maldives

[David Kilpatrick]

Don't the 70~200 2.8 have a wierd bokeh when focusing close up?

No bokeh - very cap-shape field curvature. The part of the tree with the lizard's leg would oppose the field curvature of the lens, resulting in much worse defocusing than expected. The effect is caused by the lens, I am sure, and not by any kind of image processing. I do not know of any NR smoothing which acts over that sort of radius.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, the NR effect can be seen, but underlying it is a loss of focus sharpness. The NR is not doing that on its own, or the entire tree (and the lizard) would be affected. The parts which looked blurred are the closest to the camera. If you have not used the 70-200mm SSM for closest focusing distance ar 200mm, you won't be aware just how strange it is. It is barely usable compared to many lesser lenses. Fortunately it is excellent for normal distances.

David

[kingfisher]

oke

i have here four picture`s

picture one , is NOT develop , also NO noiseware

picture two , is NOT develop , YES noiseware

picture tree, IS develop and NO noiseware

picture four IS deveiop and YES noiseware









i think the combination tree juice and noiseware , create this spot at the tree

gustav

[David Kilpatrick]

It's very peculiar. The area is very slightly less sharp to start with, but not a result of the lens field curvature as I thought - just normal depth of field. I think that when you darken the image, Noiseware is acting more on darker values, and this area just gets dark enough to be treated heavily when the lighter areas are left alone. Because it starts off with just a bit less sharp detail, the detail is not preserved as well.

David