I had the 75-300mm IS. I must have had a good copy because it was a pretty good lens, though it was a bit hit and miss on the sharpness when you get close to 300mm. I bought the 70-200mm F4.0 and was blown away by the quality. I also got the 1.4x converter to go with it. Sweet lens. Not too heavy either.
I would still recommend the 75-300mm IS for anyone not wanting to break the bank. The IS works well.
Here's a shot from my 70-200mm f/4L with the EF 1.4x II TC @ 280mm and f/5.6 (wide open). This shot was taken with my 10D right out of the camera with no post processing (no sharpening)
gangw- thanks for clouding the issue. Your images look pretty good to me. I can see some processing/JPEG artifacts on some, but nothing that would lead me to believe the lens itself was terrible. TerryGee posted a shot from the Canon 75-300 in another thread that looked fine, too:
I have no doubt that the L lenses are much better, but then an EOS1D MarkII would be better, too. If I were shooting photos to earn a living, there's no question I'd go for L glass, but this is just for my own amusement, so I'm still undecided. Can anybody post a shot from the Canon 70-200 to show me why I'd pay $184 more for 100mm less reach and no IS?
Just for grins, here is an untouched picture I took wiht my digital rebel this evening with a 400mm lens and 1.4x TC wide open. My Rebel has everything set to default with the exception of contrast, which is at its minimum setting:
I am really glad for this thread (talk about serendipity!) because I am shopping for the same thing as scalvert with, it appears, the same budget considerations.
I am leaning towards the Canon 70-200/4L as well, but grdSavant now has me second guessing myself.
As always, the proof is in the pictures. grdSavant can you post some samples with the Sigma/teleconverter setup?
Thanks.
Dave
I would if I could. I don't know if I have that capability. Tell me how. But, what you need is a side-by-side comparison of the setups. There are a quadzillion reports on the Canon f/4 L, and I have seen a couple with comparisons with other setups -- wish I knew where so I could say.
But the real problem is the “reach” of any 200mm. I hatched a plan to sell my Sigma f/2.8 24-70mm lens and my Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm and my Tamron SP 2x teleconverter so that I could buy the Sigma 50-500mm. didn’t, but sure thought about it real hard. I like the flexibility I have the way I am, plus add a fast 3x teleconverter for a real bird lens of 630mm. but, but, but, I believe that when we get past 300mm with almost any setup, things start getting soft (expensive prime lenses, too).
grdSavant- Thanks for the suggestions. I checked them out, and unfortunately the Sigma lenses are rated fairly poorly compared to the Canon L series. The Sigma 70-200 (not 210) is pretty good, but still not quite at the the level of the Canon. Also, I don't think the Rebel can focus properly above f5.6, so the longer zooms you mentioned are moot.
Agreed the Canon f/2.8 lens rates a 4.1 (sweet, sweet L glass) and the Sigma EX APO glass is only 3.9, but that isn’t really a difference, and heck, I thought you were on a tiny budget. I would not have the Canon f/4.0 because I want birds which is not possible with 200mm, so you gotta have a teleconverter. Canon L glass means high priced Canon teleconverters, too. And note, I said Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm, not the cheesy f/4.5-6 grade 2.9 lens.
I don’t understand. The Canon 300D is absolutely fabulous above f/5.6. If yours is not, then I suppose you need to get it repaired. But then again it may be true for me because I use Sigma glass. I am curious about this statement about not focusing above f/5.6.
it's true that there are focusing issues when slower than f/5.6. i don't think they have to do so much with the aperature, but with the connection between the camera and the teleconverter/lens.
here's a link that talks a little about it. #9 on FAQ.
teleconverters
I don’t understand. The Canon 300D is absolutely fabulous above f/5.6.
it's true that there are focusing issues when slower than f/5.6. i don't think they have to do so much with the aperature, but with the connection between the camera and the teleconverter/lens.
Actually the issue isn't that you can't get great pictures above ƒ/5.6. The ability to decrease your aperture to ƒ/16 or ƒ/22 is definitely one of the benefits of a DSLR.
The issue is that when you are composing your shot, the lens is always "wide open" (at its maximum aperture -- smallest ƒ-number), to allow the viewfinder to be as bright as possible, which in turn gives the auto-focus sensors as much light as possible. Even if you are shooting the Canon 100mm/2.8 Macro at ƒ/22, while you are composing your shot, you are looking through the lens at ƒ/2.8. Only when you take the picture or press the DOF Preview button does the lens stop-down (very quickly!) to the actual aperture of ƒ/22 and then immediately open back up to ƒ/2.8.
The problem is that the AF sensors in Canon's "prosumer" DSLR's are only accurate down to the light level available at ƒ/5.6. So when your maximum aperture is reduced below that because of the lens (i.e., lower-cost zoom lenses that go to ƒ/6.3, adding a 2X teleconverter to an ƒ/4 lens, etc.), the AF sensors are now outside of their design limits and do not function accurately. In addition, the viewfinder physically gets darker and darker the "slower" the lens is. (To see how dark an ƒ/6.3 lens is, put on a "fast" lens like the 50mm/1.8, go to Av mode, dial in 6.3, and then compare the viewfinder brightness while pushing and releasing the DOF Preview button. It is a pretty big difference!)
