Tested the new Canon 75-300mm III

Well, I got the lens on Friday just in time to take it out to the football game this weekend. It did maybe 70/30 with the 70 being on the good side...until it started getting dark...grrr...lol. Anyway, I decided to look up the specs of my Sony F707 to see why it does so much better than my lenses and found this:

"Also of interest is that the new lens is quite a bit faster than the old, the old lens had maximum aperture of F2.8 at wide angle and F3.3 at telephoto, the new lens has a maximum aperture of F2.0 at wide angle and F2.4 at telephoto (that's a stop faster)"

Hmm...guess that explains the problem...I didn't spend $1,200+ on a lens...lol. Anyway, I did take some pics and the night ones were on the dark side but possible able to be made better with some post processing? It did take some great shots during the day. If y'all want to check them out some samples are at http://www.ammobrasstr​ader.com/9sep.html. As always thought/inputs/suggest​ions are greatly appreciated.

This lens does not get good marks, especially for night time sports. You've noticed you're basically shooting at f5.6 (and that's wide open which on low end lenses won't get you good results). And this lens is soft and almost useless from 200 to 300mm.

It's a decent lens if it's all you can afford since a good zoom starts at $600 for the Canon 70-200 f4.

I tried, as the night fell and I remembered, to try to keep the lens at it 4.5 to get the most light in I could, obviously the far away shots didn't turn out too well but possibly usable with some post processing. The ones I kept at 4.5 towards the end of the night did turn out better. I got a much higher percentage of usable pictures since I took a tripod this time. I got a remote shutter release in the mail today to see if that will help eliminate any last bit of camera shake/operator error but I don't think I really had a problem with that during the shots I took earlier in the evening. Is there any kind of sample pictures I can find to see what the difference in 200mm and 300mm really "looks" like? The IS seems to double the price...if I am shooting off a tripod and with the remote for extra "insurance" is the extra $500-600 that the IS seems to cost worth it? I can see where the USM would be nice if it speeds up that seriously long focus time. On the bright side I can sell this lens to fund a new one or keep it for shots earlier in the evening and then switch lenses for the darker times. Also, if f4 going to be that much better than f4.5? I'm still not anywhere near experienced enough to realize/visualize what the effects of one extra stop, I think that is what it is, makes on a lens. Until I can afford a better lens I think what I might do is use the Canon for early shots and let the Sony handle the night shots. It is a fair compromise for now I think.

Just out of curiosity...how is this lens...Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM AF Lens?

I'm not sure where you live, but in the US the 75-300 III USM is available new for about $190 so I'm not sure how you picked up the non USM version. And as I said before your lens will not perform that well wide open, e.g. f4 to f5.6 depending on the focal length used, but it will look better at f8 which doesn't allow for very fast shutter speeds.

Since you have this lens, you should be able to do a comparison beteen 200 and 300mm for yourself. IS on a tripod with cable release has no additional effect since IS will essentiall shut off when it senses it is on a tripod.

That Sigma lens is though of as good. I'm not sure how it performs wide open, but search or ask about it on here. It is a heavy lens I hear but you can get the specifications at www.sigmaphoto.com The lens you have now is ok if you don't have the budget for something better, like all lenses.

layusn1 wrote in post #3903335
Well, I got the lens on Friday just in time to take it out to the football game this weekend. It did maybe 70/30 with the 70 being on the good side...until it started getting dark...grrr...lol. Anyway, I decided to look up the specs of my Sony F707 to see why it does so much better than my lenses and found this:

"Also of interest is that the new lens is quite a bit faster than the old, the old lens had maximum aperture of F2.8 at wide angle and F3.3 at telephoto, the new lens has a maximum aperture of F2.0 at wide angle and F2.4 at telephoto (that's a stop faster)"

Hmm...guess that explains the problem...I didn't spend $1,200+ on a lens...lol. Anyway, I did take some pics and the night ones were on the dark side but possible able to be made better with some post processing? It did take some great shots during the day. If y'all want to check them out some samples are at http://www.ammobrasstr​ader.com/9sep.html. As always thought/inputs/suggest​ions are greatly appreciated.

shots looks pretty soft out there, but maybe that's straight from RAW with no sharpening?
-dunno

layusn1,
I looked at a couple of your photos, you have to remember DOF isn't that large ex. at 205mm f/5.6 with your subject 30ft from your camera your DOF (amount in focus) is only 1.37ft Yet the first two photos I saw have subjects covering over 15ft
Here is DOFMaster the DOF calculator that can show you how much DOF you get with different lenses <-- click to see

RedHot,
Your statements aren't correct at least on my 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM I can get sharp results from 200-300mm with no reduction compared to lower mm photos. It also can produce sharp results when wide open. Click to see wide open with 100% crop Also at 300mm f/8 the 75-300 f/4-5.6 will come pretty darn close to a much more expensive L lens the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L Click to see the comparison

I'm guessing it's camera shake or focussing is off??

I Simonius wrote in post #3906499
I'm guessing it's camera shake or focussing is off??

Even though it was on a tripod I was on aluminum bleachers which definitely reacted to the crowds foot movements. The tripod was a $20ish special my wife had from long ago so sometimes I had to hold the camera in position by the swivel arm. All that combined and pushing the shutter release may have easily contributed to some camera shake but I did get a much higher ratio of acceptable pictures. I would be all about shooting in RAW or RAW+JPEG but I only have the two 1gb cards and that would limit me to about 120 pictures. That would then leave me with the possibility of better pictures but far less opportunities to capture a good one throughout the evening. With the large fine image setting I can get a little over 500 images so I have a better shot at playing the odds of getting a good picture. I know compactflash cards are really cheap these days so I intend to get another one this weekend. By the way...is there a benefit to RAW+JPEG versus just RAW? That should bump up the number of shots by a few per card if I don't need the JPEG right?

What do you guys think of this advice I got on those pictures?:
You are shooting ISO 400 a shutter speeds of 1/30 or 1/60. Crank the ISO up to 1600, you'll get 1/125 or 1/250. Still not quite enough for the focal lengths you are using, but a lot better than what you got.

You can also shoot 1600 underexposed 1 stop. That will give you 1/250 or 1/500. Much better. The pictures will come out dark, but you can up the exposure on your computer. You are now at the equivalent of ISO 3200. You'll get better results shooting raw when doing this.