20D and 75-300mm IS - I'm not impressed

[mdr]

Have been using the 75-300mm IS happily for years on my EOS 3 :), but I'm not impressed with the results on my new 20D. Resolution appears to be poor, particularly at the 300mm end using IS :(.

Has anyone else encountered this?

Should I consider upgrading to the 70-300mm DO, 100-400mm L or wait for Canon to bring out a new digital compatible lens, or should I jump ship to Sigma's 100-300mm f4 EX HSM which seems to get raving reviews for use on the 20D.

[Olegis]

More information would be useful - what were the settings (aperture, shutter apeed, ISO), and probably a sample picture that you were unhappy with.

[mdr]

Will post sample picture with EXIF data tonight, as I have no access to my pictures from work.

With IS switched off, difference is not or hardly noticeable. With IS on, I found this quality issue. I've had the lens serviced and checked out by a Canon Service Centre, who stated that it is in perfect , as new condition.

[tommykjensen]

I have not tried the 75-300 IS on a 20D but I had it when I had a 300D and I was satishfied with the results. But only until I got a 70-200 mm f4L.

If You ar enot happy with the results then I would suggest the 70-200 mm F4 L. Yes You loose 100 mm in reach but compared to the improved quality I think it is an ok tradeoff. Later You can always add a 1,4x extender which will give You a 98-280 mm f5.6 L lens that also produces fantastic photos.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not a big fan of that lens,..

I would NOT look to the 70-300mm DO either for the purposes of improved image quality,.. yes it's "better" (and at triple the cost it better be!) but ti is not even remotely in the league of the similarly priced 100-400mm IS (yes I own both)

[cc10d]

I agree with Cyber,
I also have both lenes, The advantage the DO has is its compactness and OK quality. It is better than the consumer lenses but not up to the 100-400L especially at 300 on both lenes. But the 100-400 is physically a lot bigger heaver. It still is what I use most though.

[Sicily1918]

I agree with Cyber,
I also have both lenes, The advantage the DO has is its compactness and OK quality. It is better than the consumer lenses but not up to the 100-400L especially at 300 on both lenes. But the 100-400 is physically a lot bigger heaver. It still is what I use most though.Hmmmm... I was just about to ask the same question (ahhhh.... the wonders of the 'search' feature).

So, even though on paper they look similar (plus 30mm bottom end and minus 100mm top-end, same overall f/, IS, USM, etc., etc.) it's basically a world of difference between the two, but it's all of about $200 more for an L; in other words, it's no contest.

Incidentally, Dell has the 100-400 for $1359... limited offer... I just bought the 10-22mm... I have no money... I want to cry.

[rufis6]

I'm not impressed with the 20D or the 75-300 IS, at least as a combination. It was explained to me that electronics double in quality and half in price every year, (and it appears to be true) so I am dumping my 20D along with two lens on Ebay. I am sick of poor resolution and post processing tweaking, USM and high pass sharpening, functions that were completely foreign to me until I went digital. I bought a nice Leica R8 with Summicron lens and my photographs could not be sharper - without all the "post processing" burden. To view my items on Ebay go to: Canon 75-300mm AF Zoom Lens f/4.5-5.6 USM IS, then you can see my other items under "view seller's other auctions." I'll return to digital after they work out the bugs.

[Simon Spiers]

This is a shot i took with my Canon75-300 (non IS) lens.
I have found this lens suffers from severe CA on high contrast shots or when the background is out of focus.
I was quite pleased with this result though:)





http://hometown.aol.co.uk/SSpiers/images/cooter.jpg

[griff2]

I used the 75-300 non IS on the 300D and didn't like it at all; varying degrees of softness thoughout the aperture/zoom range and severe chromatic abberation at the 300 end, I Ebayed it towards a 70-200 f/4L, which is an order of magnitude better!

[pcasciola]

Have been using the 75-300mm IS happily for years on my EOS 3 :), but I'm not impressed with the results on my new 20D.It seems that many lenses that are ok on film bodies are not as impressive on digital bodies for some reason. I've seen this with the 28-135 IS on a 10D vs a film body. Not sure what the reason is, but maybe the 75-300 IS is another one of those lenses that just doesn't shine on a digital body unless it's an unusually good copy.

[Paul_O]

It seems that many lenses that are ok on film bodies are not as impressive on digital bodies for some reason. I've seen this with the 28-135 IS on a 10D vs a film body. Not sure what the reason is, but maybe the 75-300 IS is another one of those lenses that just doesn't shine on a digital body unless it's an unusually good copy.

