Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: How much sharper does it get?  (Read 2806 times)

Elie7Elie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
How much sharper does it get?
« on: June 18, 2006, 08:34:29 pm »

I have been looking forward to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8L lens (non-is).  However lately I have been contemplating whether spending $1100 on the lens is justified.  I am wondering whether I really need the lens, or if I just want to buy simply because it is a "great lens".  I love taking aviation and landscpae photography, but this lens will be primarily used for aviation.  I have taken countless of pictures of airplanes taking off/landing with my Canon EF 75-300mm USM lens which is a cheap lens, bottom of the barrel to say the least.  However, I looked at some of the pictures I have taken and they looked sharp enough.  However, I am not sure if I do have the experience to really judge how sharp the pictures are.  Therefore, I am looking for a volounter that can post a couple of pictures on their website (uncroped at full size) and post the link on this thread for other members to see and judge.  Unfortunately the website I use crops the pictures down.  I will send one picture I took with my EOS 20D (about 1.6MB in jpeg), and one I took recently with my EOS 5D (about 3MB in jpeg).  If you are interested in helping out, you can e-mail me at elie7elie@hotmail.com

One word of caution.  While it is obvious that any L lens is far superior optically to the EF 75-300mm USM that I have, the debate I am initiating is not about the quality of the lens, but rather wehter an L lens is needed for what I am doing.

But first, I need a volunter so I can show you what I am talking about, and then I suppose we can proceed.
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
How much sharper does it get?
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2006, 08:49:40 pm »

The 75-300 is known to be a bit of a dog.

Ronny Nilsen ("ronnynil" here) performed an unscientific test of the differences between his old 75-300 and his new 70-200 f/2.8L IS (which supposedly is slightly inferior to the non-IS), and was kind enough to leave his test on the web.  While he doesn't provide the full-size images as you request, I think the test still shows something of interest.

Brief explanation: the image taken with the 70-200 also included the EF Extender 1.4 II, which in my experience results in noticeable (but not horrible) image degradation.

Even so, pay attention to the differences, not only in sharpness and resolution, but also in contrast -- even in the reduced size image.

If you can spare the money, I'd say go for the 70-200, but perhaps  you should also consider the 70-300 lenses with IS.
Logged
Jan

Ronny Nilsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 361
    • The Quiet Landscape
How much sharper does it get?
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2006, 03:30:16 am »

Elie7Elie, if you want the full size images (taken with a 20D) of the images in the test jani pointed you to, let me know and I'll send them to you.

As jani said, this is not a full test, it just shows what you get handheld in sunshine if you buy a 70-200 and a 1.4 exenteder and let the canera do the rest.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 03:31:00 am by ronnynil »
Logged
Ronny A. Nilsen
www.ronnynilsen.com

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
How much sharper does it get?
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2006, 05:46:12 am »

Well, that's quite a surprising difference between the 70-200 with 1.4x extender, and the 75-300 at 300mm.

I would guess that a significant influence in these results is the likelihood that the 75-300 (at 300mm) is sharpest at f16. This is to be expected with the cheaper zooms at the long end.

For aviation photography I would have thought the 100-400 IS might produce slightly better results than the 70-200 for distant aircraft in flight.
Logged

Ronny Nilsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 361
    • The Quiet Landscape
How much sharper does it get?
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2006, 06:14:59 am »

Quote
Well, that's quite a surprising difference between the 70-200 with 1.4x extender, and the 75-300 at 300mm.

I would guess that a significant influence in these results is the likelihood that the 75-300 (at 300mm) is sharpest at f16. This is to be expected with the cheaper zooms at the long end.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My experience with that lens suggests that stopping down at the 300mm end doesn't help much. At the 70mm end of the zoom range,  stopping down is much more effective.

I have put up an english language version of the page [a href=\"http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Photography/Equipment/Test/]here[/url].
« Last Edit: June 19, 2006, 07:25:54 am by ronnynil »
Logged
Ronny A. Nilsen
www.ronnynilsen.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up