 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005lens advice
i'm taking my 20d off to turkey and will be taking the canon 17-40 L ... just finished shooting a bunch of photos with my tamron 28-300 and it clearly doesn't make it so i'm thinking about the canon 70-200L f4 (the 2.8 is too heavy) ... but wish the f4 had "is" ...sigh ... any other suggestions? any hints that the 70-200 L f4 will get "is"? tia ... steve How about a ... Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=16&sort=7&cat=27&page=1 Has IS - reasonably small and light, and an extra 100mm over the 70-200. > i'm taking my 20d off to turkey and will be taking the canon 17-40 L > ... just finished shooting a bunch of photos with my tamron 28-300 and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > tia ... steve >How about a ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Has IS - reasonably small and light, and an extra 100mm over the 70-200. Yeah, but that's mostly fluff; wide open, I bet the 70-200 captures more subject detail from the same distance. Focal length does *NOT* equal resolution or detail.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Focal length does *NOT* equal resolution or detail. So do you think I should cancel my order for a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and get a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM instead? >> Focal length does *NOT* equal resolution or detail. > >So do you think I should cancel my order for a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L >IS USM and get a > Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM > instead? No, because, shooting from the same distance, the 100-400 IS captures more detail than the 70-200, if that's what you're after. The 75-300 doesn't capture significantly more detail than the 7-200 at the tele end, even moreso if you put a TC on all of them (the 100-400 and 70-200 will capture more detail; the 75-300 will get little (stopped down) or none (wide open). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< What about the 70-200 F2.8 Sigma, lots of good things have been said about it at a great price. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102&sort=7&cat=myprod &page=1 > i'm taking my 20d off to turkey and will be taking the canon 17-40 L > ... just finished shooting a bunch of photos with my tamron 28-300 and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > tia ... steve I second that. I picked one up a couple of months ago, used for about $600, and I love it. Very sharp and contrasty, certainly good enough that you wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't the canon version of the lens unless you did back-to-back comparisions....and even then it'd be hard to see much difference I think. One of the best deals on the used market, for sure. > I second that. I picked one up a couple of months ago, used for > about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hard to see much difference I think. One of the best deals on the > used market, for sure. Second what? > Second what? I was wondering that too, can't figure out who was being replied to or what lens was being referenced Toa > i'm taking my 20d off to turkey and will be taking the canon 17-40 L > ... just finished shooting a bunch of photos with my tamron 28-300 and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > tia ... steve Just out of interest, can I ask why you are looking at that focal range? To complement your 17-40, I would have thought a 28-135 IS would be a better choice, unless you have a specific need for a very long lens, like wild game or birds etc. In my own overseas jaunts, I have carried a 100-300mm and never used it. I now use a 17-85 mm IS lens, and even that rarely gets to 85mm. 99% of my shots are between 17 to about 50 or 60mm, as I just don't like the flattened perspective that a long lens gives. Just my 2 cents. Colin > i'm taking my 20d off to turkey and will be taking the canon 17-40 L > ... just finished shooting a bunch of photos with my tamron 28-300 and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > tia ... steve I have and use both the 70-200 L f4 and the 70-300 Diffractive lens. Buying both lenses cost me $100 less than buying the 70-200mm L F2.8 lens. Both lenses are very good, very good indeed. The 70-300 Diffractive lens is a tad soft at 300 but that has not been an unsurmountable problem since I do the processing and printing. I generally use the 70-300 Diffractive lens for out door sports events and have not been disapointed with its performance or IS features. Prior to buying these lenses, I borrowed the 70-200 L f2.8 lens and spent a day walking the "nature trail" in a large local park. The lens performed beautifully but at the end of the trail, the lens felt like it weighed a ton. I also observed, the longer I used the lens the more dependant I became upon using the IS feature because of its weight. I concluded, this is not a lens that can be left on the camera for a days outing. I also observed, after using the 70-200 L f4 lens, I could hold the camera steadier with the f4 lens over day duration of shooting than when using the 70-200 L f2.8 lens. It can readily be seen the 70-200 L f2.8 lens is in need of the IS feature. I normally use an ISO setting of 125 on my 1DMK2 for outside shots. When shooting indoors using existing light I generally set the ISO setting at 200. On occasions, I have used ISO 400 and would go higher if need be but that has not been necessary. > I have and use both the 70-200 L f4 and the 70-300 Diffractive lens. > Buying both lenses cost me $100 less than buying the 70-200mm L F2.8 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > generally use the 70-300 Diffractive lens for out door sports events and > have not been disapointed with its