75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM v. 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/20/2005 05:11:24 PM · #26

So with regards to saturation and contrast, which of my images is the 70-200, hmm?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

05/20/2005 05:12:03 PM · #27

I have the 75-300 IS USM. If I stick within a certain range of f-stops and focal lengths the images are very sharp. However, there is very noticable softness at the extremes. As long as you're aware of the limitations of the lens you are using you can achieve some amazing results.

jemison

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/20/2005 05:12:54 PM · #28

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by jemison:
Pretty worthless comparison, if you ask me.

Why?

anyone can take a bad photograph...no matter what the lens. that is what you have done.

05/20/2005 05:13:43 PM · #29

Originally posted by jemison:

anyone can take a bad photograph...no matter what the lens. that is what you have done.

Let's have another look at that photo, shall we?

//www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=3387

jemison

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/20/2005 05:35:09 PM · #30

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by jemison:
anyone can take a bad photograph...no matter what the lens. that is what you have done.

Let's have another look at that photo, shall we?

//www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=3387

Your link wasn't to either of your photos in question. Look, I'm not saying that the 70-200L isn't a better lens. But if you want to make a comparison, make a valid one. Controled conditions, same image, same aperture, same iso, etc. Don't post action shots using different apertures under different conditions and expect anyone to be impressed with the comparison. At least not me.

05/20/2005 05:42:17 PM · #31

Originally posted by jemison:

But if you want to make a comparison, make a valid one. Controled conditions, same image, same aperture, same iso, etc. Don't post action shots using different apertures under different conditions and expect anyone to be impressed with the comparison. At least not me.

My point is this: the difference between lenses should be measured in PRACTICAL scenarios, not scientific tests.

Those two pics were generated from a lens costing $170 and $1100. If you can't tell the difference from that, for most of the people on this site, it really doesn't matter.

jemison

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/20/2005 06:02:49 PM · #32

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by jemison:
But if you want to make a comparison, make a valid one. Controled conditions, same image, same aperture, same iso, etc. Don't post action shots using different apertures under different conditions and expect anyone to be impressed with the comparison. At least not me.

My point is this: the difference between lenses should be measured in PRACTICAL scenarios, not scientific tests.

Those two pics were generated from a lens costing $170 and $1100. If you can't tell the difference from that, for most of the people on this site, it really doesn't matter.

Sure, anyone can tell the difference - and anyone could post two photos taken with the same lenses that would show just the opposite. You have an axe to grind. Grind away.

BTW why did you post images for comparison taken with two lenses that the poster wasn't even asking about?

05/20/2005 06:08:15 PM · #33

Originally posted by jemison:

Sure, anyone can tell the difference

But you can't tell which is which, that is the point.

Originally posted by jemison:

You have an axe to grind. Grind away.

I have no axe to grind, I have made a point, which you don't seem to accept.

Originally posted by jemison:

BTW why did you post images for comparison taken with two lenses that the poster wasn't even asking about?

The 70-200/2.8L is roughly comparable to the 70-200/4L, and the non-IS 75-300 is comparable to the IS version.

theSaj

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/20/2005 06:46:56 PM · #34

I would guess the first image....as the background has more blur. It's not really a good comparison because they're different shots and PS can be used to adjust contrast, sharpness (in resized images), etc. And who knows where you were positioned or zoomed so that can affect the blur.

*shrug*

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 18:49:41.

05/20/2005 06:54:20 PM · #35

Left hand image: 70-200/2.8L
Right hand image: 75-300 mkII

TLL061

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/20/2005 06:57:36 PM · #36

the 70-200 is much better , by far

tryals15

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f/1.7

05/20/2005 09:13:45 PM · #37

Sorry for posting and running on you guys... I'm on the road this weekend... I appreciate all the input, and just wanted to clarify my uses... I do a lot of action/sports stuff and i'm shopping in the $500 range. Thanks again for the input!

