TR Forums

Color is all for naught without a color-calibrated design flow. And then we show them to each other on all kinds of crazy uncalibrated devices.
Don't sweat the color cast of lenses unless you are going to print your photos. It should be easy enough with a gray card and some time to create profiles of your lenses you can use for correction later if desired.

Example: Color casts of example photos look completely different on my HP 30" IPS monitor, than my TN display 19" satellite monitor on the same box. That is just the nature of the beast. Plus my 30" monitor is only calibrated for one or two brightness levels, not all. I have it turned way down or I would get a sun tan.

I lust after FF performance for long exposures and landscapes, but I just cannot justify spending that kind of luxury scratch when my wife and I can support/feed several children in India for a year. Yes, I started doing that and have been guilted out of my toy money. It is a pretty cool thing to do though, and has given me something that is very fun to look forward to when letters come in the mail.

TheEmrys wrote:

It still stands up to the best 35mm prime. And sure the Canon is a stellar lens, and renowned for its consistency and control of artifacts. I hope its sharpness comes out whenever Canon releases new sensored bodies. Hopefully for Photokina. But for today, the oddly flawed 24-7/4 is amazing at 35mm. I am most disappointed by this lenses' inconsistencies, but now knowing its strengths, I am going to keep it. There is an awful lot to be said for a consistent zoom.

I lust after the 24-70/2.8L II a bit, but it's hard to imagine picking up that lens today when Tamron offers a stabilized version for half the price, that's better than every other fast full-frame DSLR standard zoom on the market except the lofty Canon, and that Sigma is most likely preparing their 'Art' replacement that will also likely bring OS to the range, along with the constant rumors that Canon has a stabilized update of their own in the works.

I'll probably pick up the Tamron, though. It's hard to pass up versatility and frugality in a single well-rounded package.

Also, if you look at the field maps at DxO, while the FE24-70/4 does indeed look pretty good at 35/4, it only approaches the 35 Art at f/4 in one little dot in the very center, and is slightly (and I do mean slightly) behind across the image as a whole. Not a big deal of course, but I do like to keep my comparisons straight .

liquidsquid wrote:

Color is all for naught without a color-calibrated design flow. And then we show them to each other on all kinds of crazy uncalibrated devices.
Don't sweat the color cast of lenses unless you are going to print your photos. It should be easy enough with a gray card and some time to create profiles of your lenses you can use for correction later if desired.

Example: Color casts of example photos look completely different on my HP 30" IPS monitor, than my TN display 19" satellite monitor on the same box. That is just the nature of the beast. Plus my 30" monitor is only calibrated for one or two brightness levels, not all. I have it turned way down or I would get a sun tan.

I lust after FF performance for long exposures and landscapes, but I just cannot justify spending that kind of luxury scratch when my wife and I can support/feed several children in India for a year. Yes, I started doing that and have been guilted out of my toy money. It is a pretty cool thing to do though, and has given me something that is very fun to look forward to when letters come in the mail.

Absolutely- I picked up Spyder's full color system with color cards, gray cards, the cube, the colorimeter and included software for desktop and HT usage. And the software makes 'presets' for Adobe and Capture One products, which works within the Develop process and allows you to use profiles as well. Color casts are not an issue here!