That's a good point and something that I've been meaning to ask. How much effect does the body have on a lens? I've noticed a few posts with this same question (it was fine before but now.....), I'm very happy with my 75-300 IS on my 300D and am looking to upgrade to a 20D in the near future, I hope I'll still be happy with it then.

Paul

[Jack W.]

See this thread at dp review for what I think are some pretty amazing shots with a 75-300IS and a 20D:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12179579

Jack

[Mike H]

I'm not impressed with the 20D or the 75-300 IS, at least as a combination. It was explained to me that electronics double in quality and half in price every year, (and it appears to be true) so I am dumping my 20D along with two lens on Ebay. I am sick of poor resolution and post processing tweaking, USM and high pass sharpening, functions that were completely foreign to me until I went digital. I bought a nice Leica R8 with Summicron lens and my photographs could not be sharper - without all the "post processing" burden. To view my items on Ebay go to: Canon 75-300mm AF Zoom Lens f/4.5-5.6 USM IS, then you can see my other items under "view seller's other auctions." I'll return to digital after they work out the bugs.

You might want to hurry up and buy as much Leica equipment as you can. DPReview.com reports that they are in financial trouble at this time. Apparently those low quality digicams are putting them out of business, just as they did to Bronica. It would seem that the market disagrees with your assessment of relative quality (digital vs. film).

It's interesting that people find post processing to be too much work to be bothered with. I suppose that it's less work to take a trip to buy the film, chemicals, etc., then processing the negatives afterwards, followed by hand printing with an enlarger. I'm sure that a disciminating photographer such as you wouldn't want to go with "machine" processing and printing.

I can post process 200-300 shots before most people could clean the D76 out of their processing drums and wash the photo-flo off of their fingers--not to mention washing out the paper processing pans and cleaning off the print drying racks.

Take it from someone who can tell the difference between stop bath and fixer with the lights turned off: digital is better, much better.

Mike H

[Redbird_xo]

See this thread at dp review for what I think are some pretty amazing shots with a 75-300IS and a 20D:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12179579

Jack

Thanks for the link. Those pictures are truely sharp for my eyes. Though I am satisfied with the 75-300 MK III considering its price tag, I've never seen such level of sharpness with it on the 300D. I am starting to aware of the fact that same lens can perform differently on film SLR and DSLR.

[ScottE]

I wasn't impressed with the 75-300 when I tried one out on my EOS3 It was simply too soft at the 300 mm end using a 35 mm size sensor (film). That is why I didn't buy it. It could only be worse using the 1.6x senson on a 20D.

[rufis6]

To Mike H.

Apparently you must think if one does not use a digital camera they must go back to dark ages in all other regards. Be advised that I have a Nikon scanner capable of scanning my now sharp images at the rate of 20 seconds per. And also know that enlargers and D76 are not a necessary advent of developing; I have a fine Mac that does quite well. I'm sure if speed was the only criterion you (might) beat me in as far as time is concerned, but I even doubt that. I don't have to waste time with USM and high-speed sharpening: my photos come out sharp the first time around and I can concentrate on being a photographer, not a technician.

[pcasciola]

Maybe not dark ages yet, but 90's anyway.

20 seconds per shot is WAY longer than it takes to apply the standard, Canon recommended USM parameters of 300/0.3/0. I apply my USM at the same time I do my noise reduction, and can get far cleaner, sharper, less grainy shots with my 20D at ISO 3200 than any film body can do at high ISOs.

If you don't like doing it per image, you can batch it out in Photoshop with the standard parameters and walk away while it blows through a whole directory of pictures.

[vwpilot]

You dont HAVE to mess with all that post processing if you dont want to. Everything you call a "bug" with digital is here to stay because its merely a bi-product of the technology and there really isnt a way around it.

However, if you just spend a little time to set some of the in camera settings, you could easily get what you want right out of it without ever touching a computer. You can set in camera sharpening so you dont have to mess with USM, you can set a color space and tone parameters in camera so that you get what you want right out of the camera. It just takes a few test sessions to get the settings where you want and you are totally done with it, never having to mess with Photoshop again if you dont want.

People print images right off their digital cameras all the time and never touch a computer. I know event shooters that dont have the time to spend on every photo for a weekend and they do this all the time. They set up the dslr to give them what they want out of the camera and all they have to do is load them into the computer and print the ones the customers ask for. So it is very possible to do what you want and not have to spend time post processing.

If you want to go back to film simply for the film, that is a totally valid reason. I like digital better but I'm not going to sit here and say its the only way to go, there are some things that people do like about film (just dont say its better than digital cause that is just as wrong as saying digital is the answer for everyone). But to say that you dont want digital till the bugs are worked out is not right. Its just not a true statement and if you really wanted to shoot digital without all the work, it can very easily be done.

