Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

dnauer wrote in post #11319028
Just out of curiosity, which post #s are you basing that conclusion on?

837 is one. Too much double Bokeh. Plus I have seen some other sample shots where there is grass being blown out. It is just not pleasing to my eye. Not saying it is bad, just not for me.

how do you define "Double Bokeh"? never heard the term before

When max aperture is 5.6, really now much "nice bokeh" can you get?

Edge sharpness seems better than the older 70-300 and the newer Tamron's.

just for comparison, I found a similar shot of the Turnstones taken with my old canon 400 f5.6 on a 40D (same place but a few years back). To my eye the bokeh of the 70-300L is significantly better (but then maybe you see it differently?)

http://www.pbase.com …ge/130503444/or​iginal.jpg

oldcanon wrote in post #11320171
how do you define "Double Bokeh"? never heard the term before

Double Boken is not a technical term... Just something I see and there good be a better descriptor for it. When you see a grass blade or a thin object with high contrast, the Bokeh makes it appear that there are two glass blades. I see it in pictures like http://www.pbase.com/m​jlamoon/image/13007385​0.

It is rendering the Boken with hard outlines.

Now, I am very much a rook, and I know I am asking a lot of a high zoom range slow lens, but the blown out pics just aren't pleasing to me for the price of this lens. It is not enough for me to bash the lens, but it is enough to sway me toward the 100-400.

oldcanon wrote in post #11320265
just for comparison, I found a similar shot of the Turnstones taken with my old canon 400 f5.6 on a 40D (same place but a few years back). To my eye the bokeh of the 70-300L is significantly better (but then maybe you see it differently?)

I'd agree that the Bokeh is better on the 70-300 with these pics as comparisons.

HyperYagami wrote in post #11320243
When max aperture is 5.6, really now much "nice bokeh" can you get?

The slower the lens, the more important the blur characteristics become.

With a fast lens, you can often render the OOF region into such a smear of color that the character of the blur is indistinguishable. So the bokeh of the lens doesn't really matter.

With a slower lens (and f/5.6 at 300mm isn't really all that slow) the OOF region will still retain some shape. And a lens with 'bad' blur characteristics can sometimes make the background ugly.

The two items we are mostly looking at when we talk about bad blur:
1) Bright ring highlights
2) Doubling of closely spaced lines in the BG that leads to ugly patterns being created. This plays havoc with twigs or grasses in the BG.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11320657
The slower the lens, the more important the blur characteristics become.

With a fast lens, you can often render the OOF region into such a smear of color that the character of the blur is indistinguishable. So the bokeh of the lens doesn't really matter.

With a slower lens (and f/5.6 at 300mm isn't really all that slow) the OOF region will still retain some shape. And a lens with 'bad' blur characteristics can sometimes make the background ugly.

The two items we are mostly looking at when we talk about bad blur:
1) Bright ring highlights
2) Doubling of closely spaced lines in the BG that leads to ugly patterns being created. This plays havoc with twigs or grasses in the BG.

You eloquently stated what I was trying to brutishly say about the Bokeh here... Curious.. What are your thoughts on the Bokeh on this lens?

Roroco wrote in post #11320742
You eloquently stated what I was trying to brutishly say about the Bokeh here... Curious.. What are your thoughts on the Bokeh on this lens?

It's OK, but not stellar. Doubling is probably the worst problem of a lens like the 24-105L, a lens that is known for having 'bad' bokeh.

And yet, I've owned the 24-105L for about three years and I can only think of a few times where the background was really bad enough that it bothered me.

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm not one of those people who obsess about bokeh. I'll note when it is ugly on occasion, but I'll also wager that 'bad' bokeh is often more the fault of the background than of the lens. I've seen really bad bokeh from top level primes, evidence that sometimes there is nothing the lens can do about it. I mean, check these nightmares out (from the Canon supertelephoto primes, no less)

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11318865&po​stcount=46

Here is a picture my daughter snapped of my wife. You can see the slight busyness that the 24-105L can make out of twigs. The 70-300L might have a slight tendency to do this as well, but I would not call it a deal breaker. Most observers would not even note the background in this shot.

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

JeffreyG wrote in post #11320766
It's OK, but not stellar. Doubling is probably the worst problem of a lens like the 24-105L, a lens that is known for having 'bad' bokeh.

And yet, I've owned the 24-105L for about three years and I can only think of a few times where the background was really bad enough that it bothered me.

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm not one of those people who obsess about bokeh. I'll note when it is ugly on occasion, but I'll also wager that 'bad' bokeh is often more the fault of the background than of the lens. I've seen really bad bokeh from top level primes, evidence that sometimes there is nothing the lens can do about it. I mean, check these nightmares out (from the Canon supertelephoto primes, no less)

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11318865&po​stcount=46

Here is a picture my daughter snapped of my wife. You can see the slight busyness that the 24-105L can make out of twigs. The 70-300L might have a slight tendency to do this as well, but I would not call it a deal breaker. Most observers would not even note the background in this shot.

I agree with what you are saying. My only issue - if thats what you want to call it - is that getting this Bokeh rendering out of a $850 lens is a bit easier to swallow than out of a $1,600 lens. I would be curious to see how the Bokeh is rendered on similar shots from the 70-300L vs a 70-200 f/4 IS with 1.4x extender.

Just a curiosity.

I'll have alook to see if I can oblige - from memory they are much the same or slightly worse with the 70-200 f4 + TC.

For sure an f5.6 lens will never have the same bokeh as the equivalent FL f2.8 lens - cost a lot less and weighs less though (Which are important factors for me )

Roroco wrote in post #11319841
837 is one. Too much double Bokeh. Plus I have seen some other sample shots where there is grass being blown out. It is just not pleasing to my eye. Not saying it is bad, just not for me.

I think that's more a function of a difficult background, than it is of the len's ability. But I could be wrong. I'm not displeased with a lot of the BG blur I've gotten with my older 70-300 IS.

70-300 IS @300mm f/5.6

oldcanon wrote in post #11320171
how do you define "Double Bokeh"? never heard the term before

things like branches and grass blades get sort of a nasty double-image ringed look

my tamron 28-75 gets it really badly near the edges at 75mm on a FF

I ws never really thriled with the old 70-300 IS bokeh, the new 70-300L probably only does about the same I guess in that regard. I think this is the one area where the Tamron 70-300VC beats even the new L most likely. So far the bokeh has seemed quite smooth indeed for this sort of zoom. I have serious doubts that the micro-contrast can hold up to the L over much of the range though.

HyperYagami wrote in post #11320243
When max aperture is 5.6, really now much "nice bokeh" can you get?

Edge sharpness seems better than the older 70-300 and the newer Tamron's.

plenty, a 300 2.8 IS at f/5.6 as nice quality bokeh still

bokeh isn't a measure of how much blur you get, otherwise you wouldn't need a new term for that, it's the quality of the blur

MP4/8 wrote in post #11321706
There's a thread comparing the 135L f/2 stopped down to f/2.8, with the 70-200 f/2.8Mk I and 70-200 f/2.8 Mk II, and the 135L bokeh surprisingly disappoints at f/2.8.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=11315970&p​ostcount=3

Well it doesn't have circular aperture so you get non-circular highlights but the blur still looks much smoother to me with the 135, look at the last three pics, the wine glass near the stem is a harsh mess from 70-200 I, better with II and easily smoothest and nicest with the 135.