performance or IS features. I had a 70-300 DO IS and I never got a really sharp picture with it. After many tries at adjustment of both the lens and the camera (10D), they replaced it with a brand new one which was just the same. I turned it in to Canon and they gave me a full refund. As a replacement, I bought a 300mm f4 with IS (great lens BTW). I have to give lots of credit to Canon for customer satisfaction. I also bought a Canon 75-300 f4,5-f5,6 with IS since I had one before I bought the DO lens, It has it's flaws like slow focussing and the front element rotates but to me it has proven to be a lot better than the 70-300 DO. Even though it is longer too, it still makes a nice travel lens. I carried it on a bicycle trip with my 10D and a 24-85 "normal" zoom, kinda heavy combo to take along, but I never intended to set records. > Prior to buying these lenses, I borrowed the 70-200 L f2.8 lens and > spent a day walking the "nature trail" in a large local park. The lens [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > when using the 70-200 L f2.8 lens. It can readily be seen the 70-200 L > f2.8 lens is in need of the IS feature. I bought a 70-200 f2,8 L but I wish I had bought the f4 variant. The f2,8 is just too heavy to lug around on trips, I use it when I know I have an event to cover for which the 75-300 is just too slow to focus properly like when shooting motorcycle races or even bicycle races. Jean >>I have and use both the 70-200 L f4 and the 70-300 Diffractive lens. >>Buying both lenses cost me $100 less than buying the 70-200mm L F2.8 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Jean After reading your post, Jean, I attached the 70-300 IS DO lens to my 1D MKII and stepped out my back yard and randomly took two shots, one at 70mm and the other at 300mm. Really nothing of interest but the shots I have already taken with this lens that are in my computer folders have been jazzed up and I don't think it appropriate to post those as examples of the lens. I quite happy with this lens and it's in my bag ready for regular use. 70mm http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3568198 300mm http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3568218 As I mentioned before, these shots are not for display purposes but merely random shots taken with the 70-300 IS DO for you to see. They will later be removed after you see them. I found a shot of a low flying airplane using the 70-300mm IS DO lens, this time I was using my 20D camera, which makes the lens at 300 equal a 480 lens. I hadn't gotten around to playing with it yet in photoshop.. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3569960 This shot too will be removed as it's not intended for show & tell. >I found a shot of a low flying airplane using the 70-300mm IS DO lens, >this time I was using my 20D camera, which makes the lens at 300 equal a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >This shot too will be removed as it's not intended for show & tell. How do you expect anyone to judge the quality of the lens's images when your posted images are so heavily jpeg'd? Just try zooming in on the near wheel and the struts attached to it. You'll see that the JPEG artifacts overwhelm any possible lens defects at this size and jpeg compression ratio. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >>I found a shot of a low flying airplane using the 70-300mm IS DO lens, >>this time I was using my 20D camera, which makes the lens at 300 equal a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How do you expect anyone to judge the quality of the lens's > images when your posted images are so heavily jpeg'd? Have dificulty in uploading to Photo.net unless they are heavily jpeg'd. > Just try zooming in on the near wheel and the struts attached to > it. You'll see that the JPEG artifacts overwhelm any possible lens > defects at this size and jpeg compression ratio. > > Enjoy, > DoN. Yep, the rear wheel sure does show artifacts in the posted picture, at a resolution of 72, 21" X 8-3/4"- File size 700kb, enlarged about 300%. However, printed 12X8, resolution 250, file size 2M, wouldn't look bad at all. > I found a shot of a low flying airplane using the 70-300mm IS DO > lens, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This shot too will be removed as it's not intended for show & tell. http://www.fototime.com/90CE86E8A5C62C7/orig.jpg http://www.fototime.com/E60ACA497779233/orig.jpg Two low-flyings by way of 70-300mm IS DO lens on a 20D. Serious crop loses about 20% of the area, very mild curves, USM, saved for Web at PS 30 quality. SignatureFrank ess >> I found a shot of a low flying airplane using the 70-300mm IS DO lens, >> this time I was using my 20D camera, which makes the lens at 300 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > loses about 20% of the area, very mild curves, USM, saved for Web at PS > 30 quality. Good shots Frank. Sorry Nick, my high speed was down for the last 5 days, I was past withdrawal pains and I even started to paint the house ;-) I did not have a chance of seeing your pics but for me the 70-300 DO was not very good, I found I could get "acceptable" pictures of buildings but for bird shots at close range, the results were less than spectacular and not worthy of the price of the lens. I have to finish painting what I started but I will post full size pics on Pbase and give out the link after sundown today of the 70-300 DO, 75-300 IS and 300 f4 L all taken at 300mm. I also checked on Pbase for shots taken with the 70-300 DO and was not impressed with any I saw, even at smaller sizes, they all seem to lack that little extra bit of clarity. The other Canon lens with DO technology, the 400mm f4 DO IS does not seem to suffer the same fate as the 70-300 DO, but I guess that is to be expected