70-300 DO IS sharpness

Doc Tonic · May 18, 2004

Had some people request some photos of the 70-300 DO IS zoomed all the way out at 300mm to test the sharpness so here it is:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29123307

For those of you with the 70-200 2.8L how does this compare? Though I guess it would be more fair to compare to the 100-400L

Goodwood · May 18, 2004

Looks pretty good to me. I would be more than happy with that performance.

Arnie in SF · May 20, 2004

Goodwood said:
Looks pretty good to me. I would be more than happy with that
performance.

My Mom and Pop dealer got one from Canon to demo the other day during their anniversary sale. I took the same comparison shots (wide open) at a store across the street vs. my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

70mm at f4.5 - 70-200 sightly sharper
100mm at f5 - 70-200 sightly sharper
135mm at f5 - 70-200 sightly sharper
200mm at f5.6 - 70-200 sightly sharper
300mm at 5.6 - 70-200 + 1.4 mkII sightly sharper

Image quality was a touch soft, but with simple sharpening - match up very well with my 70-200 shots.

Built quality - very light, very small. Only complaint: the zoom ring, it had a little too much movement in the 70 end.

A little pricey, but I ordered one. Why: small and light, hardly noticeable, walkaround day lense with my Lowepro off-trail 2 and 28-70 f2.8. I will stick to my 70-200 for low light/indoor shooting. Also the image quality sold me. I expected it to be softer than what came out, but this is really a outdoor lense.

Doc Tonic · May 20, 2004

yes it seems most who purchase this lens are generally happy with it. A touch softer than the 70-200 2.8L, but not enough that I'd want to carry that thing around while on vacation. I'm going to pick up a tamron 1.4x TC, I demoed one in a store and with IS you are still able to hand hold when zoomed out to 300.

Arnie in SF said:
Goodwood said:

Looks pretty good to me. I would be more than happy with that
performance.

Click to expand...

My Mom and Pop dealer got one from Canon to demo the other day
during their anniversary sale. I took the same comparison shots
(wide open) at a store across the street vs. my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

70mm at f4.5 - 70-200 sightly sharper
100mm at f5 - 70-200 sightly sharper
135mm at f5 - 70-200 sightly sharper
200mm at f5.6 - 70-200 sightly sharper
300mm at 5.6 - 70-200 + 1.4 mkII sightly sharper

Image quality was a touch soft, but with simple sharpening - match
up very well with my 70-200 shots.

Built quality - very light, very small. Only complaint: the zoom
ring, it had a little too much movement in the 70 end.

A little pricey, but I ordered one. Why: small and light, hardly
noticeable, walkaround day lense with my Lowepro off-trail 2 and
28-70 f2.8. I will stick to my 70-200 for low light/indoor
shooting. Also the image quality sold me. I expected it to be
softer than what came out, but this is really a outdoor lense.

PeaceFrog · May 20, 2004

I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like. Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

digidude · May 20, 2004

Just what dreaminess are you talking about????

PeaceFrog said:
I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like.
Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down
I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and
that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

--
Jim Garavuso

Daniella68313 · May 20, 2004

yes at F9 it is surprising that it has dreamyness for a lens of that price....At F9 even my cheapo Sigma 70-300 APO does not have dreamyness.

PeaceFrog said:
I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like.
Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down
I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and
that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Thomas61 · May 20, 2004

I guess it's just us with the untrained eyes who can't see the "dreaminess". Looks good to me. I've been on the fence for a month about whether to buy this lens or not. But lately the positive reviews have been drowning out the negative ones. I think I'm ready to take the plunge.

digidude said:
PeaceFrog said:

I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like.
Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down
I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and
that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

Click to expand...

--
Jim Garavuso

Rich Dykmans · May 20, 2004

Daniella said:
PeaceFrog said:

I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like.
Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down
I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and
that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

gregL281 · May 20, 2004

If you can't see it you are a lucky person and you can bask in the glory of this lens.

Greg

gregL281 · May 20, 2004

I hope you like it when you get yours. My eyes aren't all that but I could see it plain as day and I have yet to see a shot from this lens that didn't have it. I guess people like me and Adam-T and others are jsut plain crazy. Of course I love spending thousands of dollars for lenses that are only slightly better than the Sigma 70-300 SM2.