T

Zed Pobre

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/20/2005 11:14:56 PM · #38

I'm going to turn this conversation somewhat on its ear, I think. I had a chance to borrow a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L from a friend to compare with my 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS. It was a nice lens, but I didn't shed any tears when I returned it to him, and felt utterly uncompelled to run out and buy my own.

The major issue was weight. Putting that lens on the 20D made one-handed shooting impractical and was a major pain in the shoulder to carry around in addition to all the rest of my gear. It's amazing how much difference just a couple pounds can make, when you've got it on your shoulder for eight hours straight.

Sharpness was superior, but not so much more so that it was really worth sacrificing range and "walkability". The thing was also huge and very visible, making it inappropriate for surreptitious shooting. I found that I really missed that extra 100mm of range when I needed it. For all that I see people bashing on the quality of the 75-300 (and there are certainly things to complain about), it's not a bad lens... merely mediocre. One of my favorite shots was taken with a 75-300:

And while that is an image that is deliberately soft, it's not that you can't get sharp images out of it, either:

That's at 300mm - the softest point on the lens. My main objection to the lens here isn't that it's soft, but that I already had to crop to get this. 300 just isn't long enough, and if I'm going to shell out for a high quality lens, the Sigma 80-400 EX OS will fit what I do much better anyway. This is a shot that likely would have been worse with the 70-200.

Spending four times as much for a lens that is only nominally better, weighs more, is significantly larger and more visible, and has shorter range, in exchange for an increase in sharpness, the ability to get shallower depth of field, better bokeh, and somewhat better contrast (the last of which can mostly be dealt with in post-processing) is a decision that *should* make you stop and think for a bit. At some point in these decisions, what you do as a photographer should insert itself - unless one of the options is close to worthless, one lens will probably not be better than the other in all situations. Work out how you're most likely to shoot, and think about what is going to be important to you.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/20/2005 11:18:22 PM · #39

I find that the weight of a 3 pound lens is not really that hard to deal with. However he's not looking at one of those so it doesn't even matter. For sports you might want the extra reach, but it's so hard for me to not shout "GET THE L GLASS".

Zed Pobre

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/20/2005 11:24:44 PM · #40

Originally posted by tryals15:

Well, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is over $600, but if you're in that range, and doing sports photography, I actually am going to recommend something completely different: look at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM lens. It's about the same price, and just as sharp as the Canon lens at f/4 and above (which is wide open on the Canon but stopped down nicely on the Sigma), plus you get the option of going down to f/2.8, where it's still reasonably sharp and you get more speed, which in sports photography is probably going to be more important to you than sharpness. The only thing to watch out for on the Sigmas is that their quality control is somewhere between bad and abysmal. It may take you a couple tries to get a lens that isn't defective, and you absolutely must plan on taking test shots and comparing sharpness with your existing lenses to make sure you didn't get a dud. Sigma zoom rings are also quite stiff, though that gets better with use.

Think about what distance you normally shoot at, as well, and what you want your field of view to be. Also consider whether you're going to be shooting mostly tripod mounted or handheld. 200mm may not be long enough for you, and if you add a teleconverter, you lose sharpness and speed.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/20/2005 11:28:15 PM · #41

$500 used :-)

Zed Pobre

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/20/2005 11:33:25 PM · #42

Originally posted by kyebosh:

$500 used :-)

Heh, well, even with Canon L lenses, I wouldn't want to buy one I couldn't return. Even Canon occasionally ships a dud, and if someone is selling an L-series lens cheap, there may be a reason. :)

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/20/2005 11:59:06 PM · #43

Originally posted by Zed Pobre:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
$500 used :-)

Heh, well, even with Canon L lenses, I wouldn't want to buy one I couldn't return. Even Canon occasionally ships a dud, and if someone is selling an L-series lens cheap, there may be a reason. :)

Got my 80-200L used and I just love it, you just gotta make sure it's a good copy and in good shape!

theSaj