for a $5000 lens ;-) Jean > >>I have and use both the 70-200 L f4 and the 70-300 Diffractive lens. > >>Buying both lenses cost me $100 less than buying the 70-200mm L F2.8 [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > merely random shots taken with the 70-300 IS DO for you to see. They > will later be removed after you see them. Please see http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/lens_compare_300mm I have placed 4 pictures all taken at full zoom. Two for the following lenses 70-300 DO IS, 75-300 IS and two more of a 300mm f4 L, one with a 1.4X teleconverter and one without. All pictures are straight out of the camera, no post processing and best quality Jpeg so take that into account when looking at the big pictures. Now tell me if your 70-300 DO is as good as you think it is. When I had mine, I thought it was very good, but close scrutiny proved me wrong. I am glad Canon came trough with a refund, I bought the 300mm f4 L and the 1.4X teleconverter with that refund and bought a used 75-300 IS just because it was a nice lens I could carry on trips where it's shortcomings don't show as much. Jean > Sorry Nick, my high speed was down for the last 5 days, I was past > withdrawal pains and I even started to paint the house ;-) [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > merely random shots taken with the 70-300 IS DO for you to see. They > > will later be removed after you see them. > Please see http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/lens_compare_300mm I have placed 4 > pictures all taken at full zoom. Two for the following lenses 70-300 DO IS, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Snip Hi Jean, I removed the pictures that I had uploaded thinking for the duration of time they had been posted, you had already seen them. To your post: The 1951 Picture. This shot looks (to my eyes) like it was taken with the 70-300 DO IS lens. Of course I could say this shot was taken with the 300mm f4 lens, yet looking at the ball, coloration, and surrounding area, it looks like shots I take with my 70-300 DO IS lens, at full zoom when using my 1DMKII camera (390mm). > > Please see http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/lens_compare_300mm I have placed 4 > > pictures all taken at full zoom. Two for the following lenses 70-300 DO IS, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > area, it looks like shots I take with my 70-300 DO IS lens, at full zoom > when using my 1DMKII camera (390mm). Mmmm, not the same camera or magnification factor, it could just be there is an incompatibility between the camera I have (10D) and the 70-300 DO. All I can say is that I am happy now with the lenses I have and I was really dissapointed with the 70-300 DO. I really don't beleive Canon would issue such an expensive lens and not make sure it performs as it should. If you can post your pictures at full size again, I would like to take a look. Jean >>>Please see http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/lens_compare_300mm I have placed > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Jean I'm a bit baffled too Jean. I have both the 70-200 f4 L and the 70-300 DO IS lenses and there are times when shots taken at full zoom using the 1DMKII seem to equal each other in quality. Generally, the 70-200 f4 L lens throughout its range has been better in contrast and coloration than the 70-300 DO IS lens. However, at 70mm the 70-300 DO IS is super in coloration and contrast and appear every bit as good as the 70-200 f4 L lens at 70mm, and throughout its range has been just a tad behind the 70-200 f4 L lens. Between the two lenses, most of the time I'm using the 70-200mm f4 L lens and use the 70-300 DO IS lens for sports, or other action. Posted are three pictures, all taken with the 70-300 DO IS lens using the 1DMKII camera. The picture of the plane and budding palm have not been reworked but have been compressed (greatly) to speedup the upload process. There are times when I can't upload to Photo.net unless I highly compress the picture and I've also run into difficulty in uploading a picture that has been processed through Photoshop 7 and now CS (8). The picture of the Egret has been touched up just a bit in Photoshop and has been enlarged about 25%. It has low compression and I've uploaded the Egret shot through Jasc Paint Shop Pro 9. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459158 >Snip > > Posted are three pictures, all taken with the 70-300 DO IS lens using > the 1DMKII camera. >Snip I erred Jean, the picture of the plane was taken with the 20D camera not the 1DMKII. > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459158 > >>>Please see http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/lens_compare_300mm I have placed > > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=459158 Can't really tell if the compression has reduced the sharpness too much or if the lens is not as sharp as it should be. The egret picture looks kinda fuzzy but the plnat looks real good. This is the sort of behaviour I had with my DO lens, none of the bird pictures I took were sharp but other pictures with less or no fine detail were just perfect. If you could crop a section showing fine detail (like the eye of the egret) then you would skip the limitations of photo.net, save it as a tiff so no jpeg artifacts spoil the smaller picture. At any rate, you seem to like the lens and it seems to perform great for you, before I started to take many bird pictures in the spring, I used it on a trip to France and it worked OK on the subjects over there except for one set when I wanted to take pictures of a very large bug which at first I tought was a hummingbird. I think the lens is alergic to birds ;-) Jean |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.