Canon EF, F2.8 70 200mm L / 10D

[pixel]

Canon EF, F2.8 70 200mm L with the Canon 10d

Does anyone have this setup , what sort of results can i expect from this pair ? can anyone show me samples please .
Regards
Colin.

[Dans_D60]

Top quality lens. You can expect wonderful results. Examples attached:
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

70-200 2.8L
http://www.pettusphoto.com/lens/1.jpg

70-200 2.8L
http://www.pettusphoto.com/lens/2.jpg

[soumya63]

Now look at some shots from cheapo Canon 75-300 f4-5.6, which I bought from KEH preowned (with USM not working condition) at $48.00.

All images are NOT SHARPENED. They are just converted from RAW to 8 bit tiff by Breezebrowser and then converted and resized to 800 width jpg by Photoshop.

Remember, it is the technique which matters also. A $1600 wonderful lens with wrong technique will not provide details compared to a 48 bucks cheap lens.

Cheers

www.mitraphoto.com

http://www.mitraphoto.com/scratch/f2.jpg
Canon 75-300f4-5.6 @ 140mm


same size cropped version to show the details
http://www.mitraphoto.com/scratch/f3.jpg


http://www.mitraphoto.com/scratch/f1.jpg
Canon 75-300f4-5.6 @ 300mm

[PacAce]

The more sample images I see from the Canon 75-300, the more convinced I am that it's an OK lens despite the bad reviews I've read. AAMOF, I'm just a hair from being tipped over into the 75-300 (75-300 IS) camp. What's holding me back is what I've heard about it's slow AF focusing.

Any comments on this? I'd like to use the lens on my 10D for shooting birds in flight so I think I'd need a lens that can focus rather quickly, no?

Thanks for any insight anyone can provide.

[soumya63]

I do not even have the USM focusing. All I can do with this $48 lens is manual focus. It does not have IS. All photographs you see here are taken handheld at Oakland zoo in a cloudy day from the skyride.

Sometime it is fun to depend on human skills rather than depend on technology.

Many times we invest on premium equipments but spend no time to learn the proper technique. This example just validates that claim. No where the 75-300 can compete with the resolving power of 70-200, but having a 70-200 f2.8 does not ensure it will be a great and sharp photograph.


Cheers!

www.mitraphoto.com


Gears never make a photograph.

[pixel]

Thanks for the samples Guys.
soumya63 Your image is impressively sharp, makes me wonder why the large price difference in these lenses can the visible difference justify the extra outlay ?
Regards
Colin.

[soumya63]

PacAce wrote:
The more sample images I see from the Canon 75-300, the more convinced I am that it's an OK lens

Why OK? If I told it was from 70-200, you might have said wow. There is no co-relation between the dollar value and lens performance. In my eye, 75-300 is wonderful value of money at 1/8 of the prive of a 70-200. Have you tried 50mm f1.8? at $80, it is one of the sharpest lens in Canon stable.

[soumya63]

pixel wrote:
soumya63 Your image is impressively sharp, makes me wonder why the large price difference in these lenses can the visible difference justify the extra outlay ?
Regards
Colin.

The price difference is definitely due to the bigger aperture size of 2.8, better MTF curve and costly UD glass and Calcium Florite element of 70-200 lens. But the monitory difference does not translate proportionally to the image sharpness.

It is foolish to discount non L lenses and become a snob and a collector of L lenses. Well on the second thought if you are a collector rather than a photographer, then it may make sense. Try many cheap wonderful lenses. They can produce wonderful results. Also try Primes. Canon has heavenly collection of very sharp primes like 85mmf1.8, 24mmf2.8, 50mmf1.8. Even try 135mm soft focus. They are all affordable but wonderful glasses.

If you do not have money to buy 70-200 f2.8, try 70-200 f4 or even 75-300 III f4-5.6. I have shown you what can be done with this cheap piece of glass.

The people who say 75-300 is soft, may not know how to handle long lenses. They need IS to get the stability. Long lenses are different beasts. Practice handholding and mostly use tripod.

Cheers.

www.mitraphoto.com

[PacAce]

soumya63 wrote:
PacAce wrote:
The more sample images I see from the Canon 75-300, the more convinced I am that it's an OK lens

Why OK? If I told it was from 70-200, you might have said wow. There is no co-relation between the dollar value and lens performance. In my eye, 75-300 is wonderful value of money at 1/8 of the prive of a 70-200. Have you tried 50mm f1.8? at $80, it is one of the sharpest lens in Canon stable.


Soumya63,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that the pictures taken with the 75-300 lens were just OK. On the contrary, I've always thought "Wow, these pictures were taken with a 75-300 lens?" I was expecting something less based on the reviews I've read of them.

By "OK", I was referring to the 75-300 lens itself, as in "Hmmm, it's NOT a bad lens after all".

[pixel]

Came across this comparison in optical quality between standard and L glass ,
http://www.impactsites2000.com/tekreview/L_glass.htm

[justme_dc]

pixel wrote:
Came across this comparison in optical quality between standard and L glass ,
http://www.impactsites2000.com/tekreview/L_glass.htm


Great article Pixel, I can second the writer's results as I have both of those lenses and my results are very similar.

I think that even the 70-200 f4L is a better choice than the 75-300IS if you are looking for pure optical quality. I like The 70-200 f4L for it's light weight and small size. it's way more hand holdable and portable than the 2.8 version in my opinion and if you shoot the two side by side you'll never be able to tell the two apart.

[Morden]

I have the non-IS version of this lens, and think that it's great! Sorry, but no wonderful examples for you; the only photos on my web sites from the 70-200 are of guests on stage at my more recent sci-fi conventions, but - believe me - the sharpness, contrast and wonderfully large f2.8 aperture are well worth having. :)