[pcasciola]

vwpilot brings up an excellent point. I've grown so used to leaving all the settings flat because I actually prefer doing it all in post processing, that I always forget you can change them in the camera settings to achieve the desired level of sharpness, contrast and saturation right in the camera. You can even set up multiple parameter sets that you can quickly switch for the times when you don't think you'll need any post processing. This is the perfect solution for those who are not willing to spend the time post processing their images, and it always amazes me how fast people give up without even learning what the camera is capable of.

[rufis6]

The facts are clear: with new technologies like digital imaging, the price is reduced by about 50% every year and the quality is increased by at least the same amount in the same time space. There ARE bugs with digital and they will be worked out. And if speed was my only criterion I get a Polaroid. And with my Leica R8 I don't have to make a lot of settings that were completely foreign to me several months ago; my photographs are as sharp as can be. It's not a matter to me of which is better; it's a matter of which is better for ME. If others are satisfied with all the post-processing editing they go through, that's fine with me. I am only stating my preferences. In time, AFTER THE BUGS are worked out I will likely go back to digital, until then I'm quite happy with my Leica.

As far as "event shooters" are concerned, risking be called an elitist or worse, I just don't consider those people photographers, not do I consider the work of the majority of them as "photographs." They are, for the most part, hucksters in it for the money, not the photography.

As far as "in-camera" settings are concerned, I am as aware of them and adapt at using them as anyone. But the bottom line is: they are not the solution for all the problems that can and do sprout up. For those who enjoy the tweaking and sharpening, etc, enjoy.

[Mike H]

Rufis,

You can shoot with whatever you want, and even drive up to the shoot in a Model T, too. It won't offend or affect me. I was trying to help you by telling you that your issues with digital have been worked out by many others already.

I used to shoot a Hasselblad camera and print the negatives by hand. Later I moved to hybrid photography (as you are doing now) scanning the negatives with a UMAX PowerLook III and printing them with ink jet printers. The results were terrific. After 20 years of shooting, processing, and printing film in the toy format that you enjoy (35mm) to the more serious film cameras, I know what film cameras can do, and I know that better results can be had using digital. (Just for the record I really like Leicas, and I'm sorry to see them on their way out.)

It's a matter of learning the workflow. I rarely use the Unsharp Mask in Photoshop. In Capture One I have files sharpened as they are being developed, which the program does in the background so that one can edit during processing. Hence, there is no time lost for going through the sharpening step.

Be aware that the camera companies (especially Canon) have stated publicly that they have designed their cameras so that images come out of the camera unsharp, particularly on their professional cameras. This allows people to choose their own level of sharpness for an image. Once an image has been sharpened, you can't return the file to its previous state completely, and Canon wants to leave people the freedom to sharpen as they deem appropriate. You may want to search Canon's web site for an article on the subject. I tried to find it for you just now, but couldn't seem to locate it.

Good luck.

Mike H

[pcasciola]

Mike, is this the article you were refering to?
http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

[Mike H]

Mike, is this the article you were refering to?
http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

Yes, thank you for locating it! It's a pretty good article, even if you aren't interested in the sharpening issue.

The DPReview.com web site often comments on the sharpness issue, too. Their reviews of professional cameras usually make some comment on this when the sharpness of new cameras are assessed.

Mike H

[MrChad]

As for lenses on film vs. digital....I skimmed this thread.

In my case I find that I'm more harsh with digital prints on my monitor (film didn't get scanned as often), but when I take the CF card and film to a real lab for prints I love them both very much, even with my 75-300 IS. I would suggest taking some prints to a lab for printing. Nothing makes a good picture look better then a quality print.

I use a Canon i860 with Media Street inks and a bulk feed system at home w/both Canon and Red River paper, which is fine for most prints, but it still can't top my local lab prints.

[vwpilot]

In time, AFTER THE BUGS are worked out I will likely go back to digital, until then I'm quite happy with my Leica.

What are all these 'bugs' that you keep talking about? I dont see the connection. You state you left digital because you did not want to spend time post processing them. That is NOT a bug, that is just what digital is. That will not change. Like I said, you could change it right now. Obviously if spending time in front of the computer is your complaint, you arent as competent with the in camera settings as you lead us to believe or you would be able to solve your bug issue right there.

I am not by any means saying digital is perfect and there are no bugs, but the bugs you speak of seem to be of the kind that are arctually planned into the cameras and are not bugs to be worked out at all.

