Canon 70-300 IS : What do you think ?

I recently attended a final of a TV show "A Star is Born".

I took some shots with my 70-300 IS. The shots were taken with a 40D in quite difficult conditions, low light, handheld and ISO 1600. I would very much appreciate it if you would let me know what you think of the results below :







You are welcome to visit the whole gallery. All pictures were shot with this lens.
http://www.pbase.com/goelsamuel/star_is_born_israel_2009

Thank you for looking,
Goels

http://www.pbase.com/goelsamuel

I like the light and dynamic captured in these images.
The bokeh seems very nice also.

I personaly not use that lens in these conditions but I should revise my opinion.

These are great photos.

Congratulation.
--
Philippe

on flickriver: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/photophilde/popular-interesting/
on Google : http://picasaweb.google.fr/philippe.dermine

I have the 70-300 and like it.

I realize those are very tough shooting conditions. I think the first shot has a somewhat plastic look. Did you use lots of noise reduction?

Also, I see some white halos (or maybe makeup?).

I suspect the result is about as good as any other lens would do.
--
Fred

Thank you very much for your comments, and I am glad you liked the photos.

The 70-300 was the only lens I had with the required reach so I actually had no choice. I was quite pleased with the results.

Cheers,
Goel

Hi fwampler,

fwampler said:

I realize those are very tough shooting conditions. I think the first shot has a
somewhat plastic look. Did you use lots of noise reduction?

Click to expand...

Yes the conditions were not good. I had to use high ISO (1600) to get a reasonable shutter speed and therefore did some NR as you guessed. Personally, I prefer the somewhat plastic look to having too much noise.

fwampler said:

Also, I see some white halos (or maybe makeup?).

Click to expand...

If you mean above the eyes, I believe it is makeup.

fwampler said:

I suspect the result is about as good as any other lens would do.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I very much appreciate your comments.

Thanks for looking,
Goel

http://www.pbase.com/goelsamuel

After getting too many shots like your first one, I sold my copy and picked up a 70-200 F4 IS. That being said however, I find the second and third photos to be excellent for that lens under such difficult conditions. Great job!

Thank you for looking and for your comments. I am relatively new to photography and I would really like to learn from your experience. If it is not too much to ask, I would very much appreciate it if you could help me understand some points.

Sidekicker said:

After getting too many shots like your first one, I sold my copy and picked up a 70-> 200 F4 IS.

Click to expand...

I am not sure I fully understand what you mean so I would very much appreciate it if you could please be more specific regarding the first shot. Maybe I should upgrade to a better lens sooner than I planned.

Sidekicker said:

That being said however, I find the second and third photos to be
excellent for that lens under such difficult conditions. Great job!

Click to expand...

Again, thank you for your comments. Here too, I would appreciate it if you could briefly say how you find the second and third shots better than the first. I believe this will help me judge better the quality of my shots.

Thank you for your time,
kind regards,
Goels

It took a bit to tell what it was, but I think part of the problem with the first one is that it looks very "flat": her face in particular looks like it has no depth to it, perhaps because the parts that would be sharper were softened from the noise reduction. Also the color looks off, but should be easily fixed.

Hi Beeguy,

Thank you for pointing out the flaws of the first shot. Once you mentioned the color I immediately realised you are right. I should be more careful in the future.

With regards to the flatness of the image, it took me longer to see the flaw, but after comparing it with the third image I think I know what you mean. If I understand correctly, a better lens will allow me to use a lower ISO and thus less NR will be needed meaning achieving better shots. Is this correct (at least for these shooting conditions) ?

Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge, I really appreciate it,
Cheers,
Goels.

goels said:

With regards to the flatness of the image, it took me longer to see the flaw, but after comparing it with the third image I think I know what you mean. If I understand correctly, a better lens will allow me to use a lower ISO and thus less NR will be needed meaning achieving better shots. Is this correct (at least for these shooting conditions) ?

Click to expand...

That, or see if a little more noise is tolerable. Consider the size that the pictures will be seen at; with the 40D, ISO1600 should be pretty good even with a small amount of noise reduction unless you're making posters. Also, it occurred to me that the blur could be at least partly due to movement, so it might even be preferable to try to use a higher shutter speed at the expense of ISO.

Goels