new 70-300L - am I nuts?

howdy, folks! first post here. let me start off with a bit of a introduction. i am novice photographer, my subject passion being aviation, all things related. my subject is usually quick moving, constantly changing light etc. as with most subjects, sharpness counts. i started out with a rebel t1i and the kit lenses. it was a great camera and took plenty of good shots.

my friend soon was purchasing a new 5dmk3, and was getting rid of his 7D, so I snatched that up. i used the 7D for several days at the airfield with my 55-250EFS and a 18-135EFS. i was really just getting used to camera and it's settings. i have long wanted the 100-400L, as most say that is the lens of choice for aircraft spotting (and occasional wildlife spotting which I enjoy as well). i viewed ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Comparison Ad nauseam. day and night for weeks, trying to decide what lens to purchase. the comparison is a really handy tool - and to be honest i was ready to see drastic improvements over my kit EFS lenses with either purchase.

fast forward to yesterday, when I received my brand new 70-300L from Adorama. I slapped it on the camera (carefully of course) and started taking pictures in the backyard, around the house etc. i snapped a few then turned on the preview and looked at some shots. i zoomed in expecting to see those crisp lines, that sharpness and contrast everyone raves about with the L glass. it looked great until you zoomed 100%. i put on my 18-135EFS and took some similar shots (nothing scientific). the results were very much alike, i could barely see a difference.

i thought for sure my mind was playing tricks (probably still is). this morning i went out and took some shots at my local air force base - hoping to see some improvements in image quality - but i really didn't.

i will say this is my first L glass. the build quality is superb, it is so sturdy. the AF is amazing. maybe my expectations where too high? i do not expect the 70-300L to make me a professional photographer. i do not expect the images to be ready for publish to flickr when I export them from my CF card. i did, however, expect to see a difference in sharpness and contrast - as suggested by other users.

so today after shooting at the airport, i set the camera up on the tripod, set the 10sec timer, set the exposure, focal, aperture all the same and took some shots. i will attach them below.

Attachment 1016
Attachment 1017
Attachment 1018
Attachment 1019

i do not want to come off as a 'troll', or a complainer, whiner, whatever. i want to make sure i am getting my money worth here.

thanks for looking

Most likely you need to do an AF microadjustment in camera.

To test to see if the lens really isn't sharp and it is the lens, set it up on a tripod, use live view and manual focus at 10x magnifcation. Then check the results on the computer. It should be sharp.

There is a new program that will help you do the adjustment in camera, some have used it on the forums and seem to like it. I have yet to buy it myself. The link is here;

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/

Or you could send the lens back and try another copy.

thanks for the quick response. i read about the micro adjustment before i went out spotting today and i will look into it further.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what images belong to which lenses? Number 2 and 4 are definitely much better than 1 and 3 in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Maybe I'm missing something, but what images belong to which lenses? Number 2 and 4 are definitely much better than 1 and 3 in my opinion.

---

yes i meant to do that. probably should have written that in my first post.

in order posted,
70-300L
18-135
18-135
70-300L

Welcome to the forums....and you sound nothing like a troll.

#2 and #4 look better to me than #1 and #3....did I guess right? Actually, #4 looks significantly better than #3 to me. But this could also be focus.

One thing you may want to post what your settings were (speed, aperture, ISO). One key is most lenses are pretty good at ~f/8. You may not see much of a difference. Where you will see more of a difference is wide open.

Also, lenses need to be match to the camera and congratulations, you have a camera body that can do it. Neuro wrote up the procedures here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/P...ment-Tips.aspx


EDIT...ok...looks like I was off with #1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Welcome to the forums....and you sound nothing like a troll.

#2 and #4 look better to me than #1 and #3....did I guess right? Actually, #4 looks significantly better than #3 to me. But this could also be focus.

One thing you may want to post what your settings were (speed, aperture, ISO). One key is most lenses are pretty good at ~f/8. You may not see much of a difference. Where you will see more of a difference is wide open.

Also, lenses need to be match to the camera and congratulations, you have a camera body that can do it. Neuro wrote up the procedures here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/P...ment-Tips.aspx


EDIT...ok...looks like I was off with #1

---

you guys have been great so far! thanks for the comments.

the scorecard was taken from a tripod, f/8, 1/15, 200
the other was taken from a tripod, f/8 1/16, 200

i shot at f/8 as that is what i normally shoot at when spotting aircraft, because as you said, most lenses are good at f/8

thanks for the link, will read into it!

