The only reason the 70-300mm has "greater magnification" (that is, greater maximum magnification) is that it can focus on an object 4.9' away at 300mm, while the 70-200mm can focus to 4.6', but only at 200mm. But if you set the two lenses up identically (same focal length, same distance to subject: for example, 200mm, 6' away), then maximum magnification is irrelevant; in theory, you should get pretty much the same image. If you don't, then either the focal length isn't really the same (even if the EXIF data says it is), or the distance to the subject isn't really the same. (Note that the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is about two inches longer than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM, which at close range could make a noticeable difference if the camera body is kept in the same place for both shots.)
- Thank you Craig
You explained this so I could really understand it
Gotta love the word "Theory" -- That's going to become my favorite word through my learning process with this lens
I've been checking sharpness too -- I heard that the 70-200 4.0 is sharper then this lens. Now why would Canon make a 2.8 lens that isn't sharp at 2.8
I'd certainly like to understand it, but every time I think I'm "getting it," something comes along and confuses me all over again.
I sit corrected... I had thought I'd seen macro lenses with MFDs shorter than the lens' physical lengths, but looking at specs, I see that I must have been mistaken. For instance, the Nikon 200mm f/4 macro lens (1/1 max reproduction ratio) has MFD of 1.7' and is 7.7" long.
I'd think that, in theory, the reason manufacturers use focal lengths in advertising is to relate everything to an equivalent simple lens, and therefore 70mm should be 70mm should be 70mm (give or take rounding a bit for marketing purposes), no matter the lens recipe or aperture, when of course, few of our SLR lenses are actually anywhere near as physically long as the focal length.
I took the following two pictures at 50mm, f/4, 1/13s, ISO200, using TTL bounced flash (cuz it was mounted on the body at the time). One was with my 50mm f/1.8 prime, the other with my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The approximate distance from the mounting point to the front element of the lenses is vastly different, about 1.25" on the prime to 4.25" on the zoom.
As you can see, the zoom has quite a bit wider FOV, even though the front element is closer to the subject. The prime also shows a more even exposure, despite being a narrower FOV. That could be due to the flash, I don't know the FV of each shot. I don't know how to pull that data out of the file. But anyway, which is "really" 50mm? I'd trust the Nikkor prime over the Tamron zoom, personally, but they are noticably and rather significantly different. Hmm...
Prime:
Zoom:
These next two are the same Tamron 17-50 compared with my Nikkor 35mm prime. The distance from mount to front element is about 2" on the prime vs. just under 4" on the zoom. In these, the FOV is almost identical, but the distortion is quite different. When I flip back and forth between these two, it's very interesting how they differ from each other. Perhaps that's harder to see in a side-by-side comparison as when going back and forth in a viewer application. Anyway, I guess the moral of the story is that focal length is certainly not nearly the only important factor in lens design. Of course, we all knew that...
Prime:
Zoom:
Your seeing what I'm seeing
This really make me look at my lenses differently.
Makes me wonder what Henri Cartier-Bresson did when faced with a similar problem…
- Wil
I had to google Henri to see who he was. His photography is wonderful, but of what I read -- he'd probably think we were wasting our time Then again..maybe not.
I had to google Henri to see who he was. His photography is wonderful, but of what I read -- he'd probably think we were wasting our time Then again..maybe not.
Understanding how something works makes it so much easier to use effectively, and I admire your tenacity!
I had to google Henri to see who he was. His photography is wonderful, but of what I read -- he'd probably think we were wasting our time Then again..maybe not.
I enjoy stuff like this, and I don't consider time enjoyed to be wasted.
I think my results just show that while the lens is marketed as 17-50, it doesn't quite get to 50. Perhaps, if it was thoroughly tested, it would be something like 17-45. But it's rounded up for marketing purposes. The only thing that really matters is, do you like the lens? Can you take good photos with it? Do you think your results will be better with a 70-200 2.8L or a consumer class 70-300 variable? There's a good reason why some lenses are (quite a bit) more expensive than others.
As for your earlier question about why would Canon make a 2.8 lens that isn't sharp at 2.8... from what I've read, almost all lenses are softest wide open, even the expensive pro ones. The 2.8 lens should be sharper at 4 than the f/4 lens.