As far as "in-camera" settings are concerned, I am as aware of them and adapt at using them as anyone. But the bottom line is: they are not the solution for all the problems that can and do sprout up. For those who enjoy the tweaking and sharpening, etc, enjoy.

Again, what are these problems that you speak of? In camera settings are not a solution to any digital problems, they are tools you can use to fine tune the photos out of the camera so you dont have to spend some time in front of the computer. Again, please let us know what these problems are so that we can see them and switch back along with you.

As far as "event shooters" are concerned, risking be called an elitist or worse, I just don't consider those people photographers, not do I consider the work of the majority of them as "photographs." They are, for the most part, hucksters in it for the money, not the photography.

haha, well arent you the enlightened one here? While I havent seen any of your work, I have no doubt that I could find several of these "hucksters" that could equal or better what you could generate. Its wonderful that you are in it for so much more than money, I'm glad you have reached a higher plain than some others. And while I'm not an event shooter myself, if it came down to having to do it to pay the bills so that I could shoot what I am really passionate about at other times, I would be happy to do it.

[Sicily1918]

20 seconds per shot is WAY longer than it takes to apply the standard, Canon recommended USM parameters of 300/0.3/0. I apply my USM at the same time I do my noise reduction, and can get far cleaner, sharper, less grainy shots with my 20D at ISO 3200 than any film body can do at high ISOs.

If you don't like doing it per image, you can batch it out in Photoshop with the standard parameters and walk away while it blows through a whole directory of pictures.OK, what's USM here? I just got Photoshop, so I know little of this program -- or do you use an UltraSonic Motor to remove noise! :shock:

:mrgreen:

P.S. What plug-in do you use for noise reduction?

Thanks! :)

Edit: USM - Unsharpen Mask... no problem; I would'a deleted the top part, but it has my wise-ass remark :cool:

[mdr]

My 75-300mm IS will be apearing on eBay soon. Glad to see it go.

Have just got myself a mint second hand 70-200mm f4 L and 1.4x TC for only £307 and £139 respectively. Who says L lenses don't come cheap ;). This lens is truly a bargain for quality, as long as you can live with the f4 or f5.6 with the TC.

I've taken a few test shots and boy am I impressed with the sheer quality and colour rendering :D :D :D. I can't wait for my two week holidays in Egypt starting tomorrow when I'll be using this lens in earnest :D :D :D.

It doesn't have IS, but I'll live with that easily. The 300mm f4 L IS is now on the top of my wish list.

[sjprg]

Try processing the 75-300 images with DXo. The results are excellent.
The trial version is free.
www.dxo.com

Paul

[rufis6]

I'd hardly describe the Leica R* as a "toy" and I don't think I'm going to experience any problems because Leica is in financially difficulty. That's really streching it a bit: The law requires manufacturers to continue to make parts available for cameras for seven years after production. Maybe by then the "bugs" will be worked out. And I do not enjoy the extra work, whether it be "in-camera" or post processing. As for your experience, good for you. I remember when I only had 35 years experience. And I don't blame you for blowing your own horn; who else will if you don't.

As for your high-speed production, again, if speed were my criteria I get a Polaroid. I was developing my own color prints when the process required 90 minutes just to make a test strip, so I am quite acquainted with the darkroom, from my Bessler enlarger to my four trays and hugh timer. So don't assume your talking with a novice with your words about D76 and going back to the darkl ages. I'm clearly aware that the image in digital camera is anti-aliased and for that reason, no matter what you say, the result will have to be subject to post processing unless you are satisfied with soft images. Again, I do not know you criterion for excellence.

About Canon being aware that their images require sharpening and the benefit is that it allows users to decide their own level of sharpness - what hogwash. If the prints came out sharp in the first place and I found them too sharp, for some strange reason, I'm sure I would have no difficulty nor spend any amount of excess time blurring them a little. I used to do that once in a while when I had my own Hasselblad and Speed Graphic. And speaking of work product, I have seen none of your either, VW.

[Mike H]

... I don't think I'm going to experience any problems because Leica is in financially difficulty. That's really streching it a bit: The law requires manufacturers to continue to make parts available for cameras for seven years after production.

How exactly do authorities enforce the law against companies that have gone out of existence? It sounds like that's where Leica is headed.

Mike H

[Mike H]

... As for your experience, good for you. I remember when I only had 35 years experience. And I don't blame you for blowing your own horn; who else will if you don't.


I wasn't blowing my horn, as you certainly seem to be. What I was trying to emphasize is that I am in a good position to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of film vs. digital. As I said in a previous post, I shot, processed, and printed negatives for years, and know a good deal about the capabilities of film cameras. I've also shot a D30, D60, 10D, and now use a 1D Mark II. I've processed and printed my own work from those cameras. You clearly do not have the experience to assess the capabilities of digital cameras because you haven't really taken the time to work with them. That's what separates you from the many people that have made the switch.

