EF 70-300 f4-5.6 (non USM) II

[triggerfinger]

hello all,

I own the above mentioned lense (bought 7 years ago) with the 300D.
Found the lense to be extremely soft.

Thinking of buying a new lense to replace.
Thinking of buying the Sigma APO Macro Super 2 70-300mm and then a 2x converter.
Need advice from you folks.
Is it better than the one i own ? (optics, sharpness, colour-wise)

Is it a waste of money upgrading like this ? Or should i get another lense?
If so, please advice.

[clive]

2x and 75-300 will give u even softer pics than the 75-300 alone =)

can suggest u try for

1. 75-300 IS (not outstandign image quality, but worth it for the IS)
2.the more expensive 70-200/f4 L

[triggerfinger]

what if i compare the EF 70-300mm that i have with the Sigma APO one.
Will there be any improvements?
Read in this forum that the optics on this Sigma one is really good.

i am also looking at sigma 70-200 f2.8
not exactly looking for IS, but looking for the sharpness and the colour quality.

What do you recommend?

[PLRBEAR]

Originally Posted by triggerfinger what if i compare the EF 70-300mm that i have with the Sigma APO one. Will there be any improvements? Read in this forum that the optics on this Sigma one is really good. i am also looking at sigma 70-200 f2.8 not exactly looking for IS, but looking for the sharpness and the colour quality. What do you recommend?

Again. Hard to compare. The 70-300 APO M2 goes for about $330, while the 70-200f2.8 retails for about $1K more.

[mpenza]

the sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II should be sharper.

[triggerfinger]

cant seem to make up my mind

i) whether to go budget. get the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro 2. (a bit stupid, buying a not-so-good lense to replace a crappy lense)

ii) to go for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and 2x converter (i think will be around $1500)

or

iii) Frick it , lets go for an L-lense 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS L

so many lenses, dont know what to chose.
plus sigma got the 80-400 OS one just out.
Sighzzzzzzzzzzz

[Julian]

For the image quality and price... take the Canon EF 100-400mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Julian]

Correction.. I should say for the Image Quality and Dollar Value...

[ST1100]

Originally Posted by triggerfinger hello all, I own the above mentioned lense (bought 7 years ago) with the 300D. Found the lense to be extremely soft.

You sure the softness is not the result of 1) technique (at EFL 480mm) and 2) viewing the shot at 100% on screen? (To get sharp picture under these (shooting and viewing) conditions, you are looking at very high shutter speeds - 1/2000 and above is my guess.)

Just checking, coz if it is, spending money is not the way to solve the problem.

i own(ed) the 75-300USMIII and the 75-300/IS. Not exactly outstanding lenses, but under normal sunlight conditions, stopped down a bit, with slight postprocessing, it's hard to tell them apart from the 2.8L zooms. Certainly not soft to the point of unacceptable.

Maybe you can post a small 100% (centre and corner) crop of what you consider soft, and we can help check if it's the lens or the technique. Or check your shutter speeds in your exif.

[triggerfinger]

hmmmmmmmm..
Cant seems to post any attachments.

but i uploaded 4 photos.
(very paiseh paiseh, still learning how to manage my new 300D, not up to standard)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386916


give me some comments on my lense.

[ST1100]

Originally Posted by triggerfinger hmmmmmmmm.. Cant seems to post any attachments. but i uploaded 4 photos. (very paiseh paiseh, still learning how to manage my new 300D, not up to standard) http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386916 give me some comments on my lense.

Your lens looks perfectly ok to me, from the pics you posted. Just a little PS sharpening and leveling should make the pictures pop.

[Virgo]

Originally Posted by triggerfinger hmmmmmmmm.. Cant seems to post any attachments. but i uploaded 4 photos. (very paiseh paiseh, still learning how to manage my new 300D, not up to standard) http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386916 give me some comments on my lense.

Yes, I agree with ST1100. Your pics are OK. Just do a bit of USM and it should be fine. No point spending the additional $. Use your current equipment to the max. You may like to use a tripod and mirror lockup. Also, I've posted some pics here taken using the same lens. Comments please...


Purposely blurred to give a dreamy image

[triggerfinger]

actually, do all the photos go through PS ?

USM sharpening? maybe can try that.
not really used to the digital format.
Used to be what you snap is what you get (besides at the photo printing shops that adjusts the colour slightly)

[Virgo]

Originally Posted by triggerfinger actually, do all the photos go through PS ? USM sharpening? maybe can try that. not really used to the digital format. Used to be what you snap is what you get (besides at the photo printing shops that adjusts the colour slightly)

USM means UnSharp Mask. This means to mask out the difference between the regions, so that your images gets sharper. To know more about USM, I think it's better to borrow a book about PS (Elements 2 or Photoshop 7) and read about it. You can also check if there's any articles here, but I'm not sure.

In digital, you always have this flexibility to modify your pics if you're not satisfied. In film, your developing shop will do it for you, not only colour, but contrast, sharpening, etc. But in digital, you set up your own dark room. I always do my own postprocessing myself, and this gives me the flexibility to create better pics, as I got the control, not relying on the developing shop.

Try it. It's fun!

[triggerfinger]

ok..thanks man, will certainly try it.
Somehow i feel that there is a limit to how much USM one can apply before the picture becomes unnatural. Maybe i am really not used to it (or the thought of sharpening it at all) BUT This digital format is way COOL !!!!

Must try must try

[Virgo]

Originally Posted by triggerfinger ok..thanks man, will certainly try it. Somehow i feel that there is a limit to how much USM one can apply before the picture becomes unnatural. Maybe i am really not used to it (or the thought of sharpening it at all) BUT This digital format is way COOL !!!! Must try must try

Yes, you really need to try it out to see how much USM you need to apply to a picture. DO NOT use standard settings for every picture, since more USM will make a picture looks unnatural and introduce more noise. Changing the threshold will work too, but you need to try it out.

There's a better way to apply USM, and the correct one too. I've come across it somewhere, but can't remember the URL. Will find it out and let you know.