Reading mode: Light Dark

Check out the full review 70-300 I.S. is measured very high

Go to last post
--



Had DRebel
Canon 10d with grip
Canon 20d
Tamron 200-500mm 5 / 6.3 DI
Canon 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM II
Canon 17-55 Kit Lens
Canon 420EX Flash
Canon i900D Printer
 
find a lens you KNOW....have used in the list and compare the graphs...

==========
the first few pics are just barrel and pincushion (geometric) distortion

then the resolution (sharpness) graphs
each pair(3?) of vertical bars represents 'sharpness' at center and edge..
for each f stop .. higher is better..
(look for similar height on the pairs ...for relative 'perfection')

the vignette graph and the CA graphs are self explanitory
..at each of the f stops
(they will be worse/higher' at wide aperatures)

compare to a similar type of lens you like

===========
the 70-300 has low geometric distortion
and
an even sharpness (resolution) across the aperature range
and...low CA
and low vignette #s

It will be difficult to find a ZOOM lens in the list that is as
good...as even across the board.. as the 70-300
it compares optically to the 70-200mm f4 - AND f2.8 I.S.

good examples:
sigma 30mm f1.4 ..not so good at the edges ..sharp in the middle
(I like mine for portraits)
compare it to the 24mm f1.4 'L'
...they are similar in issues..
but you can drive a nail with the 24mm L

100mm macro has a very even response all around
 
Guitarman said:
the $490 was a tip from this forum...for DELL coupons
Click to expand...
QUick question...
Which site did you watch for the Dell Coupon.

I've noticed that the coupones don't last all that long (usually 300 purchases or so).

There is a current one for the 10-22mm lens, but only some deal sites know about it.

I'll keep an eye out for the 70-3300 IS as it's actually rated very well on sharpness.

From a pocketbook perspective My order of purchase is going ot be 28-135, 70-300 and perhaps the 10-22mm.

I just can't afford the 24-105L at this point.

Just as a note, someone did bring up a good point about long telephotos.

Another reason your 300 is better than the 200 is the simple fact that it works for more photos. Many people are dissapointed with 200mm lenses b/c they just don't get you far enough. When shooting nature type shots you can never have enough length.

I think I agree. You're better off with quality stuff on the shorter end and looking for a mamouth lens where you really need to.
 
Now that is the scientific part but is there a way (outside of actual pictures) to look at contrast and color? I read alot about the L glass having that "magic" touch. The problem I face is that I can only put my hands on the 70-300 IS, any L glass is special order or internet so I am stuck with reviews and opinions but I really need somthing in the 70-300MM range and the IS is awsome, I loved it when I had the older 75-300 just that the lens had some problems I couldnt get past.
--



Had DRebel
Canon 10d with grip
Canon 20d
Tamron 200-500mm 5 / 6.3 DI
Canon 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM II
Canon 17-55 Kit Lens
Canon 420EX Flash
Canon i900D Printer
 
Hello:
Marco said:
Yes, it is pretty slow and it hasn't "pro" built, but for for
travel/hiking it should make a perfect combo with the 24-105L IS.
Click to expand...
Even more useful range with the 17-85 IS and the 70-300 IS...

LW...
Marco said:
I guess he referred to this:

http://www.pbase.com/lwestfall/image/51256678

All the tests/reviews/samples I saw about the 70-300 IS are very
favourable.
Yes, it is pretty slow and it hasn't "pro" built, but for for
travel/hiking it should make a perfect combo with the 24-105L IS.
Click to expand...
 
I agree and the 70-300 IS is a tad sharper than the 70-200 2.8 IS, but it fals flat with fast focussing or tracking jetfighters or wild birds flying, but a luck shot may be good.Even the Contrast and couler is very similar or the same....It did not took me long to see that, but I still will never get rid of the 70-200 IS, thats for sure.

The 70-200 IS needs an upgrade to Ver3 or whatever can be done.

--
I hate dodgy deals with a passion, and persue it till the end.
Sell me a good thing, and I'll be as quiet as a baby with a dummy.
 
If you are new to SLR and buy the 350D with kitlens, then also buy the 70-300 IS, I think you will be a very happy man.[Assume you don't know of the excistance of L]

--
I hate dodgy deals with a passion, and persue it till the end.
Sell me a good thing, and I'll be as quiet as a baby with a dummy.
 
I have many L lenses up to 500 4 IS. Most of them are sterling examples of lens technology. I just bought one of these 70-300 IS lenses and I am pleased beyond words about it's performance and value. I now try to buy lenses locally so I can carefully test 2 or 3 samples against each other. I buy the best one, and feel that approach will generally get me a lens that performs as designed. There was very little difference between the 3 samples, but one slightly stood out. It's in my bag now. I've used in at lacrosse games and it focuses fast enough in daylight to keep up with that. I've tested it against my other lenses (70 200 2.8, which I tested against 5 copies IS and non-IS before buying it; 100 2.8 macro; 300 4 IS) and while it didn't best any of those, it did come so close ( say 98%) that the 70-300 is the one I will be carrying. Because it is light and small enough that I will not hesitate to carry it.
Canon has delivered a winner with this one.
 
I am taking delivery of one today, $559 from a reputable retailer. I currently use the 70-200 2.8 and 300f4. I picked up this lens for the small size, range and IS. I am aware of the limitations of the lens but feel the features I mentioned, the high IQ and the price point make this an outstanding value. I plan to use it for walkaround sports and nature and travel. Will runs some tests tonite against my other long lenses.
 
Thats the best info I have read so far. I like the fact that you actually own the lenses that you are comparing.
--



Had DRebel
Canon 10d with grip
Canon 20d
Tamron 200-500mm 5 / 6.3 DI
Canon 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM II
Canon 17-55 Kit Lens
Canon 420EX Flash
Canon i900D Printer
 
First let me say that the pics from the 70-300 are excellent -- definitely MUCH better than the old 75-300.

Having said that, there is a LOT more to lens quality than just sharpness. Bokeh, contrast, color, etc. are all just as important if not moreso. The 70-200Ls (both 2.8 and 4,) beat the 70-300 handily in those departments. And as someone else mentioned, yes L lenses do have that certain "something" that makes them special. It's not something that you can point to specifically but the pictures from the 70-200Ls just have a quality that is very pleasing.

Again, the 70-300 looks like a great lens so please don't take my comments as bashing it...

--
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294

 
I have been playing around with the new lens. Its very sharp at 70-100 and not too bad at 200. But not very impressive at 300.

70 @ f4



70@ f5.6



70@ 8.0



Looks pretty good at 100, here is a shot wide open at f4.5

 
But sharpness declines at both 200 and 300.

200 f5



200 f5.6



300 f5.6



And it gets even worse at 300 f8.

Here are some shots from my 300 f4L non-IS lens:
f4



f5.6



I would guess my 70-200 2.8 will beat this lens also. I plan to do some real world shooting this weekend, may end up sending this back.
 
I messed up on the 300mm shots, here are the 70-300 at:
f5.6



f8.0



Here is the 300 f4L non-IS at f5.6



I think the 70-300 looks pretty poor at 300mm..
 
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