Two Very Different Lenses at 70mm

I was bored this afternoon and decided to take a couple of quick shots with two of my lenses at 70mm to see if I could notice any discernable differences, just for curiosity’s sake. The lenses are not competitors, they just both overlap at the 70mm mark. I tried to keep similar settings for both shots, but I know this isn’t going to be 100% apples to apples since the lenses are quite different. To my untrained eyes, the images appear almost identical. Can anyone more experienced in assessing a lens give feedback on how you would distinguish the two from an image quality standpoint? All feedback is welcome.

Both images are unedited except for resizing to the forum limit.

Camera - Canon 6D MKII
Lenses - links to Flickr full res images
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM - https://farm5.staticfl​ickr.com …078899_7c23f5c9​1f_o_d.jpg
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - https://farm5.staticfl​ickr.com …294688_e06467cb​11_o_d.jpg

Interesting comparison. An LII lens in the middle of its range stopped down 1/3, compared to a known mediocre performer at the end of its range wide open. At forum size and down-rezzed for posting, I wouldn't expect to see much difference. If you can't tell the difference on a large-screen monitor, I'd want my money back for the L.

Did the light change that much between lens changes? If not, the looks to be 1/3 stop darker, and a tad greenish.

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the reply. I have updated my original post with the original size images. The 24-105 was the kit lens for the 6D MKII, and I picked up the DO for pretty cheap. I too was surprised that there were not any major differences (to my eyes) based on some of the criticisms on the DO. These were just quick snaps at the back door, just a few minutes apart. Nothing structured or scientific. I am relatively inexperienced compared to a lot of the guys and girls on here, so I’m probably not doing either lens justice.

I would expect these lenses to be pretty similar at 70mm 4.5. The 24-105 II is considered a versatile lens, but does not have the corner sharpness of the 24-70mm 2.8 II. 4.5 is pretty open for the 24-105, so you're seeing more corner softness and CA. Non L lenses can be pretty sharp (especially in the center), but may not be able to handle lens flare, not have IS (or not as good), or can't handle CA as well as L counterparts (since they're less likely to have special lens coatings or up to date IS lens elements).

photozone.de has tests of both lenses with 21MP FF, and at 70mm f/4 or f/4.5 the two lenses seem to have very similar levels of distortion and vignetting, and almost identical MTF scores in Center and Edges of FF fields.

Nice post, welcome. I have the 24-105 and am looking at various telephotos including several of the 70-300.

Bassat wrote in post #18532026
An LII lens in the middle of its range stopped down 1/3, compared to a known mediocre performer at the end of its range wide open. At forum size and down-rezzed for posting, I wouldn't expect to see much difference. If you can't tell the difference on a large-screen monitor, I'd want my money back for the L.

Interesting that you would say this. I have the 70-300 DO, and have never had any complaints about it's sharpness. The main weakness I've found is flare handling; it gets a bit hazy when there's a light source in the frame, but in these picture I don't see that.
Considering that the 24-105 is regarded as one of the most "mediocre" L lenses, I would have expected to see little difference between them.

AdamT wrote in post #18532102
Nice post, welcome. I have the 24-105 and am looking at various telephotos including several of the 70-300.

If you're considering buying a 70-300 I would highly recommend the Canon 70-300mm IS II USM. The 70-300L might have a bit better IQ but the II is lightning fast to focus with the Nano USM system and is a steal at half the price of the L.

-Joe

TreeburnerCT wrote in post #18532728
If you're considering buying a 70-300 I would highly recommend the Canon 70-300mm IS II USM. The 70-300L might have a bit better IQ but the II is lightning fast to focus with the Nano USM system and is a steal at half the price of the L.

-Joe

I agree. See my review of the 70-300II: http://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1489524. It is an excellent choice. Consider the money; that makes it an even better choice. I got mine at Canon refurbished for $379.

Thank you to everyone that has responded. It is nice to hear everyone’s perespectives. I found this lens for about $350 in truly like new condition with a 1 year retailers warranty as well. I thought it was a good deal on what is normally regarded as an overpriced lens, and thought I would give it a go. I haven’t had a chance to really play with it yet, but it seems fine for the price and my purpose so far.

Stephen

Bassat wrote in post #18532738
I agree. See my review of the 70-300II: http://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1489524. It is an excellent choice. Consider the money; that makes it an even better choice. I got mine at Canon refurbished for $379.

Thanks guys. Nice review. Might just pickup it up from Amazon for $349, price/value is there but not sure about need/timing and quality yet.