A simple check to see if you need AF-micro adjustment is to take identical shots, one with AF and one MF with live view at 10x. If the results are really different, you could do AFMA. It's very easy, even a DIY solution works pretty well.
However picture 4 looks to be pretty well focused to me.

As far as the images, Brant and I both guesed wrong haha:D However there are a few things you should take notice on. You compare two completely different lenses. Perhaps you have shot on the same focal length. I guess you did. On one lens it's on the long end and on the other it's on the wide end of the lens. Zooms don't deliver the same IQ on the whole range so you might as well have had bad luck with the focal length. Testing where the differences are small. AKA you might have hit the sweet spot on the 18-135 and the weak spot on the 70-300L at the same time ;)

I actually think 1 and 4 do look better than 2 and 3, but I knew which was which, so I might be biased. Did you try the manual focus in Live View? Maybe with Mirror Lock-Up?

Arnt

1 and 4 are slightly better IMO to.

Hodnik; here is a lesson I learned when I started buying L lenses. It is the Canon cost rule of thirds (3x), when you go from the normal non L lenses the new L version cost 3x as much. However, the improvement you get from going up to the more expensive version isn't 3x as much. It is fractional. You pay allot of extra money to get just a small amount of improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

As far as the images, Brant and I both guesed wrong haha:D

---

ahh...they were both shot at f/8...I am not going to feel too bad....
:cool:
A quick comparison for the OP of these two lenses at f/8 at 135 mm....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=3

Ok, so I see a difference, but the centers are pretty good at both, still much better for the L. But the 18-135 is falling apart at the edges. So, I suspect we are comparing center crops.

Also, hodnik, do you have a remote shutter release? If not, you may want to get those shutter speeds up or use a count down timer. General rule of thumb is 1/(focal length x 1.6) or faster for hand held. Being on the tripod will help, of course, but you can still get vibration from pressing the shutter release at 1/15 second.

Brant

I think it should also be noted that the 18-135 is falling apart at the edges on a crop body. The 70-300mm is holding up on the edges with a full frame body.
Overall the 70-300mm L should be giving noticeably better results on a 7d.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Overall the 70-300mm L should be giving noticeably better results on a 7d.

---

I'd say that #4 is significantly better than #3. Especially if this is a center crop. The edges probably have even more difference in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

ahh...they were both shot at f/8...I am not going to feel too bad....
:cool:
A quick comparison for the OP of these two lenses at f/8 at 135 mm....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=3

Ok, so I see a difference, but the centers are pretty good at both, still much better for the L. But the 18-135 is falling apart at the edges. So, I suspect we are comparing center crops.

Also, hodnik, do you have a remote shutter release? If not, you may want to get those shutter speeds up or use a count down timer. General rule of thumb is 1/(focal length x 1.6) or faster for hand held. Being on the tripod will help, of course, but you can still get vibration from pressing the shutter release at 1/15 second.

---

the ISO test you linked is what I am trying to replicate. it obviously shows a better IQ, sharpness, contrast when comparing the L and the standard lenses.

10 second count down timer was one, there was no camera shake, at least no visible camera shake looking through live view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Overall the 70-300mm L should be giving noticeably better results on a 7d.

---

do you suggest that it should be noticeably better than the crops I posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

1 and 4 are slightly better IMO to.
[...] You pay allot of extra money to get just a small amount of improvement.

---

That is actually true for most things

Arnt

Hodnik,

HDNitehawk has a very good point. The 70-300 L was taken with the 1DIIIs, a full frame camera while the image with the 18-135 was taken with the 50D, a cropped sensor camera. This does two things 1) at least part of the difference in image quality is due to the superior camera and 2) the image for the 70-300 represents a much larger image circle. In other words, the "mid" points for the 70-300 image are probably closer to equivalent (in terms of distance from center) to the edges on a crop sensor camera.

For your tests, I'd encourage you to look at the edges and not just the center, to look at wider apertures, check AFMA, and find a subject with a little more detail.

That said, I agree with others, improvement isn't linear with cost.

