Elizabeth shot with Beesknees 300mm

Laci55 · Feb 23, 2011

To Aperturewise,

Thank you so much for the comment! The 300L IS is a fantastic lens! I´m just wondering how could the MK II be even better??? Best regards!
--
'If you can keep your head when all about you are loosing theirs...' Kipling
Pbase supporter: http://www.pbase.com/ilsmag

BlueScoobyDoo · Feb 23, 2011

+1

Very nice shot. The Original shot by the OP looks very soft. I would not use that image to market how good that the lens is suppose to be =)

Laci55 said:
To Aperturewise,

Thank you so much for the comment! The 300L IS is a fantastic lens! I´m just wondering how could the MK II be even better??? Best regards!
--
'If you can keep your head when all about you are loosing theirs...' Kipling
Pbase supporter: http://www.pbase.com/ilsmag

Aperaturewise · Feb 23, 2011

Yes it will be interesting to eventually see how much better the new 300mm will be. I'm very happy with the current 300mm f2.8 IS and I have no real desire to update it.

Camera Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 300 mm
ISO Speed 500

Regards

Laci55 · Feb 24, 2011

Beautiful picture! Thank You for sharing! Like You I also have doubts about any upgrading to the new one... We will see it soon how it will be in the reality...
--
'If you can keep your head when all about you are loosing theirs...' Kipling
Pbase supporter: http://www.pbase.com/ilsmag

KCampbell · Feb 24, 2011

I'm afraid I have to agree, I'm struggling to find anything in the image that's actually sharply focused. I think I would have been tempted to trade a somewhat slower shutter speed for a slightly smaller aperture and the increased DOF and (probably) sharpness that might bring.

In anticipation of snide comments to the effect that I have no experience photographing runners, that may be true. I have quite a bit of experience with motor racing however and they approach much, much faster than any runner - I'd still expect sharper results than this.

Kevin

HSwolfs · Feb 25, 2011

the newer 300 2.8 has more resolving power for upcoming higher megapixel bodies, probably even a bit more sharper (if possible

), more accurate AF (again, if possible) but I think it has optimised electronics to work better with the newly released 1.4x and 2x extenders.

Laci55 said:
To Aperturewise,

Thank you so much for the comment! The 300L IS is a fantastic lens! I´m just wondering how could the MK II be even better??? Best regards!

Laci55 · Feb 25, 2011

Thank You for the info! We will soon see it in the real world tests... I could be tempted if the difference could be significant in comparison with the "old one"... Have a nice day!
--
'If you can keep your head when all about you are loosing theirs...' Kipling
Pbase supporter: http://www.pbase.com/ilsmag

jhal · Feb 26, 2011

There is no question about the Canon IQ. It is superior to Sigma, has IS, weather sealing etc. But the Sigma is better value for money and if you compare IQ/Money the Sigma is the better lens. ( that's $ 2,500 in favour of the Sigma)

The OP's second image proves that. Again the Canon's IQ is superior and if I could afford it i would buy the Canon.

I have the Sigma and shot rugby on semi-pro basis. I had pictures published and sold. No one complained about the IQ.

One minus point for the Sigma is slower AF ( slighty) and not very good IQ with the 1.4TC

John

Laci55 said:
Thank You for the comment! Yes, as I said it is unfair comparison and You have right the person I took pictures of is just a "happy amateur"... At any case I can stand for and I can reassure You about the super image quality of the EF 300...lol... Do not ever try it if You were not prepared to buy one...lol... Best regards; Laci
--
'If you can keep your head when all about you are loosing theirs...' Kipling
Pbase supporter: http://www.pbase.com/ilsmag

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Feb 26, 2011

jhal said:
There is no question about the Canon IQ. It is superior to Sigma, has IS, weather sealing etc. But the Sigma is better value for money and if you compare IQ/Money the Sigma is the better lens. ( that's $ 2,500 in favour of the Sigma)

The OP's second image proves that. Again the Canon's IQ is superior

See this then, shot today. Sigma f2.8 1/2000 Iso 100 really top runner running fast.

JB Faulconer · Feb 26, 2011

I think you would get better sharper images if shot at f/5.6. I don't understand why some photographers feel they have to shoot at 2.8 just because the lens will shoot at that aperture. Most lens will be sharper at f/4 to f/8 than shot at 2.8. Just give it a shot and see. Shooting at f/2.8 even the smallest bit of movement by either the target or the photographer will throw the focus off.

