Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Don't doubt the 75-300 USM...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leftseat86
    replied
    I agree Kyuss, also, it is important to know roughly what percentage of my pics with the 75-300 turn out as sharp as those of the 100-400. The 100-400 has a much higher rate of getting the shot in perfect focus, all the time! Also it has faster AF and less hunting in more difficult situations.

    But its all relative to how you will use the camera. If you know your stuff's limitations and can work to their edges, you will produce great images with any combo of camera/lenses.

    When I used the Sigma 28-300...I'd say only 50% of the shots were acceptably sharp.

    -Clovis

    Leave a comment:


  • Kyuss
    replied

    I like the 100-400 better.
    No... Serious now... It's not really fair to compare, and the 75-300 is a fine lens. Especially for the price it's excellent. But the pictures you show above are pretty normal 75-300 output, don't you think? What I DO like to see it compared to is a Sigma or Tokina 75-300 (direct competitor to the Canon 75-300). I've never seen a 100% image taken with one of those before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crazy764
    replied
    Wow Clovis.
    Was the LH 744 also shot at a f-stop above f8?

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    That one is noticably sharper than my Beluga pic Kyuss, but not by much!

    Here is another comparison, both shot on the same day...

    75-300 USM direct crop compression level 11 in PS:



    100-400L direct crop compression level 11 in PS:


    Note the 100-400 costs about 1,100$ more than a 75-300 USM

    -Clovis

    Leave a comment:


  • Kyuss
    replied
    Yeah, it's an alright picture.
    Just as a comparison, here's actual pixels (cropped) from a 100-400 @400mm (note: the original picture shows the whole airplane fuselage + engines). No chromatic abberation at all. That's the biggest plus of L-lenses (besides being a tad sharper). If only they could become somewhat cheaper! My car cost the same as this lens!

    Leave a comment:


  • Crazy764
    replied
    Originally posted by Greg
    Nope, Clovis is to cheap for IS.

    Well, so am I. haha
    Alright then. So we are all in the no-IS group.

    Oh yeah Greg, weren't you one of the people saying to never go higher than f/8??

    Leave a comment:


  • Greg
    replied
    Nope, Clovis is to cheap for IS.

    Well, so am I. haha

    Leave a comment:


  • Crazy764
    replied
    Clovis, nice photo.


    You have IS? Will the f/8 and up thing still work for me, since I don't have IS?

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    Originally posted by Kyuss
    I have both the 75-300 and the 100-400... Once you use the 100-400 you won't touch the 75-300 anymore. But it's not a fair comparison. (the 100-400 is 8x more expensive for a start) The 75-300 is fine, just keep the 'f8'-thing in mind and beware of tons of chromatic abberation (compared to the 100-400).
    But what's so special about the picture above?
    I have used both, and while the 100-400 is indeed the best lens I have used to date, for 160$ the 75-300 is quite a good value. The shot above appears as sharp if not only slightly softer than most of the shots I took using a 100-400L in comparative conditions with similar settings.

    -Clovis

    Leave a comment:


  • Kyuss
    replied
    I have both the 75-300 and the 100-400... Once you use the 100-400 you won't touch the 75-300 anymore. But it's not a fair comparison. (the 100-400 is 8x more expensive for a start) The 75-300 is fine, just keep the 'f8'-thing in mind and beware of tons of chromatic abberation (compared to the 100-400).
    But what's so special about the picture above?

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    I would say that the above pic is comparable to about 80% of the shots I got out of a 100-400L, (using the 100-400 at f/8 aswell).

    Another 10% of the L shots were sharper, another 10% blurred.

    Note however this shot probably represents around 60% of the shots with my lens.

    -Clovis

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    I can't really judge on that pic right now. I have to see it at my home PC. If you have tried the 100-400mm already, how would you rate the 75-300 IS?

    Gerardo

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    Not my fault Airbus makes such ugly planes

    You may be right...that is a big A$$ white dust spot eh? I need a sensor clean..

    -Clovis

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Thanks!

    But I think your lens is broken. That aircraft looks waaaaaay out of proportion.

    Gerardo

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    Fixed

    -Clovis

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X