Request: 300mm Samples with the Canon 70-300 IS

[jonnahalf80]

I am torn between buying a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS and a Canon 70-200 f/4 L, which are both almost the same price. The former has better zoom, IS, and I don't think the 5.6 will be terribly annoying to me since I can compensate it with slower shutter - most of the time I won't need high shutter speeds in low light.

So, the biggest complaint I hear about the 70-300, besides the rotating focus elements, is the sharpness, specifically higher than the 200. I must say I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro DC and am not very happy with the sharpness over the entire zoom range, so image quality is to me a very important factor.

I hope any of you guys who have a Canon 70-300 IS could post some 100% crop 200mm+ samples. I have an XTi, but I guess the sharpness is more related to the lens than to the body!

Thaaaanks.

[coldrain]

The 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM actually is very sharp at 300mm, where do you hear complaints about it above 200mm?
It is sharper at 200mm than the 70-200 f4 L too....

[D Thompson]

try looking here http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70-300_4-56_is_usm and here http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_4u.

I'd say you'd find what you're looking for.

[edge]

Here is a shot I took of a squirrel in my daughter's yard using the Canon 70-300mm at 1/40 sec, 5.6 with 1.4 TC.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b357/rogernoel/IMG_0142-Squirrel-Close-Up--2.jpg

I bought this lens when it first camer out and then had to send it to Canon for a fix concerning a problem at the portrait mode. It works great.

[Gintaras]

Coldy, with all due respect is this your first hand experience with both lenses? Sorry if my Q sounds impolite and i apologize for this, but the reason for asking is i am thinking about these two lenses too. i like portability and IS of 70-300 but 70-200 is L glass and has constant f4 plus no rotating front element. Might be it makes even more sense throw extra money on 70-200/f4 IS...IS very handy feature for long range I assume.

I am very close to having 17-55/2.8 and scratch my head if I wish longer range or a wide angle then?

[jonnahalf80]

Gintaras: never touched any of the lenses. Have been reading here and in other forums about the two, and several times I read recommendations of the 70-200 f/4 over the 70-300 for its better image quality.

Possibly, as you say, it would be perfect if I get the 70-200 IS, and then a 1.4 (or 1.5, or whatever) converter if I needed the extra zoom. But this would settle me for about $1,200, which is far outside my budget.

The wide angel came at many times as indispensable. However, the 50mm is very, very short for even shooting people indoors. Many times I want to get a closeup, and with a 50mm, I would literally have to sit on a person's laps to do so!! May be I am exaggerating a little bit, but that is what 50mm makes me feel.

[coldrain]

Why does it have to be first hand experience?
The 70-300 is just very sharp, and a bit sharper than my 70-200 f4 L.

Of course, the 70-200 f4 L has its plus points too, but it is not sharper.

If it is ultimate zoom sharpness you are after, then look at the more expensive and newer 70-200 f4 L IS USM.

[coldrain]

70-300 IS at 300mm, not indicative of how sharp things can be with this lens, as the subject is lightly moved.

[coldrain]

Another 300mm from the 70-300 IS, at f7.1.
The crops are (again) un-post processed from RAW, no sharpening applied.

[coldrain]

A last one, again at 300mm with the 70-300 IS, f7.1 and the crops un-post processed RAW, unsharpened.

[timmciglobal]

I'm shocked your unhappy with sharpness of your 18-50 macro, perhaps your not post processing your images?

Out of the camera they will not be very "sharp" viewed at 100%.

Personally, I like the f4L more. I'm going to buy a f4L IS at some point and just use a 1.4tc on it if I need reach.

Tim

[Rooz]

I must say I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro DC and am not very happy with the sharpness over the entire zoom range, so image quality is to me a very important factor.

that is a very sharp lens, not just sharp for it's price range but sharp full stop. the only place its a little softer is wide open at 2.8 but this is a common issue with any lens in that shot wide open they are always softer than their "sweet spot".

i gotta say that it's one of the sharpest non-pro lens' i have used from either system. if you are not happy with sharpness from that lens, you are going to be disappointed with a heck of alot of other lens'. either the lens is faulty, your camera settings are off or you aren't using it right.

[AdamW]

Here are some examples. All are at 300 mm. I didn't bother to do 100% crops, so bear in mind these are the softer resized-for-the-web versions. I love this lens.

28230


28231


28232


28233


28234

[coldrain]

I agree with Rooz. The 18-50 is not the sharpest lens money can buy, for sure. But for its sort, it really is rather sharp and a very nice lens.

Can you show us some examples of why you find it not a good lens?

[Viky]

Came across this shot i took a few months back....indoor stadium 'kinda' place with the 70-300 IS, 300mm, aperture wide open at f/5.6, ISO 1600, 100% crop

How's that for sharpness?

And yes, that's real sweat on the guy's face..no wonder:)

[Viky]

All shots taken at 300mm, wide open at f/5.6, ISO 200:


http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/IMG_4040b.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/IMG_4113a.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l96/rx100/IMG_4334.jpg

[Viky]

From what I have read, all canon lenses that feature Ultrasonic USM Motor allow FTM (Full Time Manual Focus) and feature non rotating front element, than how come the 70-300IS inspite of having USM does not allow FTM and has a rotating front:confused:

[jonnahalf80]

I rest my case. I am buying it. I sent an e-mail to Adorama to see if they can check for me the serial number of the lens, since according to Canon (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922), some suck at 300mm in vertical orientation! I think this was the reason I read here and there that its performance is not good at 300mm.

[coldrain]

I rest my case. I am buying it. I sent an e-mail to Adorama to see if they can check for me the serial number of the lens, since according to Canon (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922), some suck at 300mm in vertical orientation! I think this was the reason I read here and there that its performance is not good at 300mm.
The performance of just about any 70-300 or 75-300 lens is not that good at 300mm, this Canon 70-300 IS is just the exception.
I hope you will be happy with your new lens...

Viky, there are two kinds of USM motors. A small one and a bigger ring one. The 70-300 IS has the smaller version. And the lens design/construction makes that this lens, for this weight and performance, has a rotating front element. Just a decision of the lens designer... they placed importance on other factors (and that shows in the very good performace of the lens). Lens design is also about making compromises... And with this lens, the compromises were in the build, not in the optics.