Manc From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 344 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4893 times:
Had a few rejections with my new lens the 70-200 IS L F2.8 compared to when I use my 100-400. I agree with the oversharpened rejections as I had a bad day at the office (so to speak) and just did my usual workflow and not paying to much attention to details! My rejections are posted below with my new edits for comments.
Its really surprising how much sharper the 70-200 is and how that is reflected in the need to change workflow methods.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3069 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4859 times:
You now have a very enviable range of lenses there!
I agree with the rejections - those first two are definitely oversharpened. You have definitely improved on that in the newer edits, but I would still watch out - The NZ lighting is not great and still the wing leading edge looks a bit oversharpened.
As regards the others, there is little detail in the forward fuselage of the first JAL, plus the black lettering has jaggies. In the second, despite the jet efflux, I think there are other issues - the red winglet looks oversaturated and has grain, and there looks to be some artifacts of editing in other areas - e.g. nose area and engines. Did you select the plane here? If so it appears like a problem with feathering - the edges look a bit too soft for the engine, and jagged for the nose/flightdeck.