Mike H

[wbessada]

My 75-300mm IS will be apearing on eBay soon. Glad to see it go.

Have just got myself a mint second hand 70-200mm f4 L and 1.4x TC for only £307 and £139 respectively. Who says L lenses don't come cheap ;). This lens is truly a bargain for quality, as long as you can live with the f4 or f5.6 with the TC.

Hi - would you mind sharing the source of your 70-200 L and 1.4x?

Cheers,
WB

[rbbblues]

my 20D and 75-300 IS give wonderful results..........but only when "I" do all of the required 'right things' regarding the actual taking of the shot..........

i believe a good image, (technically and artistically), will forgive a slight lack of sharpness.....

of course a 100-400L would be an improvement, (i'm about to upgrade.....not really sure why...), but we should all keeo OUR skills in tact, and not get anal about the skill of the equipment...........

(for those of you interested, my examples can be seen on my website:
www.richardbluesteinphotos.com

[vwpilot]

About Canon being aware that their images require sharpening and the benefit is that it allows users to decide their own level of sharpness - what hogwash....I have seen none of your either, VW.

But you CAN make them sharp out of the camera if you turn the sharpness up in-camera. If they wanted to make it sharp in camera they very easily could do it. They do it on all their point and shoots and they even have the Rebel set up to give sharper images out of camera then the 20D or any others.

Its just set up that way already. If that is your only bug, then you will be waiting a long time for it to be fixed because there is already an answer there for you.

As for my work, you are more than welcome to take a look at them, though I never claimed anywhere to be better or worse than you, just giving you the answers to your apparent "bug" problem. http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=886

[rufis6]

Mike H.

You are truly amazing: Now you are able to look into my mind and tell me: "You clearly do not have the experience to assess the capabilities of digital cameras because you haven't really taken the time to work with them. That's what separates you from the many people that have made the switch," You have NO IDEA as to my experience. Where did you get your crystal ball? Reminds me of an earlier post of yours in which you described a Leica as a "toy." Funny toy: it has a larger image than the Canon 20D, in fact, the same size image as your current camera.

And as for Leica, what harm do you foresee for purchasers of their cameras? Think the sky will fall in on them if the company goes BK. As for how the issues are enforced, even a company that goes belly up is required to post bond in the event of future liability - and pay for that bond in advance.

I stated my case early in this discussion: I do what I perceive is in MY best interest and leave it for others to do the same - without criticizing them. Might be a good path for you to follow.

[RichardtheSane]

even a company that goes belly up is required to post bond in the event of future liability - and pay for that bond in advance.


I think you'll find that is not worldwide

Likewise the law that suggests that a company had to provide spares for 7 years is not worldwide.

[MrChad]

my 20D and 75-300 IS give wonderful results..........but only when "I" do all of the required 'right things' regarding the actual taking of the shot..........

i believe a good image, (technically and artistically), will forgive a slight lack of sharpness.....

of course a 100-400L would be an improvement, (i'm about to upgrade.....not really sure why...), but we should all keeo OUR skills in tact, and not get anal about the skill of the equipment...........

(for those of you interested, my examples can be seen on my website:
www.richardbluesteinphotos.com

I agree I think this lens is favorite kicking post of many for no good reason. It's not as sharp as the 70-200 f2.8L, but I can't pack the L in a space as small as the 75-300 IS either for travel. And when you need that reach from 200-300mm w/ IS, I have yet to find anything that can touch this for the price. I shot a Vivitar 75-300 for years on a AE-1 with good results....the 75-300 IS is a very nice step up IMO.

[rufis6]

Mr. Chad:

That is the law and it is enforced in all nations that are part of the International Trade Agreement. And being a lawyer myself, I know from where I speak. If you like you can Google my name (Randle H. Bate.) you mind find a case or two of mine. I would not state incorrect information. Regardless, of whether the conjecture about Leica going out of business is accurate or not, it will have no effect on me whatever.

[mdr]

Got my 70-200 f4 L through an add on this forum! £300 plus £7 P&P was a bargain no to be missed, considering the cheapest new price would be £399 for me (in the UK!).

Got the 1.4x TC from Westcliff through their web site. It pays to keep an eye on the good web site dealers, as good stuff and bargains generally disappear within days (or even a day).

Have used the lens and lens/TC combination in Egypt for the past two weeks. Certainly a dream to use. Quality appears to be excellent. Once I've got my RAW's sorted and processed, I'll post some images.