PDA

View Full Version : 75-300IS vs 70-200 f/2.8

FlyingPete
31st of July 2005 (Sun), 22:59
Well, I headed into our local 'camera' shop (I say that because they do all sorts of cool stuff) armed with my 20D and 75-300IS to do a side by side comparison between what I have and the Canon and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8's.

Now a while ago I read a rumour that the 70-200 (Canon) produced better cropped images @ 200mm than the 75-300 did @ 300mm, well from my testing I can say that is defiantly true, in fact images from the 70-200 up scaled to the same angle of view as the 75-300 still had more detail! Well there goes any doubts that I needed to keep the 75-300 for the 'long' end.

An interesting side point this got me thinking on is are many of us wasting our time with 8MP cameras when we own no lenses that can resolve enough detail to take advantage of all those pixels?

Anyway, the Sigma 70-200 @ f/2.8 was a disappointment, no sharper than my 75-300 which is contrary to other things I have read, I was shooting a 1/1000s+ on all shots to eliminate camera shake from the equation, so either the AF was bad, or it was just a bad lens.

Anyway, the 75-300IS vs the 70-200 f/2.8, 100% crops:
http://www.lowden.net.nz/Stuff/C75-300Normw.jpg
Canon EF75-300IS f/5.6 1/1250s ISO200

http://www.lowden.net.nz/Stuff/C70-200UPw.jpg
Canon EF70-200 f/2.8 1/5000s ISO200 upscaled in Photoshop by 150% Bicubic

Note the wire fence and the barbed wire, also the 70-200 shot looks a little over sharpened, not sure where those artifacts come from, possibly the bicubic resampling.
Dante King
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 00:18
Well, how about a pic of the 300mm end. I know the other lens cant go there, but I would like to see how it is and what some usm can do.

So what are you planning?
grego
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 00:23
Even though you might have been disappointed with the 70-200's detail compared ot cannon's, you have more speed with the 70-200 f/2.8 than you do with the 75-300
FlyingPete
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 00:33
Well, how about a pic of the 300mm end. I know the other lens cant go there, but I would like to see how it is and what some usm can do.

So what are you planning?

The 75-300 image is the 300mm end, already, I upsampled the 70-200 image to match.

I was planning a Sigma 70-200, but not sure now, will look to the Canon instead. I was concerned about loosing the IS and 300mm, not so worried about it now.
bobglass
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 00:55
Flyin Pete,
You won't be disappointed with the Canon 70-200 2.8 is usm. It is agreat lens. Hello to my neighbor Dante kING...HE HAS THE GREATEST HAMBERGERS
Bob Glass new member.
Dante King
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 00:56
Ok, I get it now. Have you considered the 70-300 DO IS USM? I love it. KILLER IS too. Works great with kenko TC, no loss of AF or IS.
FlyingPete
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 01:25
Ok, I get it now. Have you considered the 70-300 DO IS USM? I love it. KILLER IS too. Works great with kenko TC, no loss of AF or IS.

Hmmm, I don't think the 70-300DO will be much of an improvement (other than size!) over what I have, I have a very real requirement for a bright as I can get lens, f/2.8 is where it is at. The alternative is wait for a DSLR with ISO6400 and no noise ;)
grego
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 01:28
Hmmm, I don't think the 70-300DO will be much of an improvement (other than size!) over what I have, I have a very real requirement for a bright as I can get lens, f/2.8 is where it is at. The alternative is wait for a DSLR with ISO6400 and no noise ;)

the 70-300 DO is a much better lens than that 75-300. It's quicker, which is a good start.

But ultimately the 70-200 L (IS or non IS) will blow all of them out of the water.
Dante King
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 09:14
the 70-300 DO is a much better lens than that 75-300. It's quicker, which is a good start.

But ultimately the 70-200 L (IS or non IS) will blow all of them out of the water.

Pete, have you tried the DO. Its really worth checking out IMHO.
Dante King
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 09:16
Flyin Pete,
You won't be disappointed with the Canon 70-200 2.8 is usm. It is agreat lens. Hello to my neighbor Dante kING...HE HAS THE GREATEST HAMBERGERS
Bob Glass new member.

Not to hijack this thread, BUT I thought I had exclusive rights to POTN membership in San Anselmo California. Man they lied to me. Bob, are you really one of my guests?
dont forget to come in and introduce yourself and get that POTN discount. Oh, welcome to POTN, Bob!

Ok, we now return you to flyingpete's dilema.
MadMesh
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 14:26
Hmmm, I don't think the 70-300DO will be much of an improvement (other than size!) over what I have, I have a very real requirement for a bright as I can get lens, f/2.8 is where it is at. The alternative is wait for a DSLR with ISO6400 and no noise ;)


Gimmie 2
FlyingPete
1st of August 2005 (Mon), 15:55
Pete, have you tried the DO. Its really worth checking out IMHO.

The DO won't cut it, my promary requirement is light, I shoot in a lot of low light conditions, I really need that extra two stops the f/2.8 gives me, if it wasn't for that I would be able to consider the DO, or even the Canon 70-200 f/4 which is within my curretn budget.