A $1,200 to $1,600 Question

[Kayaker72]

I have had a 75-300 mm f4-5.6 III USM for a little over 10 years now and have used it with myfilm SLR. It has produced some of my favorite pictures. In June, I made the jump to dSLR and bought a 7D. In doing so,I found this website. Turns out neither of my original lenses are all that well regarded. To upgrade my lenses, I bought an EFS 15-85 f:3.5-5.6 IS USM lens and have set aside the $1,200 to $1,600 to upgrade the 75-300 mm range with either the 70-200 Lf4, the new 70-300 L, or the 100-400 L.


I know this question is a little dumb on the surface, asthe reviews, MTF charts, etc all show that the "L" lenes are significantly better both optically and in build quality. But I am wondering specifically how they are better, or, how the below images would be improved with one of the "L" lenses?


I took these photos yesterday at North Hampton Beach, NH after Tropical Storm Earl moved past with my current75-300 mm lens on my 7D.I can see some purple fringing, the sea behind the surfers looks odd, and there seems to be a haze/fuzz around bright objects. But that is looking at 100% crops. Are those the areas where the new lenses will be better or are there others? Will they also be sharper?


Thanks,


Brant[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-1-100_2500_.JPG[/img]


100% crop above...full picture below. 300 mm, 1/800th, f5.6


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-1.JPG[/img]





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-2-100_2500_.JPG[/img]


100% crop above, photo below. 300 mm, 1/640, f/8.0


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-2.JPG[/img]





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-3-100_2500_.JPG[/img]


300 mm, 1/800th, f/5.6


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.46.64/Surf-3.JPG[/img]

[neuroanatomist]

I can see some purple fringing, the sea behind the surfers looks odd, and there seems to be a haze/fuzz around bright objects. But that is looking at 100% crops. Are those the areas where the new lenses will be better or are there others? Will they also be sharper?

Hi Brant,


Those are the main areas, yes. The images from any of the L lenses that you mention will be sharper, suffer from less chromatic aberration (purple fringing), and have better color and contrast than images from your current lens.


Looking at your shots, you'll probably want the longest lens possible - that would be the 100-400mm. However, based on the MTF charts, the new 70-300mm L lens seems to be sharpest of the three. It has better IS too, but that's not a big factor at the shutter speeds you're using above. The new 70-300mm L is also not going to be much bigger (physically) than your current 75-300mm (fatter, but not much longer). The 100-400mm is a substantially longer and heavier lens.


The 70-200mm f/4L is a fine lens, especially the IS version which falls within your budget. But for shots like those above, giving up 100mm on the long end is not a great idea. So, my recommendation would be to wait for the reviews of the new 70-300mm L lens, assuming you're not in a rush for a new lens. The focal length is the same as you've got now. Or, if you feel you need the extra reach (if you routinely crop shots as you did above, then you do need as much reach as you can get), the 100-400mm on a 7D is a great combo.


Good luck with your decision!


--John

[deltasun]

This is a blast from the past for me. Here's an illustration of the quality differences (all from my XTi) between my 75-300mm f/4-5.6 vs. my 24-105mm f/4L. I took these back to back with the two lenses.


300mm full photo:








24-105mm full photo:








300mm 100% crop:








24-105mm 100% crop:

[Kayaker72]

Delta,


, I am glad I am not the only one. Justifying ~$1,500 to essentially replace a lens you've been happy with isn't always easy. But after looking at your images, I went back andcompared 50-100% crops of my EFS 15-85 and my 75-300 III USM. Pretty consistently, the crops from the EFS 15-85 were sharp, no CA, etc. In fact, some of the 100% crops were amazing, while some just a little off. But the crops from the 75-300 III USM were pretty consistently "soft" (I believe that is the term Bryan used in his review). So, in thinking about it, the 75-300 III USM probably gives me acceptable uncropped images. But with a new lens, I will get better uncropped images but also the ability to crop a section of the image and use that for my picture.


John,


You areexactly onmy next problem,which lens? If I didn't need to replace the 75-300 lens, then I could have spent my money on a couple of lenses, such as a macro (100 mm f2.8 or f2.8 L), a flash, and maybe a portrait lens (85 f1.8). But I do use the telephoto range, so I think I'll decide between the 70-200 f/4.0 L, 70-300L, and the 100-400 L. The 70-200's are appealing because of there IQ, size and weight, but they only go to 200 mm.The 100-400L has the extrareach and IQ are the pluses and the size and weight the minuses. And the 70-300L may have the best IQ of them all, and sits right between the other lenses in terms of reach, size and weight. Plus, it most directly replaces what I currently have.


But I have noticed that many of my favorite pictures posted in this forum have been taken with the 100-400L at 400 mm. Whether it be from air shows, wildlife, etc....it seems the extra reach helps getgreat photos. So, I think I'll wait on the 70-300L reviews and try to find a photo shop that stocks the 100-400L so I can check out the lens in person.


Thanks again,


Brant

[Joel Eade]

Brant,


Looking at your surfing images I think you purchase as much focal length as possible, it will be tough for any lens to give great images with such a large crop. You definitely need 400mm or more, if the super tele's are out of budget then look at the 400 f5.6L, it will probably out perform the 100-400 zoom in terms of sharpness.


Joel

[Richard Lane]

I shoot a lot of Surfing. You need at least 400mm on a crop body, as the minimum on a calm day. A 300mm with a 1.4X extender works great too. Before or after a storm 500mm would be better since the waves start further out and then the shore break pushes me further inland, creating a greater subject to camera distance. A larger aperture/faster lens also works better in inclement weather, due to heavy clouds and less Sunlight. Obviously, try to get the fastest shutter speed that you could afford. Also, a lot of surfers like to surf before and after work, so there is less light.


I have surfing samples from Tropical Storm Earl that I could post if you like. I'm off to a BBQ now, so if you're interested I could post some later.


Rich

[Kayaker72]

I shoot a lot of Surfing. You need at least 400mm on a crop body, as the minimum on a calm day. A 300mm with a 1.4X extender works great too. Before or after a storm 500mm would be better since the waves start further out and then the shore break pushes me further inland, creating a greater subject to camera distance. A larger aperture/faster lens also works better in inclement weather, due to heavy clouds and less Sunlight. Obviously, try to get the fastest shutter speed that you could afford. Also, a lot of surfers like to surf before and after work, so there is less light.


I have surfing samples from Tropical Storm Earl that I could post if you like. I'm off to a BBQ now, so if you're interested I could post some later.


Rich
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Rich....seeing some of your pictures would be great.


I don't usually take pictures of surfing, this is probably my third time (the others were on trips to Hawaii). But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L. But, ultimately, I am just building my "kit" and, really, Ionly have 1, maybe 2 good lenses (EFS 15-85, and the 50 mm f/1.8) in addition to the 75-300 III USM, which I am deciding is an ok lens. I can see a portrait, macro, 70-200/70-300 and something that reaches to 400 mm or beyond in my future. The question is what next....and it will probably be the 70-300L or the 100-400L. But this is why I wanted my 75-300 to be good...then I could focus on other areas.


Hope the BBQ was good.....


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L.

The extra reach really does come in handy!


Since deltasun showed some 100% crops of rodents, I'll do the same with the 100-400mm @ 400mm for comparison - here's the original (cropped for an 8x10" print) and a 100% crop of an American red squirrel. Noisy, because of the high ISO - but quite sharp.


[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/4843589379/in/set-72157624616702164/lightbox/][/url]
EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200

[MikeG2012]

I currently use the 100-400 on my 7D for a lot of outdoor photography and love the combination. Its very sharp and the versatility is great. If your primary work is sports, more focal length is going to be key. As someone mentioned above, if you're not worried about having the zoom range of the 100-400, then I'd suggest the 400 f/5.6. Its sharper than the 100-400 @ 400 and its a lighter lens. The only downside is you lose IS with the 400 f/5.6. You'll be very happy with either lens.


And even though the 70-300L is supposed to be extremely sharp, I'm personally not a fan of this lens because 300 @ f/5.6 is way to slow, and it overlaps with the already excellent 70-200mm lenses. I just don't understand the point of this lens.





Mike

[Richard Lane]

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Rich....seeing some of your pictures would be great.


I don't usually take pictures of surfing, this is probably my third time (the others were on trips to Hawaii). But I think I would like the extra reach of the 100-400L. But, ultimately, I am just building my "kit" and, really, Ionly have 1, maybe 2 good lenses (EFS 15-85, and the 50 mm f/1.8) in addition to the 75-300 III USM, which I am deciding is an ok lens. I can see a portrait, macro, 70-200/70-300 and something that reaches to 400 mm or beyond in my future. The question is what next....and it will probably be the 70-300L or the 100-400L. But this is why I wanted my 75-300 to be good...then I could focus on other areas.


Hope the BBQ was good.....


Brant

The first one is from Hurricane Earl, all the others are from July 2010.


All Photos taken with 7D, 300mm f/2.8L with 1.4X Extender.



















































Rich