Aperaturewise · Feb 26, 2011

Hi again.

Not to take a dump on Sigma and I'm aware that this is a budget lens, but the image that Laci55 provided has SNAP! The colors in Laci55 photo jumps out at me!

The photo of this "fast runner" is still soft and lifeless. The beads of sweat on the runners face and the number on his jersey shout CA. There is no snap at all!

It is a budget lens and that's all it is.

In regards to your comment that your lens is sharper than a Canon 70-200mm f4L and sharper than a Canon 400mm F5.6L, your lens is not even in the running (pardon the pun) when it comes to IQ.

Please don't take this as a personal attack it is just my opinion.

Regards

PS Do you any photos from that lens stopped down a bit?

Aperaturewise · Feb 26, 2011

True enough even the Canon EF 300mm reaches its peak sharpness at f3.2. However that being said I would not hesitate shooting my 300mm, 70-200mm II or even my 600mm f4L wide open as long as dof permits.

Regards

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Feb 26, 2011

I have taken THOUSANDS of shots on a 70-200 f4 L and a 400mm F5.6 L!
How many have you taken??

The one with the snap and pop as you call it was pretty small. They always look sharper

like this one..

Aperaturewise · Feb 26, 2011

I can't figure out why you take critisum as a personal attack?

Even this photo lacks sharpness.

It is you that claim your Sigma 300mm f2.8 is superior in IQ to the 70-200mm f4L and the 400mm f5.6L not me!

Deal with it!

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Feb 26, 2011

Aperaturewise said:
I can't figure out why you take critisum as a personal attack?

What is critisum? Is it some kind of aperature?

Aperaturewise said:
Even this photo lacks sharpness.

It is you that claim your Sigma 300mm f2.8 is superior in IQ to the 70-200mm f4L and the 400mm f5.6L not me!

Deal with it!

your quote, not mine.

In regards to your comment that your lens is sharper than a Canon 70-200mm f4L and sharper than a Canon 400mm F5.6L, your lens is not even in the running (pardon the pun) when it comes to IQ.

I'll do a comparative test of the three lenses when I get the time. You'll see what's what then. You won't like it of course!!

Aperaturewise · Feb 26, 2011

I can't wait

mlf123 · Feb 26, 2011

Pace is more than likely circa 5min 36 sec per mile, probably a 5K...compared to sprinting= walking! As a running performance from a club performer...Brilliant...In the world...also ran! Is this appropriate to forward as a photographic argument...In my view no! It rules out any critique based on lack expertise on the part of the viewer?...No my photography expertise is rubbish! However I do know the sport, I have walked the walk. I share the effort and pain all athetlets go through, at all levels of the sport I love. I am confident Lizzie is amongst them.

Terms like blasting plus the other descriptions, sound to me a bit like red herrings?

The issue you are discussing is, if the picture is sharp or not? Is it sharp? In my view no!

msbeezy · Feb 26, 2011

I consider the new 70-200MKll 2.8 a nice sharp lens..

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Feb 26, 2011

mlf123 wrote:
It rules out any critique based on lack expertise on the part of the viewer?
What does this mean?

mlf123 said:
Terms like blasting plus the other descriptions, sound to me a bit like red herrings?

Maybe so, but it's not jogging. Lizzie finishes a race, as she was in the first picture, doing the last 400m in 70 seconds. The race was a five miler with 500 ft of climbing which she did in 28.40.

mlf123 said:
The issue you are discussing is, if the picture is sharp or not? Is it sharp? In my view no!

The first shot is not the sharpest becuase the focus is not perfect. When you shoot runners with a lens and aperture like that, some of them aren't spot on but they're still most printable.
The next three photos I posted are really sharp.

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee · Feb 26, 2011

We are led to believe by the super sensory organs of some of the posters on this site, that the picture on the left, taken by the Canon 300mm lens is far superior to the one on the right, taken by the Sigma 300mm, both at f2.8.

Don't know. They look exactly the same to me. Maybe my eyes don't see infra-red or something...

Elizabeth shot with Beesknees 300mm

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts