« on: February 08, 2013, 03:55:01 AM »
1. not my "art" images but i do think that all these images were ruined (scott kelby has his free critiq session, send them to him and ask to see if my thought is right. i do trust scott eyes): http://a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm (wonder that why it is call a-b not a-z LOL)
2. "a scaled shot taken with a 5D Mark II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II... 20mm at f/4.0": show me how you go back and shoot with that focal lengh? if you should that with 20mm at f/4, i should not see that shallow dof, if i do not want to say that it should be all of them in focus (assume that you were not climbing on the tree to shoot that image ).
3. an experience photographer would not choose f4 in shooting the posted image (assume that you were shooting at focal of 200mm)
Hey, if you want to buy a copy of that, I'll sell you one.
But the example as art is not being debated. In that sense I'll put my best up against your best or anyone elses.
This is one of many shots I took at close to the minimum focus of the lens to see how it would perform.
Now I know, and I'm trying to share that info in case someone else thinks this highly praised and pricey piece of gear is nearly perfect because of all the fan-boy ravings about it.
Did you know or suspect that this lens would render the image this poorly in this circumstance?
I have another example to post from a competitor's 70-200mm that's as bad or worse. Just in case someone was thinking that might be one solution.
EDIT: hasty typo fixed, supposed to be 200mm, not 20mm.