24-70L vs. 70-300DOIS Sample

[steibeldj]

I promised some photos for both 24-70 and my new 70-300DOIS and since it was a sunny day I am submitting these pictures. The 70-300 is out at 200mm.

I thought I knew how to post pictures, so if I did this wrong, the picture of my daughter with her hand up is the 70-300 and the other is of course the 24-70L

[steibeldj]

Just an additional note. The focal length was 300mm in the above shot. This is where everone says the lens is soft.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. if we assume that all of the differnces are caused solely by the lens,. then this is certainly a compelling argumnet for how DO falls short of "L" quality glass.

Nice comparison. Thanks! :)

[HKFEVER]

Post the setting for both pictures.

[steibeldj]

70-300 DO IS 300mm f5.0 1/400 ISO200
24-70L 70mm f5.6 1/640 ISO 200

[blue_max]

Sharper yes, but which has made the better picture.

Graham

[sdommin]

Come on, guys. If your objective was to compare and contrast these two lenses, then you should make it fair. The only focal length these lenses have in common is 70mm, so both pictures should have been shot at that. Otherwise, what's the point?

[jokar]

Like sdommin - I can't see the point of this comparison.

Two nice lenses - but two very different lenses...

[mdclaros]

I agree with you guys, this is not a fair test. The conditions of it are not the same for both lenses. No point of discussion.

I own the 70-300 DO IS and I have to say it is a great lens, with good light can give you great sharp images, not L quality but better than the low end plastic construction type lenses. I love the IS feature and it is small for the zoom range.
Sometimes a little soft on the focus, some sharpening on Photoshop will not hurt anybody. Will it?
Mdclaros

[funpix]

About the only real comparision I can see is the amount of background blur.

[steibeldj]

The idea for the original post was only to show examples of both lenses since I promised them separately under two different threads. I just realized that the "vs." in the title says I am trying to show a direct comparison. Sorry for that, all of you are correct that this is not a good or fair test.

Let me repost an example with same, light, pose, focal length apature and shutter speed. Again, I really like both lenses and was not trying to pit one against the other, just actually show how nice the DO lens is at 300mm. If you are going to spend $1100 I tought someone might be interested in the output.

[steibeldj]

I agree with you guys, this is not a fair test. The conditions of it are not the same for both lenses. No point of discussion.

I own the 70-300 DO IS and I have to say it is a great lens, with good light can give you great sharp images, not L quality but better than the low end plastic construction type lenses. I love the IS feature and it is small for the zoom range.
Sometimes a little soft on the focus, some sharpening on Photoshop will not hurt anybody. Will it?
Mdclaros

Since you own it, could you also post a sample as well. There are already some great web sites out there that show lens comparisons, when I was about to buy, I just wanted to see the average photographers candid shots with this lens. Specifically indoor shots (such as sports, music, etc.). Just trying to help others decide.

[cc10d]

Thanks for the samples, Both look nice.

[mr.photoguy]

Come on, guys. If your objective was to compare and contrast these two lenses, then you should make it fair. The only focal length these lenses have in common is 70mm, so both pictures should have been shot at that. Otherwise, what's the point?
Exactly what I was thinking.

[mdclaros]

I wil totally post some samples of pics taken with 70-300DO IS when I get home this afternoon.
I took very nice tack sharp pics of the statue of liberty last summer and some very nice in hawaii as well.
Manuel

[mdclaros]

I wil totally post some samples of pics taken with 70-300DO IS when I get home this afternoon.
I took very nice tack sharp pics of the statue of liberty last summer
Manuel

here you have a pic from the statue of liberty's torch taken with the lens in question ans also a 100% crop so you see how sharp it is.
Taken with
Digital rebel 1/4000 sec , f/7.1, ISO 100, focal length 210mm No photoshop manipulation done.

The picture of chitah and cubs was taken at the DC zoo with a Canon 20 D early spring and you can see that is not as sharp (problem caused by the DO element)
Canon 20D, 1/160 sec, f/5.6, ISO 100, focal lenght 285.0mm this pic was cropped in photoshop CS

You can see two very different pics taken with same lens, en even the chitah was taken with a better camera, the one from the statue looks better. But oh well what do I know... I only posted this examples because somebody wanted some samples.

Please comment and enjoy
Manuel

[mdclaros]

The picture of chitah and cubs was taken at the DC zoo with a Canon 20 D early spring and you can see that is not as sharp (problem caused by the DO element)
Canon 20D, 1/160 sec, f/5.6, ISO 100, focal lenght 285.0mm this pic was cropped in photoshop CS


Manuel

here is the chitah picture

[ron chappel]

I think you guys are being way unfair here.
I for one and very apreciative at the near equal magnification examples shown! It's the only way one can test lenses objectively-it shows how lenses get sharper or softer at different focal lengths

[Andy_T]

Just to add, your daughter is cute in both pictures :D

I find it difficult to compare the two because of the external conditions.

The 70-300 picture loses a lot of appeal because her face is in the shadow, while it is in the sun in the other one.

Best regards,
Andy