Greg

Doc Tonic · May 20, 2004

No, you are not crazy, you just don't have the same values as those who purchase this lens. Yes, it is better than the sigma, yes it is better than the previous 75-300, and it has IS and a compact size. No, it is not as good as the L lenses. Yes, it does cost $1000 more than the other lenses, but whether compact size/IS/slightly better quality is worth $1000 to you depends entirely on YOUR situation. If that $1K means you can't get another L lens, then maybe this lens isn't for you. If this $1K means your wife isn't going shoe shopping next week, then maybe it is worth it

gregL281 said:
I hope you like it when you get yours. My eyes aren't all that but
I could see it plain as day and I have yet to see a shot from this
lens that didn't have it. I guess people like me and Adam-T and
others are jsut plain crazy. Of course I love spending thousands
of dollars for lenses that are only slightly better than the Sigma
70-300 SM2.

Greg

Daniella68313 · May 21, 2004

you're right..it take some eye training I guess to see it.

I can go to a dog show and see 100 german shepard dogs..they will all look the same to me, but a judge will see the champion easily. The more you look at different lenses and the more you can recognize this dreamy effect.

If you can't see it, then it is not a problem at all if you have it in your photos

Thomas61 said:
digidude said:

PeaceFrog said:

I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like.
Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down
I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and
that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

Click to expand...

--
Jim Garavuso

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Daniella68313 · May 21, 2004

My guess is that someone who spend 1000$ of a DO lens, should have the same value than someone who spend 1000$ on a 300 F4 L lens, unless of course they don't care to pay big money for so so quality.

Doc Tonic said:
gregL281 said:

I hope you like it when you get yours. My eyes aren't all that but
I could see it plain as day and I have yet to see a shot from this
lens that didn't have it. I guess people like me and Adam-T and
others are jsut plain crazy. Of course I love spending thousands
of dollars for lenses that are only slightly better than the Sigma
70-300 SM2.

Greg

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Adam-T · May 21, 2004

....... The "DreamWeaver" ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Twinspool · May 21, 2004

Adam-T said:
....... The "DreamWeaver" ;-)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

digidude · May 21, 2004

I love it when someone who doesnt have a lens can form an opinion by looking at a couple of shots on the web! I really like this lens, and I can say that because I actually have one and have tested it under the conditions I will be using it. Imagine that...an opinion based on actual usage!!

Daniella said:
PeaceFrog said:

I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like.
Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down
I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and
that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

--
Jim Garavuso

gregL281 · May 21, 2004

Why not? Every picture I have seen has the dreaminess. This isn’t just from one photographer but from a good number of them. Since this has been so consistent in all of the samples I think it is safe to expect that this is a characteristic of the lens. Just because everyone isn’t singing the praises on the new DO lens that you just shelled out a fortune for doesn’t mean that you need to attack those who don’t like it. You are one of the first kids on the block to have this new high tech product be happy!

Greg

Woody W. · May 21, 2004

PeaceFrog said:
I guess it all depends on what you want your images to look like.
Even in your original sample image here with the lens stopped down
I don’t have to look hard at all to find the dreaminess and
that is what I find most annoying about this lens.

Greg

--

--

Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots. (partial list in profile)

Quote: 'The only thing some people will believe is their own eyes. But in the realm of the quality of a printed image, is there really anything else that can be believed? '

Adam-T · May 21, 2004

There seems to be a bit of Denial going on with this lens, I love the handling as much as everyone else but when it struggles to outperform a £150 Sigma 70-300 APO Macro super -- and a tatty 17 old 100-300L which was basically only an early 80s FD lens with a grindy AF motor added blows it away then you've got to question the value - if it was £499 and not £1100 then it may be worth re-considering and even then, only MAYBE, it's way behind the £599 Sigma 100-300EX F4 - shame they didn't add OS to that

..

and before the defenders start the rampage, I've spent some time with one and seen most of the examples posted, I'll give the "Dreamweaver" a miss I think until either they fix it OR the price drops to near 75-300IS money and it WILL drop - the 75-300IS was originally £650! soon dropped to £399 and is now £350. I envy anyone who is happy with this lens, but then there are many out there who can live with the image quality of a Minolta A1 or 7Hi - I envy those even more!.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

70-300 DO IS sharpness

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts