?s for those who own 70-200L and 300L f4 IS..........

[ed rader]

these questions is for the folks who own the 70-200L (any version) and the 300L f4 IS. or have owned. have used etc.

1) which lens is sharper in general?

2) which lens is sharper with a 1.4 TC?

i ask because my 70-200L f4 IS is sharper than my 300 L f4 IS and this becomes even more apparent when i'm using a 1.4 TC on both lenses.

in fact in all but the best light the IQ of the 300L f4 IS + TC is borderline unacceptable to me.

in fact i'd say than my 70-200L f4 IS is sharper with TC (320mm) than the 300L without TC. the difference isn't huge but it exists, imo.

in short what i'm saying is the 300L f4 IS + 1.4 TC is not consistently meeting my expectations, and i use this combo alot so it concerns me.

ed rader

[GAELICSTORM7]

Hi Ed,

I've had the 70-200 f4 'L' for about a year and love it, I can honestly say it's never once dissapointed me with the images it produces any fault in them is down to user error, I've only had my 300 f4 'L' for a few days but so far to me it looks every bit as goos as the 70-200, dare I say it maybe even better, here's a link to a little test I did earlier this morning, don't know if this will help or not.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=308472

Both lenses to me are keepers, I don't think I could part with either one, for their price I don't think there beatable, for quality of construction and images, value for money and there reasonable light to carry around all day.

Alan

[dave kadolph]

My 300 Is on a sunny day can stop a soccer ball coming off a players foot and capture it clear enough to read the printing on it--and clear enough that a matte finish on prints hides the fine details.

The 1.4 slows down the AF a little but the IQ seems about the same.

2x shows some definate degradation.

The f4 IS will be included in the changing list for sure.

Technology marches on--the mk3 and ISO 6400 may make a lot of the old arguments obsolete--or not--but will be fun to find out!

[ed rader]

Hi Ed,

I've had the 70-200 f4 'L' for about a year and love it, I can honestly say it's never once dissapointed me with the images it produces any fault in them is down to user error, I've only had my 300 f4 'L' for a few days but so far to me it looks every bit as goos as the 70-200, dare I say it maybe even better, here's a link to a little test I did earlier this morning, don't know if this will help or not.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=308472

Both lenses to me are keepers, I don't think I could part with either one, for their price I don't think there beatable, for quality of construction and images, value for money and there reasonable light to carry around all day.

Alan

thanx Alan. i read that thread and that's what prompted me to ask the questions.

my 300L isn't bad and i guess the 70-200l f4 IS is exceptionally sharp.

so i'm wondering if my expectations for the 300L are too high.
here's a sample i took last week with the 300L that i'm happy with.

with TC:

http://www.fototime.com/1FE85A00FB82BA2/orig.jpg

this was shot in very good light and came out well but my 70-200L f4 IS with TC would have been sharper.

ed rader

[Woolburr]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 300 f/4 L IS...both are very sharp...both work well with TCs...The results with the 1.4x on either looks little different from the naked glass...the 70-200 will work admirably with a 2x...the 300 needs a tripod to be real valuable with a 2x. I won't be swapping in my copies or my TCs any time soon.

The previous post just goes to show this was a BS thread to stir up the measurebaters and the no TC under any circumstances crowd. Sharpness problems my @$$.

[ed rader]

My 300 Is on a sunny day can stop a soccer ball coming off a players foot and capture it clear enough to read the printing on it--and clear enough that a matte finish on prints hides the fine details.

The 1.4 slows down the AF a little but the IQ seems about the same.

2x shows some definate degradation.

The f4 IS will be included in the changing list for sure.

Technology marches on--the mk3 and ISO 6400 may make a lot of the old arguments obsolete--or not--but will be fun to find out!


on a sunny day sans TC i stopped bobby julich who was coming at me about 25-30 mph and i am happy with the results.

but when the lighting is crappy or when i'm using a 1.4 TC the resuts aren't always as great.

i think i'll try a recalibration and take it from there.

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/615665EFA6A6F1B/orig.jpg

[cdifoto]

Maybe you expect too much Ed. The 5D is a great camera, but it's no 1D so it'll be somewhat weak in the AI Servo department, hence the TC slowing the rig down.

Send me all your stuff and I'll test it on my 1D bodies. :D

[ed rader]

Maybe you expect too much Ed. The 5D is a great camera, but it's no 1D so it'll be somewhat weak in the AI Servo department, hence the TC slowing the rig down.

Send me all your stuff and I'll test it on my 1D bodies. :D

i've never used a camera that tracked better than the 5d but that isn't the problem.

one reason i chose the 300L over the 100-400L is because on he 5d i want a 300mm sports lens that was at least f4 and usuable wide open. but for non-sports stuff (cows, zoo etc) i use this lens alot with TC and the results are not always stellar.

i think i'll send 'er in and take it from there.

send 'er to canon that is :D .

ed rader

[dave kadolph]

Ed

My exact experience also--as the light fades the ability to "lock on" goes away

Nice shot of the bike race.

Have had a chance to shoot a borrowed 300 2.8--real neat stuff but my pockets aren't that deep

[ed rader]

Ed

My exact experience also--as the light fades the ability to "lock on" goes away

Nice shot of the bike race.

Have had a chance to shoot a borrowed 300 2.8--real neat stuff but my pockets aren't that deep

thanx. i'd love to have the 300 f2.8 but it's waaay outta my budget :D .

ed rader

[cdifoto]

thanx. i'd love to have the 300 f2.8 but it's waaay outta my budget :D .

ed rader

Same here. :rolleyes:

[dave kadolph]

Hence the term "borrowed"--me too!!!

[ed rader]

Hence the term "borrowed"--me too!!!


Dave -- how big of a difference compared to the f4....enough to justify the expense (i know that's a loaded question)?

ed rader

[pepperoni]

Hi Ed, I'm a little late to the party as usual, so here's my $.02.

I finally had the opportunity to shoot with both my 70-200f4 & 300f4 IS with a 1.4x TC on Saturday. I'd have to say it's a toss-up with the slight edge going to the 300. I've only been shooting for a few months, so keep that in mind.

Here's a few shots wide open (f5.6) at max length (exif is intact).

280mm @ f5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x)
http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./BB%200030.jpg

280mm @ f5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x)
http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./BB%200084.jpg

420mm @ f5.6 (300 + 1.4x)
http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./BB%200177.jpg

420mm @ f5.6 (300 + 1.4x)
http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./BB%200284.jpg

Just for kicks.. 98mm @ f5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x)
http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./BB%209988.jpg

[ed rader]

Hi Ed, I'm a little late to the party as usual, so here's my $.02.

I finally had the opportunity to shoot with both my 70-200f4 & 300f4 IS with a 1.4x TC on Saturday. I'd have to say it's a toss-up with the slight edge going to the 300. I've only been shooting for a few months, so keep that in mind.

Here's a few shots wide open (f5.6) at max length (exif is intact).

280mm @ f5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x)


280mm @ f5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x)


420mm @ f5.6 (300 + 1.4x)


420mm @ f5.6 (300 + 1.4x)


Just for kicks.. 98mm @ f5.6 (70-200 + 1.4x)



thanx pepperoni....those all look very good. if IQ is a tie for you maybe the f4 IS is supposed to be a bit sharper?

but i did own the 70-200L f4 too and i'd say it was sharper with TC than my 300L f4 IS even without TC.

i think i'll send the lens in this week and see what happens.

thanx for your help ...everyone :D !

ed rader

[Lord_Malone]

You can't hide from me forever, Ed. I'm coming after you.

*cue eerie music*

[Big Hands]

Splitting frog hair now are we?

I haven't seen anything I would deem unacceptable so far. Quite the opposite.

Maybe there are other things like AF performance that can more easily separate them.

Then again, maybe a 400 f/5.6L is in your future? :lol:

[ed rader]

Splitting frog hair now are we?

I haven't seen anything I would deem unacceptable so far. Quite the opposite.

Maybe there are other things like AF performance that can more easily separate them.

Then again, maybe a 400 f/5.6L is in your future? :lol:

i've thought about the 400 but it's too long for some of the stuff i do and i want IS on a tele.

i should add that i have plenty of shots with the 300 + TC that aren't acceptable to me or else i would not have started this thread.

i chose the 300L over the 100-400 because i thought it would be sharper...plus i prefer the constant f4.

the lens is now at canon and depending oh how it performs upon return i probably will rent a 100-400 some day and compare the IQ.

ed rader

[cosworth]

300 is sharper for me.

[ed rader]

300 is sharper for me.

you mean sharper than 100-400?

ed rader

[ed rader]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 300 f/4 L IS...both are very sharp...both work well with TCs...The results with the 1.4x on either looks little different from the naked glass...the 70-200 will work admirably with a 2x...the 300 needs a tripod to be real valuable with a 2x. I won't be swapping in my copies or my TCs any time soon.

The previous post just goes to show this was a BS thread to stir up the measurebaters and the no TC under any circumstances crowd. Sharpness problems my @$$.

were you talking to me?

ed rader

[JC4]

The cow shot looks sharp to me, at least it's face. Are you sure you're not seeing the DOF difference the extra 140mm adds over your 70-200+ the same tc?

I just added a 300L to my collection, and also didn't think it was very sharp. 2 things were causing it, both user error. DOF is very small on the 300+tc, making focus accuracy very important. The other was motion blur, my hands aren't the steadiest and IS doesn't fix everything, so I need to shoot at faster SS at 420mm than I did at 280mm.

[ed rader]

The cow shot looks sharp to me, at least it's face. Are you sure you're not seeing the DOF difference the extra 140mm adds over your 70-200+ the same tc?

I just added a 300L to my collection, and also didn't think it was very sharp. 2 things were causing it, both user error. DOF is very small on the 300+tc, making focus accuracy very important. The other was motion blur, my hands aren't the steadiest and IS doesn't fix everything, so I need to shoot at faster SS at 420mm than I did at 280mm.

the cow shot is okay. it took more USM than it should of. light was near perfect and that bovine should have popped. i had many more shots that that were crap.


i just got the lens back from canon and they said the lens assembly was out of place causing back focus.

you see, i test lenses in the real world. i've never used a chart. everything that i've read tells me my 300L should have been sharper, and maybe it is now :D .

time to go find some ducks :D .

ed rader

[JC4]

Cool. Glad to hear they acknowledged the problem, and hopefully fixed it.

Ducks would be better than cows! :)

[Permagrin]

glad to hear that there was indeed a problem and that they fixed it. I missed this thread the first go around but I do own both the lenses and there is no noticeable difference in the IQ btw. the 300 w/tc and the 7-2 w/tc...really except for the exif, I doubt anyone could tell the difference in my shots with them...hope you find yours to be the same :)