Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 17 Dec 2010 (Friday) 00:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Comparing the new 70-300 L to the old 70-300 IS

 
VirtualRain
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Dec 17, 2010 00:40 |  #1

Here are some comparison shots with the new 70-300L compared to my old 70-300 IS USM. The differences at 300mm are evident even in web sized images. At 135mm I can also see noticeable differences in sharpness in the web sized images. At 200mm it's less obvious.

See for yourself...

IMAGE: http://syijpq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pFO7SYbTSUytp6eXCVC6neNKI6lgGMbpq9lZdUTAik4ttzB-qLDWsb4ae4YfYR1JQknZ4EjudaQ1w5nPLRP4noSsZw7W4LX7x/300mm-Ship.png?psid=1

IMAGE: http://syijpq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p7mYKaLJaLScB4KI6JjFSMIc4Ou7wPK0HZALB7c1LsaLUzddrdFyYWe1a2ODXkNdXqtCnDnTi4FgyRxO9lT184q3M8SeaZrap/200mm-CanadaPlace.png?psid=1

IMAGE: http://syijpq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pTnsKfkZ4JWNw4AO4vfMpI1syaBiLuUmg8Sl9f13lMy5yKoVrmIdkGjYEbXWuNANtgEMvSVSwR2HeA6Cvle0b_4LUutN9ESs_/135mm-Container.png?psid=1

IMAGE: http://syijpq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pYaTXhlf_uNPPAE6f7jnN-w1AWe9qgsncdpWiKOX0_xG62UeZG6UQ2UHOul-YQw8qO1XLNmoxUr4EZJqB5gpIQ74eSmsi3_Mh/300mm-Ship-640th.png?psid=1

In case you're wondering how these comparisons were done... I chose the best of 3 shots from each lens (although there was very little difference) and the RAW's were imported into Aperture and exported as TIFF's without any adjustments. Photoshop was used to build the crop sheet that includes a 100% crop from each image and a downsized image of the original. They were then saved as PNG-24.

For those having trouble viewing the images, here are the direct links...


Sony a7rII / 24-240 / Zeiss 25, 55, 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
VirtualRain
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Dec 17, 2010 00:41 |  #2

I also compared the two telephotos with my EFS 60mm Macro and my EFS 17-55mm f2.8. While they don't all share a common focal length, you can get a feel for sharpness at f4 across these lenses at focal lengths in the 55-70mm range.

By my eyes, all of these lenses are sharp at this focal length in the center. The only notable exception is the 70-300 IS which is less sharp in the corner of the frame than the others.

1000
x
1800
TOO LARGE!
EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE:
http://syijpq.bay.live​filestore.com …70mm-Multilens.png?psid=1
Click here to see our image rules.



These shots were done using manual focus, no IS, on a tripod under artificial light with a remote shutter release. The camera was 7.5 feet (2.25m) from the subject material. Unfortunately, the 17-55 image is 1EV lower than the rest, but I didn't realize this until after I had got back inside from the garage (and to be honest, didn't feel like redoing it). All images are shot at 100 ISO on a 7D.

I should also point out that the cans of coke were unopened and just out of the fridge so they have some condensation on them. Perhaps not the best test subject, but you get the idea.

Sony a7rII / 24-240 / Zeiss 25, 55, 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KayakPhotos
Goldmember
Avatar
3,287 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1933
Joined May 2008
Location: Naples, FL
     
Dec 17, 2010 00:43 |  #3

Nice comparison. New lens definitely wins, but the original wasn't bad at all for the price. I could never get over the build so I passed it over myself.....

Thanks for taking the time to compare!


Just a thought from Daniel
Gear
flickr (external link)

website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jarias
Senior Member
Avatar
581 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Walnut CA
     
Dec 17, 2010 00:45 |  #4

Thanks i am considering that lense


George

Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andy ­ R
Goldmember
Avatar
1,865 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Likes: 1552
Joined Dec 2008
Location: So Cal
     
Dec 17, 2010 00:47 |  #5

nice, id be intrested to see it agains the 70-200f4


5Dii ~ 80D
Canon 14L ~ Canon 24-105L mkII ~ Canon 50 f1.8 STM ~ Canon 135L ~ Sigma 100-400 ~ Canon 1.4x mkII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zone555
Member
84 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Dec 17, 2010 00:53 as a reply to  @ Andy R's post |  #6

Thanks for doing this! :D


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slasher723
Member
121 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Hollywood, CA
     
Dec 17, 2010 01:01 |  #7

VirtualRain... thank you so much for doing this. It's really appreciated!


[7D] [5D III]
[16-35 II L] [24-70 II L] [70-200 II L] [24LII] [100L Macro] [580EX II]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayTuesday
Member
Avatar
99 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Reno, NV
     
Dec 17, 2010 01:11 |  #8

Were UV filters used on either lens for this test?


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/everydaytuesday​/ (external link)
40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
VirtualRain
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Dec 17, 2010 01:16 |  #9

EverydayTuesday wrote in post #11467338 (external link)
Were UV filters used on either lens for this test?

No. Call me crazy, but I don't use UV/protective filters. I prefer to use a hood for protection.


Sony a7rII / 24-240 / Zeiss 25, 55, 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayTuesday
Member
Avatar
99 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Reno, NV
     
Dec 17, 2010 01:20 |  #10

VirtualRain wrote in post #11467352 (external link)
No. Call me crazy, but I don't use UV/protective filters.

Good to know. The 70-300 L looks pretty impressive.

You definitely aren't crazy. I don't use them either. They do nothing but degrade image quality.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/everydaytuesday​/ (external link)
40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MP4/8
Senior Member
Avatar
689 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Mississauga ON, Canada
     
Dec 17, 2010 01:42 as a reply to  @ EverydayTuesday's post |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

Handholding @300mm with a 1/100 shutter speed for a lens comparo? You're a daredevil! :lol:

Thanks for the comparison. I also have the 70-300 IS, the 17-55, and the 60mm Macro, so it gives me a real good feel for what to expect. I have no complaints about the 70-300 IS, considering the price. It's a decent lens, and it's real nice to have the long reach, in such a small, light lens.

Based on your shots, it appears that in everyday shooting, the 70-300L should be a stomping good lens.

Great job.

.


Canon T2i ** EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 ** EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS ** EF 50mm f/1.8 II ** EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro ** Lensbaby ** Canon S5 IS P/S camera
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." : Albert Einstein

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2578
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 17, 2010 02:04 |  #12

am i the only one that's not seeing any images?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
winmazing
Senior Member
Avatar
315 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
     
Dec 17, 2010 02:30 |  #13

Nice comparison!
Those Canucks are looking mighty fine these days


Shutterstock (external link) | flick (external link)r (external link) | Canon EOS 5D MK II | Canon EOS M
AF: Canon EF 24-104mm f/4L IS, Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4
MF:
Mir-24H 35mm f/2.0, Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4, Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-W 24m f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AkinNAUY
Member
156 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2010
     
Dec 17, 2010 02:33 as a reply to  @ winmazing's post |  #14

Nice! That helps alot... Thanks


"Support Our Troops"
Canon Stuff!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark2Mark
Member
136 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Dec 17, 2010 03:36 |  #15

A very useful comparison. Thanks for posting this. :)


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,665 views & 0 likes for this thread
Comparing the new 70-300 L to the old 70-300 IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Ezra Praveen
1027 guests, 237 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.