When folks talk about "fast" and "slow" lenses, they aren't talking about the speed of their focusing. They are talking about the maximum aperture. A fast lens has small ƒ-numbers (the 50mm/1.8 is "fast".) A slow lens has large ƒ-numbers (a low-cost 75-300 zoom that goes from ƒ/3.5-5.6 would be "slow", especially at the telephoto end). Personally, I consider anything ƒ/2.8 or under to be "fast", but even 2.8 isn't enough in some indoor lighting situations...
I dunno about the others, but the background in magnetic9999's squirrel shot is really distracting. There's something funny going on with the blur, maybe a result of the IS (as discussed in other threads).
i dont always have IS on .. but when i need it, i'm glad to have it. i'd rather get the shot with a crisp subject with that type of bg, than a shot ruined by camera shake :)
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
I dunno about the others, but the background in magnetic9999's squirrel shot is really distracting. There's something funny going on with the blur, maybe a result of the IS (as discussed in other threads).
For example, all of the purple fringing on the heron, or the softness of the feathers on the bird.
The general softness suits the older man's portrait.
Obviously its just a subjective decision - but I find the CA and softness really noticeable and quite unpleasant compared to what I can easily see in the results from higher quality lenses.
The diagonal smearing on the squirrel shot is a bit weird too.
i dont think the old man shot is soft. it's fairly shallow DOF, but doesn't seem soft to me. i know, I know - you're gonna tell me that I 'just can't see it' ... :)
re the heron - that shot was taken under some pretty suboptimal circumstances and was pretty processed to get it to that point. regardless it took 3rd in a challenge even tho alot of people didn't think it was 'on topic', i'm assuming on the strength of the image :).
i wish i was at home to post the original for you. but basically it was overcast and backlit and it all happened very very fast and unexpectedly. there's probably some camera shake/motion blur adding to the softness.
but check the sparrow -- taken under more optimal circumstances.
anyway, for the money, i think it's a great piece. and clearly it can take pictures that non-measurbators (not directed at anyone in this thread!) can enjoy ..
over and out!
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by orussell:
Double ??? I thought those shots were great.
The shots are fine, the lens quality isn't.
For example, all of the purple fringing on the heron, or the softness of the feathers on the bird.
The general softness suits the older man's portrait.
Obviously its just a subjective decision - but I find the CA and softness really noticeable and quite unpleasant compared to what I can easily see in the results from higher quality lenses.
The diagonal smearing on the squirrel shot is a bit weird too.
Still leaning toward a 70-200 f/4L, but I'm not totally conviced that the quality difference alone is a better value than say, a 75-300 IS, 512MB CompactFlash card, Polarizer, ND filter, lens hood and camera bag for the same money. Can anyone recommend a good, high quality dart (under $700) I can throw to make a decision here?
Still leaning toward a 70-200 f/4L, but I'm not totally conviced that the quality difference alone is a better value than say, a 75-300 IS, 512MB CompactFlash card, Polarizer, ND filter, lens hood and camera bag for the same money. Can anyone recommend a good, high quality dart (under $700) I can throw to make a decision here?
"L" lenses keep their value long after you've bought them if they are well taken care of. CF card prices go down every month.
i dont think the old man shot is soft. it's fairly shallow DOF, but doesn't seem soft to me. i know, I know - you're gonna tell me that I 'just can't see it' ... :)
re the heron - that shot was taken under some pretty suboptimal circumstances and was pretty processed to get it to that point. regardless it took 3rd in a challenge even tho alot of people didn't think it was 'on topic', i'm assuming on the strength of the image :).
i wish i was at home to post the original for you. but basically it was overcast and backlit and it all happened very very fast and unexpectedly. there's probably some camera shake/motion blur adding to the softness.
but check the sparrow -- taken under more optimal circumstances.
anyway, for the money, i think it's a great piece. and clearly it can take pictures that non-measurbators (not directed at anyone in this thread!) can enjoy ..
over and out!
Maybe you are right - but it becomes pretty hard to tell if the lens is any good if
The heron shot was rescued from a poorly lit, blurry reactionary shot.
The squirrel shot suffers from weird IS blur
The sparrow shot seems to be shot at about ISO 800 or more.
The image quality has suffered quite a lot in at least 3 of the cases, and it is really noticeable. This isn't really 'measurbating' if its in a thread about the lens quality in the first place. The shots are good, the lens looks pretty poor. I have plenty of shots I've taken with my 24-85 that have won ribbons and prizes - doesn't mean it is a good lens or that those prize winning images can actually be printed beyond 8x10 without the lens problems being visible (to someone who isn't a measurebator, or even knows about cameras at all)
It isn't about the shots - its about the lens, at least in this thread -and the samples don't exactly make me want to rush out and buy it, for the reasons I mentioned. Similar shots I have with the 70-200 are much sharper, with much better colour, contrast and a lot less obvious CA.
Funny how you don't see things in photos until they're pointed out, or at least I don't. Where can I get one of those "discerning" plug-ins for my eyesight? Makes me not want to submit anything else with my lowly 18-55mm kit lens. First it was a mega pixel battle, now it's a superior glass race (maybe it always was before someone else pipes up). Where does it end? Good thing everyones not pro, cause it could real nasty. LOL
