Reading mode: Light Dark

WHY?

Go to last post
J

jtsmith25

Active member
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Here is a 100% crop with the two zoom lenses I have. One is a $150 cheapy and the other is the $600 L lens. What is the difference? Was this worth $600. I thought the images would be spectacular and the difference is hardly noticeable. What am I missing here. These were taken with a 30D. f4.5 ISO 100 at 1.3 seconds. Plese let me know why I bought this lens. Right now I am really dissapointed.

 
Btw. could you tell us at what distance did you take the pictures (70mm? 135mm? 200mm?).

Both lenses are great at 70mm, but while the 70-200 shows excellent results throughout the range, the 70-300 drops in quality in telephoto.
And the 70-200 has a constant aperture and the better ring-type USM.
--
Opinions and suggestions are always welcome.
gallery: http://atira.extra.hu/
 
The camera was on a tripod, used timer, 100mm for both lenses and about 7 feet away from subject. You are right the cheaper one is rather soft at telephoto lengths. I need to do some tests at 200mm for both. I will share my later results.
 
I bought mine for its range and USM along with L reliabilty. It is also pretty fast for the money. The Bokah is also smooth.

Ask yourself what you were planning to do with it when you bought it and go take some of those types of shots and see how you like the results. If all you want it for is to shoot a pile of desk articles, I would agree it is a waste of money.
--
Who's that nut over there with the camera?
 
Lenses always show thier worst at their extremes. Don't just try the maximum zoom, but also try: the minimum zoom, the maximum aperture, focusing near infinity, etc. For example, I had a Toking 24-70 f/2.8 once that took outstandingly sharp pictures at f/5.6 and smaller apertures. However, it kind of defeated the purpose of having an f/2.8 lens.

Another difference you might see is in focusing speed and in bokeh.

However, there are non-L-series lenses that are excellent lenses. Really what matters is if you like the photos you get from your lens. If you do, then don't sweat that it doesn't have a red line around it.
 
Do take photos you like under various conditions, as you and others said, you should do other comparison shots.

Regarding the photos you posted, several comments -

1. What kind of tripod? At 1.3 seconds a lighter and/or lower cost one will be more sensitive to external vibration, including from the camera.

2. Use manual focus, I noticed each photo you posted seems to be focused slightly differently.

3. either use the self-timer or a remote release to minimize vibration from the act of your pressing the shutter release.

4. lock up the mirror (it's an option in the menu), this will minimize vibration from the camera itself as it takes the photo.

--
-Dennis W.
Austin, Texas

 
The images you provided may be from the center of the frame. Compare the corners and you may see that the L glass is sharp throughout the frame whereas the less expensive lens gets soft in the corners.
 
Choose a subject such as $20 Bill and try it when light is good.

As others have mentioned 1.3s shutter unless used with a really good tripod and MLU and timer/remote shutter is an test that has too many margins of error.

I used to love my plastic fantastic 50 1.8 and sometimes prefered it to my 35f2, until................. I did a controlled subject test and the 35f2 just trumped the 50. I will never shoot my 50
jtsmith25 said:
Here is a 100% crop with the two zoom lenses I have. One is a $150
cheapy and the other is the $600 L lens. What is the difference?
Was this worth $600. I thought the images would be spectacular and
the difference is hardly noticeable. What am I missing here.
These were taken with a 30D. f4.5 ISO 100 at 1.3 seconds. Plese
let me know why I bought this lens. Right now I am really
dissapointed.

Click to expand...
 
to take pictures of boxes on a tripod at 1.3 sec shutter speeds? :) Use it for what it's intended - portraits, sports, etc, and then make your judgement.

--
Misha
 
Shot of the moon, during eclipse, with EF 75-300. Used tripod, mirror lock-up and remote shutter release - it didn't matter. I made some full-brightness shots the following night (like the second image below) with the 75-300, and no I don't have any samples, because they were complete cr@p and not worthy of disk space, so I deleted them.



Shot of the moon, with the EF 70-200 F4 L:



Chickadee with EF 70-200 F4 L, notice the background:



Again, notice the quality of the out-of-focus background:



Considering the experience I had with the 75-300, I would say the 70-200 F4 L is cheap at the price.

Jason
 
I bought the 100-300 USM when I went Canon, but all of the reports that I have read rate it as about the same as the 75-300.
I later bought the 70-200 f4.

Shooting film, there is no comparison. On a 1.6 crop body there should be some improvement because the edges are not used.
Also do not forget that the 75-300 is only f5.6 at longer focal lengths.

The 100-300 is the one lens that I own which I never use. Maybe when I buy a 1.6 crop.
 
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that all lenses are bad at their extremes. Some lenses are excellent throughout their range. However, I have never seen a lens that is better at its extremes than it is in the middle of its range. Therefore, when testing a lens it is generally best to test it at its extememes.

If your lens is better at 70mm than it is at 100mm, then I stand corrected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top