Canon EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM

Alexsfo wrote:

tatslau wrote:

Alexsfo wrote:

tatslau wrote:

This guy doesn't even own a Canon!

Wow, what a warm welcome for a new Canon FF user... No opinions welcome, only Dxomark data.

My apologies! I saw your controversial post and you haven't updated your gear list to contain the 6D at that moment, so I jumped to conclusion too quickly.

But I suggest you should choose the right gear for the right job. Using an FF cam for video is already a waste, but using a commonly know inferior lens doubles the waste.

For good videos, you need STM lenses on a crop sensor cam, best such combination would be the 70D with 55-250 STM.

It appears that FF is good enough for Hollywood productions so I am very much impressed with 6d video especially in low light. I am using Manual focus for video. My RX100 takes care of auto everything. I have my doubts that 70d with STM will provide smooth continuous AF in low light and with its poor high ISO performance, I bet videos are much noisier than 6d.

The 5D Mk II has been popular in movie work ---

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059550382/

Finally got a chance to shoot with both non-L IS and L versions of 70-300mm. I was very impressed with non-L performance on 6d. I was preparing for the worst after reading some reviews. In reality, the difference between two lenses at 50% view is not immediately perceivable. Also, non-L performs very well up to 225mm where it is still f/5! As far as IQ, the biggest difference between two lenses is that L has more contrast (not always obvious), warmer colors, better color fidelity, more details at 100% view. Bokeh is surprisingly not all that different between the two. On the mechanical side, L has manual focus override feature, non-rotating front element, weather sealed, probably faster AF (I couldn't tell the difference right away), much thicker and heavier. What I discovered is that non-L images post-process quite nicely - all I need is slight boost in contrast/vibrance and smart sharpening. I do not need full 20MP resolution for occasional telephoto. What I do want is to retain that 3d look which I love from L lenses and this non-L lens still got it to my eyes. I do not want to clog my hard drive and memories with dull, washed out, lifeless captures.

IS is incredible on non-L. I could not tell the difference between the two. Moreover, non-L'IS works so much better for me during video. I found L lens too heavy for prolonged video use so the camera shake escalates quickly. With lightweight, non-L lens, my videos are much more steady. I'd say for professional use, L is the way to go. For enthusiasts like me, I am finding that non-L is a gem especially for the price (used). Maybe a lot of negative reviews are coming from people who used this lens on a crop? It probably performs better on a modern FF like 6d. I am also curious if Canon has improved some coatings or other elements in the lens since it was first introduced? I've been testing a recent production unit.

original jpeg OOC

slight processing in PS - levels, vibrance and sharpening

non-L, 300mm f/5.6

non-L, 300mm f/8

L, 300mm f/5.6

L-crop, 300mm f/5.6

non-L crop, 300mm, f/5.6

Note: non-L lens sharpens up a little at f/8 but at f/11 it looks slightly worse in the center (probably diffraction). I would use it a f/8 if light permits, f5.6 is perfectly acceptable if needed for DoF.