Good choice, I'm sure. Also look at the 300mm F4IS for $1000. Anytime I need a long zoom, I end up going out to 300mm anyway. Might as well have the sharpness of a prime, plus you can add a TC later to get 420 with IS.
That is true with my lens also. I find it works very nicely at 75mm.
It could be that this lens gets soft at further distances, and not just at the upper focal lengths? I just haven't noticed that becuase I typically use 300mm at long distances, and 75mm at short ones.
Always ready to share my little knowhow as others have helped me as well in these fori.
Very good. Clean images, even at higher ISOs. The trick is to always expose correctly even at higher ISOs so you get less noise to clean (usually in the shadows). Color is all right most of the time. Use CWB and you are more than half way there. I use jpg fine most of the time but in critical situations I go RAW. No, not to correct mistakes but to get the best out of an image. RAW tends to give me more details, contrast, and sharpness. I use it about 5% of the time. And the reason why I don't go higher on RAW usage is...
4-frame buffer. Try to use RAW on that and you wait 24-30 seconds for the 4 frame to flush to CF. Sure you can shoot another RAW in 4-6 sec, but you want some sequence sometimes when your subject is doing everything right.
It is very slow to flush to CF. Believe it or not, my D60 flushes to CF faster. I can get 8 CF too, and I am clear for 2 more in about 4-6 seconds or so after the 8. And this is RAW!
You're welcome, Chui!
Sorry, no time to crop it, but I guess you can see the problem.
There is some truth to this. I have found that even above 200mm if the subjects (I shoot soccer, track & field) are about 30-100 ft whereabouts, they tend to be sharp. And even if I stop down a bit at f6.3 or f7.0, it does help. But if you focus near infinity, then image quality goes down.
Very true. Before, I considered the 100-400L as something to aim for. But when I see how portable the 75-300 IS is and for its price, I have scratched the former from my list. Not knocking those who like the 100-400L, but for my own use, the size and weight is something I would not trade at this time (unless sports shooting in our country suddenly becomes profitable).
--
Some interesting thoughts have been expressed in this thread. I've
done a little experimenting to compare some of the ideas.
Some have talked about how this lens is crisper at 75 to 135 than
at full zoom - 300. I decided to test it to see what the
difference was. Here are some images. I must preface this by
saying that it is a rainy gray day here today so these are not the
best images possible. Nevertheless, I think the comparisons are
worth seeing. In the following examples you will see 3 shots taken
at different ISO settings from each of 3 different distances. My
idea in doing this was that, since I shoot a lot of birds, I want
the central object of the shot to be a similar size. The final 3
shots were to show the size comparison of the central object at
different distances.
So it appears that, if possible, one should get as close as
possible with this lens and then use the shorter focal lengths.
However, if the target is a yellow warbler, 50' up in a tree, that
is not an option. To my eye, any of the shots taken from 30' at
300mm are far superior to the one taken at 30' using 75mm. Of
course, that's why I have a 300 mm in the first place.
While I have no doubt that there are lenses that are clearer at
300mm, there are also considerations of cost, size, weight and
ability to hand hold. Finally, there is the IS. Personally, I
have found it quite valuable. I am able to take shots that would
be impossible without it. Until, I have a lot more money to throw
at lenses, I will continue to use my 75-300 and enjoy the results.
--
Steve
Fine Photography at
http://www.sparkmeister.com
I just purchased that lens because I could not justify the price
for the
70-300DO....I had the same problem of out of focus, blurry, etc.
However, I had Canon UV filter....once I took that off, the pictures
were clear and sharp...so, in case you have a filter in front of
the lens,
try to take it off and then reshoot....let me know, Reha
I'd like to see some 100% crops of various shots at 300mm from this
lens. I have one and i am a few days away from purchasing a
70-200L because mine is very soft on the 200-300mm end.
Here is a pic of it at 300mm:
--
--Always ready to share my little knowhow as others have helped me as
well in these fori.
Very good. Clean images, even at higher ISOs. The trick is to
always expose correctly even at higher ISOs so you get less noise
to clean (usually in the shadows). Color is all right most of the
time. Use CWB and you are more than half way there. I use jpg fine
most of the time but in critical situations I go RAW. No, not to
correct mistakes but to get the best out of an image. RAW tends to
give me more details, contrast, and sharpness. I use it about 5% of
the time. And the reason why I don't go higher on RAW usage is...
4-frame buffer. Try to use RAW on that and you wait 24-30 seconds
for the 4 frame to flush to CF. Sure you can shoot another RAW in
4-6 sec, but you want some sequence sometimes when your subject is
doing everything right.
It is very slow to flush to CF. Believe it or not, my D60 flushes
to CF faster. I can get 8 CF too, and I am clear for 2 more in
about 4-6 seconds or so after the 8. And this is RAW!
In fairness, some portrait shots don't need to be done
continuously. You take them one at a time in a leisurely manner.
Other than this limitations I have worked around FEC, AI-Servo, no
spot metering, etc of the 300D. It is the 4-frame buffer limit of
the camera that I cannot work around.
But other than that, it is a good camera. It's default selections
(except in Auto) seems to be good for most situations.
If you will do portraits mostly, I suggest to concentrate on
getting a good lens. My 50mm f1.8 mkII is my favorite for
sharpness. I plan to get a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 xr Di to get as
close to "L-like" without spending too much. This lens is about 95%
of what the famous 24-70 f2.8L is. I will skip the 85mm f1.8 even
if it is good. The 28-75 will do it's chore. Good also for weddings
aside for portraiture. Maybe a 135 f2.0L is in the future, but that
is less for portraits (except in street photography where you need
more distance) for low light sports.
You're welcome, Chui!
---------------------
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'
- Caterpillar
I'd like to see some 100% crops of various shots at 300mm from this
lens. I have one and i am a few days away from purchasing a
70-200L because mine is very soft on the 200-300mm end.
Here is a pic of it at 300mm:
