Printable View
my current setup is a T4i with a 75-300 4-5.6 III .how much better would the image quality be with the 70-200 f4L. i really wan to get a new lens but im worried the improvement wont be as good as the pics i see on here. does anyone here have that camera and lens that could post some pics ? my pics are really not very nice right now with my current lens.
I believe you will see quite a step up. I owned the 70-300mm f4/5.6 IS which was a pretty good lens and moved up to the 70-200mm F/4 L IS and never looked back. The non-is version of the 70-200mm f/4 L has great image quality, I don't think you would regret it. I have a friend with that lens and has no intention on moving to the IS version. I believe Bryan said in one of his reviews that he would rather crop a very sharp 200mm picture than have a soft 300mm shot. I believe that is the difference you will see in this decision.
Borrow, rent or steal, ok, borrow or rent the lens you want and see for yourself. Visit a camera store and try one in-store. By all means, don't buy a lens just because a bunch of folks on a forum told you that it's the right choice, as it's your money on the line.
Very good advice. +2Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Yes, it's your money on the line. But if you have some trust in the good folks of a forum (such as this one), the collective advice of people can be an important data point for a decision. On a larger scale, this is part of amazon's secret - lots of user reviews that build trust.Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Renting a lens before buying is obviously a great idea (and probably worth it for very expensive lenses). But for a $600 lens, as a percentage of the cost, it's quite expensive.For the same money, you can (and I have) buy the lens, use it for a month, and resell it on amazon as "used-like new" if you don't want it (especially with L lenses). I did this with the sigma 8-16mm, which I used for a trip and then resold for a "loss" that was less than the cost of renting for a week.
I have really appreciated this groups advice and asked a similar question early last year. I was on a T3I (have since moved to 60D). I was debating similar lenses and ended up making the leap and going with the 70-200 F/4L IS. But I think I would have been very happy with the non-IS as well. To expand on rent verse buy, look for someone who has a good return policy. B&H has a 30 day return policy, so buying and trying within that window is cheaper than renting. I would only have to pay for shipping back.Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
Eric
I spoke my mind earlier, but new replies have triggered me to speak my mind a little bit more. Although the 75-300 4-5.6III is not the finest lens on the market, we should all be coaching you to be sure that your technique is suitable for the shots you're taking, as incorrect/"insufficient" technique on one lens won't magically become near-amazing technique on a different lens. Are you keeping the lens stopped down at least one stop, or perhaps at f/8, for better optical performance? Are you managing aperture/ISO/shutter in a "Expose to the right, ISO to the right" manner to juggle depth of focus, blur, and quality? Are you using a tripod? Would you be better off with the 200mm f/2.8 L instead of the 70-200 f/4 L?Quote:
Originally Posted by sedwards
Hi sedwards. A word of caution, judging yourself by the standards here is a tall order. There are a lot of really talented folks on this site that have developed all aspects of their craft. This includes lighting, composition, motion, post processing etc. What is it that you feel your pictures are lacking? I recently upgraded from the 70-300 IS to a 70-200 2.8, and the leap in build quality is significant. I now have the benefit of a fast, fixed max aperture. As you would expect I also noticed an increase in sharpness and contrast, especially when comparing images taken at the long end. That said, gains in this area are a matter of perspective. As people here have said before, after a certain point large sums of money will translate to incremental gains in quality. There are many shots from the 70-300 that I am still happy with, and in the grand scheme of things there probably aren't too many folks that could spot or care about the printed differences at equivalent settings. I think you'll love the step to L lenses if you stick with this hobby, but I recommend spending some time first thinking about what it is you don't like about your shots if you already haven't. If you can answer that it will be easier to pick the right gear. Also, and I apologize if you have a lot of experience with your 75-300, but note that without IS you need a relatively fast shutter speed to stop motion blur at the long end of that lens, roughly 1/420 or higher. With a narrow 5.6 aperture this can be difficult to achieve without bumping your ISO to higher levels. High ISO or a shutter that is too slow can lead to less than stellar image quality.
+1 to this point. Insufficient shutter speed dooms many shots, especially if you have shaky hands. Think about all those iPhone/smart phone shots people try to take in lower light conditions. They're always blurry and grainy -- blurry because of insufficient shutter speed and grainy from the high ISO used to try to boost the shutter speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickH
I've learned a ton from people on this forum. It's also a very nice forum compared to many others. So don't be afraid to ask. People genuinely want to help.
Here is another question then. If i have a crop sensor and shooting 300 mm is 1/320 shutter speed my minimum or hould i multiply by 1.6 ? I will post some of my pics tonight when i get home .its mostly when things are far and im at 250+ mm that i find it is not sharp at all. Even in bright sunlight ive tried from f6.3 to f11 and cant see much of an improvement. Im hoping thats the best this lens can do and an L series will give me more sharpness , or maybe ill get lucky and find out im just doing it wrong lol
The rule of thumb without IS is 1.6x the focal length for a minimum shutter speed on a crop body. It's just a rule of thumb though. Some people have surgeons hands and still subjects and can pull off slower shutters. But the shakier your hands, and the more your subject is moving, the more speed you need. This really starts to come more naturally with lots of experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by sedwards
Also, subjects that are moving laterally require a much faster shutter to stop motion, whereas subjects moving towards you dont require quite so fast a shutter.
It will be very helpful to see some of your images and the corresponding exif data. People should be able to help you a lot with those two things.
We'll have to peak at your pics when you post them, but here is a tip for helping a bit with focus/sharpness.Quote:
Originally Posted by sedwards
focus on the object you want in the distance- where you think it is in focus.
Then switch to live view
and zoom in 10x and manually adjust as needed.
re a few from this past weekend. uncropped , but i just noticed something . when i look at the size of the pic , its only 1.4 mb. an i doing something wrong when exporting with lightroom ? these were shot RAW of course. am i being to picky ?
300mm f6.3 1/800 and iso 100
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2868/9...8cdf4e3c_c.jpg
_MG_7132-2 by sedwards679, on Flickr
300mm f6.3 1/320 iso 100
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3768/9...83518c01_c.jpg
_MG_7150 by sedwards679, on Flickr
As others have said, non-IS rule of thumb is 1/EFL, so in your case EFL = 300 * 1.6 = 480, so ideal shutter speed is 1/480th, aka 1/500th.Quote:
Originally Posted by sedwards
With an early-edition IS lens capable of 2-stops IS, rule of thumb is 4/EFL, or 1/125th if we're talking about 300mm.
With a middle-edition IS lens capable of 3-stops IS, rule of thumb is 8/EFL, or 1/60th for 300mm.
With a recent-edition IS Lens capable of 4-stops IS, rule of thumb is 16/EFL, or 1/30th for 300mm.
There's a shot in my personal favorites bin that's EFL of 260mm, and shutter speed of 1/13th, subject ~1.25 miles away, solid as a rock. I got lucky that night, though I give the lens lots of credit too.
70-200 f/4 L USM is a nice lens. I think it'd be a big improvement over the 75-300 USM III. Most of shots are full frame now or on crop I often used a 1.4x extender with it often, but here's one on the crop that I think shows some of what it is capable of. This is just a test shot, but shows the potential.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8...59b5e6a2_o.jpg
2013_01_04_2314_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr
The question is what do you want to use it for? Outdoor sports? Good pick. Outdoor portraits? Good pick. Wildlife? Typically, not the best pick.
That said, it can do bird feeder stuff if shooting from close enough. This one is with an extender on a crop camera.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8192/8...e5efa250_c.jpg
2013_01_06_2431_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr
This one was just plain lucky because the eagle was so close, again with an extender.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8071/8...38b40134_o.jpg
2013_01_26_2730_upd8x10 by dthrog00, on Flickr
Dave
i do a lot of wildlife stuff. is it not long enough that makes the 70-200 f4 not the best pick or not fast enough ? if money way not a problem i would just get 600 f4L but that aint happenin anytime soon lol
those pics you posted look pretty much like what im trying to achive. my images almost look ok but if i crop them even just a little bit you really start to see how sharp they arent.
This is always a challenge. The smaller percentage of your frame that your subjects accounts for, the harder it is to get it sharp - especially with entry level lenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by sedwards
Good advice here as always. I'll be short and sweet and say that the 70-200mm f/4L IS is one of the finest lens' I've owned. I now use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I only upgraded because I needed the extra couple of stops of light when shooting weddings. I have used the non-IS version in a limited capacity but I wasn't nearly as impressed with is as the IS version. If it were me, I'd save up/ shell out a few more bucks for the IS version. It's an excellent lens.
I don't have the T3i but I did have the 40D and here's a couple of old shots with the IS version. This first one was pretty heavily cropped. The third was with extension tubes so I'm not sure how relevant it is but I don't have any others on my flickr page with that lens.
Hope this helps a little, although it doesn't entirely address your OP.
Ben
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2738/4...4f80d152_b.jpg
Bush Canary (found out what it actually is) by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr\
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2600/4...2f15ac28_b.jpg
First Aiders by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4042/4...75d80088_b.jpg
Rawr!!! by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr
How'd you get a couple stops out of this one-stop upgrade?Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
Errr....Magic? Excuse my brain function (or lack thereof), I'm on holidays.
+1. I loved my 70-200 f/4 L IS and sold it only to get the extra reach of the 70-300L. Here's a shot with my old Canon XS and the 70-200 f/4 IS. It was a MAJOR upgrade from the EF-S 55-250 that it replaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
I'd save up for the IS version.
http://riverview.smugmug.com/Portrai...IMG_1770-M.jpg
It's not long enough. 70-200 with extender gives you 280mm, just a touch shorter than what you have now. You'd have more latitude to crop, but would need to be close for acceptable results. If wildlife is your goal then you probably want 400mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by sedwards
If you want to get to 300mm without spending a bunch of money, there are a lot of people who like the Tamron 70-300 VC. It looks terrible on the site's image comparison tool, but users seem to like it and many get pretty good results with it.
All that said... if you're trying to match the IQ of many of the posters here it could cost you a huge amount of money. Many of the wildlife shots posted are taken with a pro grade body ($3500+) and a 400mm ($1200+) or 500mm ($7000) lenses.
In my opinion, there's something to enjoying the best you can get. Truth told, the 75-300 USM III isn't that great of a lens, but depending upon your budget you can get a better 300mm lens for not a ton of money using either the Tamron, the Canon 70-300 IS, or 70-200 f/4 plus extender. If you can extend your budget to around $1200 you can get the 400mm f/5.6 which is outstanding.
Dave
I wanted to 2nd that thought. I just bought the 70-300 4/5.6 IS on Friday from Adorama. It's the first non-L lens I ever tried and I have to say it is pretty amazing for the price. Yes it's slow glass no doubt but as long as I don't try shooting things it wasn't designed for (fast-action sports) I get really great images.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
I've only had it a few days but I don't see a *huge* difference in the IQ compared to my 70-200 2.8IS. There's some, esp at 300mm wide open. But if I'm shooting wide open at 300mm on a 4/5.6 lens I only have myself to blame for soft images. Shooting f/8 or f/11 and lo and behold center and mid-frame IQ is great, a little less than great in the corners. For under $400 I think it was a steal. It's a Canon refurb so it's in great shape, none of the zoom creep this lens is famous for. So far I love it.
That's what the 70-300mm L is for... shooting wide open at 300mm, on a 4-5.6 lens, and it being sharp at the pixel level.
On a crop camera, I recommend the EF-S 55-250mm if on a budget - best value for the money. The 70-300 non-L is not really an upgrade in terms of IQ in my opinion and not worth the extra money over the EF-S. Even if IQ is ok when stopped down - I rarely had use cases for shooting at 200mm or longer at f8 or f11. It probably depends on what you shoot, but for me that rarely happens. AF is not much better, if at all, than the EF-S lens.
So for a real upgrade in terms of IQ and AF, it is one of the 70-200s or the 70-300L (cannot speak to the Tamron)
The OP is trying to get better pics without spending a large sum of $$$, as nice as the 70-300L is, it is a large amount of cash more than 70-300 IS or Tamron 70-300.
Arnt's suggestion of the 55-250 is a lost cost way to get there, but 250 can still be kind of short...
Dave
I wasn't suggesting the L, but referring to canoli's comment about expecting a variable aperture lens at 300mm to be sharp wide open... it's a valid expectation, given good enough glass. I'd have quoted him, but it's painful on a SurfaceRT.
Yes, the 1/focal length rule is actually 1/"effective focal length" rule - meaning you should multiply the focal length by 1.6 if used on a crop-sensor camera. At 300mm, the minimum shutter speed should be approx. 1/500 sec for sharp images.Quote:
Originally Posted by sedwards
That's true. I just would not expect a significant improvement with the 70-300 non-L (Unfortunately the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM is not available in the image quality comparison tool). Bryan recommends the 70-200 f/4L as an upgrade http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx. Even with an extender, it will be better than the 75-300, so sedwards already had the right idea asking about this lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
To add to that point: I would not recommend replacing the current lens with the EF-S 55-250. Instead, I would stick it out until I have the funds available for one of the 70-200 options, maybe with an extender if more focal length is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin
EF-S 55-250 is great if you don't have any tele zoom yet, and if you are not sure if you want or can spend the money for one of the better options (it was my gateway drug :) )
I've used the 75-300 USM III and eventually sold it. In my opinion, the other lenses on the list would all be a fairly big step up including the 55-250.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahab1372
Dave
Me too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ahab1372
Well i got to try an L series lense today. A subcontractor here at work hapens to be a shutterbug and i asked if he could bring his lense next time he comes by. Not th lense im looking to buy first but at least it gives me an idea. He brought a 17-40 f4L. I compared it to my 18-135 kit lense. I thought auto focus was qick with my lense but its quite a bit faster with the 17-40 . images are much sharper , specialy shooting stuff far away and and they are nice from corner to corner .i didnt stop it down at all. I wanted to see how much better it was wide open. Now to save up some cash for an L series zoom lol
Since you mention wildlife, I would take a long hard look at the 100-400 L, 70-300 L and 400 f/5.6. I own the 100-400L and it has been great for wildlife first on my 7D and now on my 5DIII. On a crop sensor, I honestly didn't shoot 100-200 mm very often. I can see it's use on FF for portraits, etc. But you mention telephoto and wildlife and that would push me to recommend one of the three lenses mentioned in the first line. BTW, if you ever are so inclined, I loved the EFS 15-85 on my 7D. Great general purpose lens.