new 70-300L - am I nuts?

[hodnik]

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.






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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[hodnik]

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

[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.

[hodnik]

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

[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

[hodnik]

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!

[Sheiky]

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 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

[ahab1372]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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.