Gary Holliday

I'm reading about the poor performance of the 24-70 f4 at 50mm. I might just turn my attention back to primes. A nice 24mm f/1.4L II backed up by a cheap 85 1.8 USM...a little gem of a lens I hear.

I was referring to barrel/pin cushion distortion at the widest angle often associated with cheap lenses. I just wanted to make sure that skimping on price wasn't going to affect the quality of the lens. I always loved the 40mm on my medium format set up, so I wouldn't go much wider than 24mm on a 35mm camera, so that rules out the 16-35 which i'm assuming was designed for crop censors anyway. I've been tempted to sell the Hasselblad kit and put ZEISS Milvus lenses on the Canon, but I'm doing very little slow landscape work to justify another set of expensive lenses, although I want that look and image quality again!

Has anyone any opinions on the Canon 24-70 F4 L? I owned an older 2,8L but to be honest I never needed the 2.8 aperture. But I'm really concerned about image quality and distortions at the 24mm end when photographing flat horizons with the f4 L lens. Should I be looking at the flagship zoom instead?

I probably uploaded the wrong photo out of the test photos. The first shot would have been that shutter speed, but then I moved up a stop to 1/250s. All my shots are not sharp, even subjects that don't move. my handheld technique has always been good, hold camera tight to face, don't breathe or move, wait for wind. My critical indoor studio tripod shots are also not 100% sharp. The retailer has been good, so will receive a new body later this week. I'll upload some comparison shots.

Eh? Nothing wrong with f8.

The single centre focusing was selected so you can see which flower by the composition. To me there's no sharpness whatsoever. I think this body is going back.

Really? I'm looking at the brick photo; the red coloured bit left of centre but the image looks like a confused mess to me. I really need some opinions as I'll have to return the body this week. This doesn't look pin sharp at all.

I reported a focusing problem on a previous thread. I've since had the body sent off for a warranty repair to the CMOS: "Dismantle to reset body depths, full reprogram and re-calibration to return to standard." I then sent the repaired body off to a Canon approved centre to calibrate my 135mm L 2.0 lens to the Mark III. I'm not convinced that this camera is pin sharp...what do you think of the three images attached? A few shots taken on an overcast day a moment ago. 400 ISO 250s - f8 JPEG. No additional sharpening in Photoshop

I can only repeat the brief explanation from the Canon repair tech; that the old 28-70L 2.8 would not likely have an issue with my EOS 3 film camera, newer digitals...yes.

Just an update; I sent my lenses and body in for calibration and body matching. The CMOS on the new 5D body had a fault and the older f2.8 28-70L USM is not compatible with the digital body. It wouldn't focus on the same spot, hence the dodgy bike photo. The lens requires a repair and the part is not available. Should work fine with it's original EOS 3. So this craftsman is happy to blame his tools.

So where can I find the ultimate resource for sharpening? Just the answers, no big technical explanations! :)

I've used various versions of Genuine Fractals/ On1Resize but the program always crashes after doing the resize. Can anyone recommend professional level resizing software for making enlargements? Has anyone tried Alien Skin Blowup?

Interesting to see everyone's interpretation of the print. Some of the interpretations lean towards magenta, especially the lady on the right. I personally prefer the warmth and age of the original silver halide print, the digital versions can look harsh and technical, but dcstep's is a nice balance of the two with good blacks. Anyone notice the cheeky 'over the shoulder' of the professional photographer shot :) Naughty naughty.

Not getting any help from Asus support, they stand by their profile. "The fact that Photoshop says that the file is corrupt, does not mean that it is." http://msg.asus.com.tw/TMSSAttachment/20177/WTM20170706185917848/WTM20170706185917848_0.png Not so white whites using the Asus profile.

I was hoping to avoid spending hundreds on calibration equipment so I purchased the Asus PA238Q monitor which boasted 'factory calibration'. However the supplied profile is useless and Photoshop reports that the profile if defective. If you choose the "Use Anyway" option whites will be displayed as deep cream. I've read this is fairly common with various monitors, so people use a work around by choosing sRGB profile or similar....I'd rather not do that. Has anyone got this monitor looking good with the supplied profile?