Good luck and enjoy your new lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Also, hodnik, do you have a remote shutter release? If not, you may want to get those shutter speeds up or use a count down timer. General rule of thumb is 1/(focal length x 1.6) or faster for hand held. Being on the tripod will help, of course, but you can still get vibration from pressing the shutter release at 1/15 second.

---

Good point.
#4 image is quite good.
While both #1 and #2 are not good shots to make a comparison of because of the textured surface, it all looks a bit shakey. I would suggest a minimum shutter speed of 1/200sec or higher, use some artifical lightsource to keep your ISO down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hodnik

so today after shooting at the airport, i set the camera up on the tripod, set the 10sec timer, set the exposure, focal, aperture all the same and took some shots. i will attach them below.

i do not want to come off as a 'troll', or a complainer, whiner, whatever. i want to make sure i am getting my money worth here.

thanks for looking

---

Hi, at f/8 you will find most lenses are very good IQ-wise, and the difference between an average lens and a high-end lens is small at f/8 (if f/8 is OK you don't really need the expensive lenses). Another test you could do to see what the 70-300L gives you would be to compare shots at 250 mm f/5.6 between your new lens and the EF-S 55-250. You could use some of the popular test shot subjects (e.g. a focus test chart), and since aviation seems to be your thing you could also take some test shots at a subject that has bright sky in the background (e.g. a flagpole or a chimney) to see field-like differences in CA etc.

The EF-S 55-250 is not bad at all, but I'm sure you'll notice the difference - probably a more significant difference than in the shots above.

Good luck with your new lens!

I have to agree w/ CLS and perhaps expand slightly.

At f8 on a crop body in particular you will see the beginnings - significant - of the pin hole diffraction effect of the aperture. This actually degrades the image a surprising amount - you can see it in the ISO crops, (set up the same lens at 5.6 and f 11 and toggle between them) and I can see it my real world shots, if I do a side by side comparison.

I try to stay short of 6.3 if the DOF is appropriate.

I have the 70-300L and a 7D. Back in the day I had a 55-250 also. Here's my take.

Set both lenses at 250mm and f/5.6. That's the real comparison. If you don't immediately see a difference in the photos, send your 70-300L back. The real IQ value of the 70-300L should be shooting wide open, and in particular from 200mm-300mm.

Then you could set them at 300mm and compare :) You'll certainly prefer the 70-300!

all of your responses are very appreciated! i have read through them all and it all makes sense, good suggestions by all.

i did a rudimentary AFMA with a tape measure - found that the 70-300L was just a tad off, so adjusted the best of my ability. i got the scorecard back out, tried to find some light in the house and took some more comparisons.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6...0/Untitled.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-j...s1600/test.jpg

from these shots I can tell the L is better. my conscience is a bit calmer now. thanks to everyone for walking me through this.

This is where people jump back into the thread and mess with your head..


"Wow the shots on the right are clearly the winners in this shoot"

You are lucky it has microfocus adjustment. It is the only 1.6 crop-frame that does. Had I even known what MFA is back when I bought my T3i, I may have gotten it instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

I have to agree w/ CLS and perhaps expand slightly.

At f8 on a crop body in particular you will see the beginnings - significant - of the pin hole diffraction effect of the aperture. This actually degrades the image a surprising amount - you can see it in the ISO crops, (set up the same lens at 5.6 and f 11 and toggle between them) and I can see it my real world shots, if I do a side by side comparison.

I try to stay short of 6.3 if the DOF is appropriate.

---

Interesting point. I am adding that to my mental card file.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Stephen

You are lucky it has microfocus adjustment. It is the only 1.6 crop-frame that does. Had I even known what MFA is back when I bought my T3i, I may have gotten it instead.

---

50D has it as well.

If the 60D had it, I would probably own one right now, but it doesn't so I don't. Do you hear that, Canon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hodnik

you guys have been great so far! thanks for the comments.

the scorecard was taken from a tripod, f/8, 1/15, 200
the other was taken from a tripod, f/8 1/16, 200

i shot at f/8 as that is what i normally shoot at when spotting aircraft, because as you said, most lenses are good at f/8

thanks for the link, will read into it!

---

Another thing to remember with better quality lenses is that often much of the improvement is found at wider apertures and away from the center of the frame. Most lenses are pretty good at f/8 at the center. If you want to see what you paid for, perhaps compare each lens at an aperture where one lens is wide open.

Your results will probably look more like this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=2