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/e...00_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/b3...lose-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.