Much-maligned 75-300

Hi folks

So - I've just bought a 10-22 and 24-105L and am delighted with both of them. The third, and probably last, lens I want to update is my present 75-300 III lens, which has taken some critical brickbats in the past. I'm thinking of replacing it with the 70-300 IS. However, just before I part with it, I thought I'd look at some past shots on the 75-300 (I didn't use it that often) and came up with this and I'd like to ask you experts what you think of it as regards sharpness.

It was taken at a focal length of 280mm at 800ASA and the exposure was 1/500th @f8. Is it as sharp as one could expect? (I must add that the original looks sharper that the resample version I had to post here). Your comments would be very valuable.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Its not much maligned people just don't know how to exploit it and think it should work at their level and not the other way around.

Roy Mathers,
Photos when resized usually need to be sharpened with software. I have been very happy with its low cost, light weight and good sharp quality of my 75-300. I once did a side by side comparison at 300mm f/8 to my 100-400L at 300mm f/8 with 100% crops (click to see) and they were very close! Now when I figured in the price difference between the two the 75-300 really was good

John

Thanks for the comment about re-sharpening after re-sizing - I hadn't thought of that. I must say that your comparison between the two lenses is extremely enlightening. I certainly don't think the difference in quality is worth the difference in price, at least judging by your test. Thanks.

Roy Mathers,
Well there are other things different between the 2 lenses,
ex.1 build quality (my 100-400L is a tank compared to the 75-300)
ex.2 IS (having IS on my 100-400L makes many more hand held shots available)
ex.3 Focus (my 100-400L has a much faster and complete manual control, the 75-300 has to be switched to MF or you strip the gears).
So there is more behind the price difference, but the 75-300 can give excellent results

My 2c..

I used to own the 75-300. It was a great lens and I did get some great sharp shots with it but I sure don't miss it. My 70-200L with a 1.4X does a great job and 98% of the time gets a sharper image (at least to my eye and monitor) that the 75-300. I won't bash the 75-300 though... it did a great job for me when I owned it!

Good points John - but
1. Build quality isn't that big a problem as I only use the lens rarely (and carefully)
2. As I mentioned, I'm thinking of changing it for the 70-300 which has IS and, I believe is a better lens.
3. I can live without manual focusing (or should I say I don't mind changing the switch to MF)

Nevertheless, the points you made were all valid.

Thanks for your comments rstunz. I live in the UK and I must tell you that we visited Iowa last year - and loved it! (Bill Bryson and 'Music Man' territory).

Mine on the other hand was just terrible it had such bad ghosting wide open it looked like you were looking through a cloud, i must of had a bad copy.

Thanks for all your comments, guys - they have all been very useful. Unfortunately, no-one has addressed the question I originally asked (ie in your opininion, is this picture sharp - or as sharp as one could expect?)

Roy Mathers,
Sorry, thought I answered that with suggesting sharpen after resize. The real way to tell is looking at a 100% crop not a resized photo. However I took the photo and put standard USM (the same amount I give my photos after I resize) and the photo looked sharp.

Here it is with just USM

Sorry John_B, there looks way too much USM there....

TeeJay,
Apology accepted
I just did a quick USM the same amount I put on most of my resized photos I have online. However I don't apply USM to photos for printing usually (not needed with my 5D), where Roy Mathers file might have been sharpened before resize.

How about instead of telling me there is to much USM, you answer the Op's question? Or post the file sharpened the way you like? <-- just a suggestion

I would say that the original image was a pretty good example from this particular lens and I don't see that additional sharpening would/could benefit.

I also happen to own this lens and agree that the only way to get good results is to know it's strengths - and play to them - which I think the OP did.

I didn't asnwer the OP 'cos in my opinion just saying "nice pic - you did a good job considering" was not really adding much to the topic. Whereas, when I saw the image posted by yourself - I felt that I needed to comment that it wasn't - IMHO - an improvment on the original - and said so.

TJ

Thanks again guys - and thanks especially to TeeJay. That's really what I wanted to know.

rstuntz wrote in post #2609325
My 2c..

I used to own the 75-300. It was a great lens and I did get some great sharp shots with it but I sure don't miss it. My 70-200L with a 1.4X does a great job and 98% of the time gets a sharper image (at least to my eye and monitor) that the 75-300. I won't bash the 75-300 though... it did a great job for me when I owned it!

What he said ^^^. I think I would buy a 70-200 f/4 before the 70-300. You may miss the extra 100mm reach.