the widest possible gamut, to get as close to NTSC as possible.

Three last things. Make sure you have the proper monitor color profiling tools, from either the monitor maker or from companies like Xrite, and learn to use them correctly and often. And, it would be best, if you do get a good wide gamut monitor, that you also get a monitor/profiling system which can fairly well simulate narrower gamuts, especially SRGB, so that you can accurately guage how your work will likely appear on the "average Joe's" home or office computer monitor as well. About uneveness of color across the screen: don't underestimate how awful this one flaw can be; it will have a very negative effect on your work, both in possible color errors, and/or the extra time needed to "move around" your images on the screen to check color. I would never accept a monitor that had more than a trifling of uneven color, no matter how big the screen.

Regards,
David

29
Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:35:05 PM »
Here is a recent shot I like..
Excellent shot David!!
[/quote]

Thanks very much. Very kind of you to say.

Regards,
David

30
Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?
« on: February 21, 2013, 12:44:31 PM »
My sharpest lenses, as I rate them, in very rough order (much depends on taking aperture, distance, etc., and I might easily switch the order a bit on any given day) from the very sharpest to extremely sharp, are:

1) Canon 90mm f/2.8 TS
2) Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS
3) Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro (non IS)
4) Canon 85mm f/1.2 vII
5) Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS vII
6) Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro

All the other lenses I own are very good, but these especially stand out in the sharpness department.

Regards,
David


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7