I had to google Henri to see who he was. His photography is wonderful, but of what I read -- he'd probably think we were wasting our time
Cartier-Bresson is one of the all-time great street photographers. I recommend you pick up a book of his work sometime. There is an inexpensive one in the Photofile series that is pretty good, though short on discussion.
Yes, I think he'd probably just think we were being silly to worry about all this technical minutiae rather than going out there and shooting!
I've been checking sharpness too -- I heard that the 70-200 4.0 is sharper then this lens. Now why would Canon make a 2.8 lens that isn't sharp at 2.8
Many people state that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 version, but what that actually amounts to would be the important fact. Saying the f/2.8 is not sharp does not do the lens the justice it deserves. It is extremely sharp, even in the hands of an amateur like me. I have not used the f/4 version, but have seen many examples on the forums of both...each are great. Bottom line is they each serve a purpose.
.02
Canon 7D and some stuff that sticks on the end of it.
Many people state that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 version, but what that actually amounts to would be the important fact. Saying the f/2.8 is not sharp does not do the lens the justice it deserves. It is extremely sharp, even in the hands of an amateur like me. I have not used the f/4 version, but have seen many examples on the forums of both...each are great. Bottom line is they each serve a purpose.
This business about the EF 70-200mm f/4 lenses being sharper than the f/2.8 models is nonsense as far as I can tell. It may be true that the f/4 lenses at f/4 are sharper than the f/2.8 lenses at f/2.8 (in other words, shot wide open), but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. What you really want to know is how the lenses compare at the same settings. The f/2.8 lenses at f/4 are just as good as the f/4 lenses at f/4; in fact, from my observations, I'd say the f/2.8 lenses at f/3.5 are as sharp as the f/4 lenses at f/4.
Here is an interesting comparison of standardized test shots:
If you hover your mouse over the test shots, you will be looking at the f/4 IS model. If you move the mouse away, you will see the f/2.8 IS. This comparison is at 135mm f/4. To my eyes, both are great in the center, but the f/2.8 version is sharper in the mid-frame and corner, and the f/2.8 shows less vignetting (that is, the mid-frame and corner samples are the same brightness as the center sample with the f/2.8 lens, but noticeably darker with the f/4 lens).
I have both the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. The f2.8 is indeed somewhat soft wide open but soft is a relative term and the image responds very well to different sharpening methods. If you need the f2.8 aperture you need not be afraid.
If you need both 200mm and an f2.8 aperture then the Canon EF 200mm, f2.8L USM prime lens might be a good selection and I do believe it is sharper wide open than the zoom (although less versatile).
I would say that the f4L is indeed sharper at f4 than the f2.8L at f4, but the difference is small and I would not make a choice on that alone. I choose the F4L IS as a travel lens and it works really well for that purpose. If I truly need the f2.8 aperture for an indoor event or indoor sports or outdoor night sports, I wouldn't hesitate to use the f2.8 version of the 70-200mm zoom.
I also think that the f2.8 zoom is slightly faster to AF than the f4. Again, they are very close in speed so it's not a problem.
Remember too that some cameras are able to use a special AF sensor that is both more sensitive and more accurate using lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.8 or greater.
The different lenses are indeed there for very good reasons and you should choose according to your needs, not according to some reviews' claims of sharpness.
Many people state that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 version, but what that actually amounts to would be the important fact. Saying the f/2.8 is not sharp does not do the lens the justice it deserves. It is extremely sharp, even in the hands of an amateur like me. I have not used the f/4 version, but have seen many examples on the forums of both...each are great. Bottom line is they each serve a purpose.
.02
I'm finding in my test shooting that I can get a much better photo with this lens then any of my other lenses. Hate to say this, but it's better then my trusty 24-105. Ouch...that hurt saying that, but it's true.
I've taken photos at f/8 -- and it seems to let in more light then if I shot using any of my other lenses. This has me wondering why that is. Oh no...another thing to think about
Does this lens let in more light even at other settings? A good example is the photo I'm going to post in a second. It's the snowmobile photo. There is no way I could get that shot to come out like that with any of my lenses at the setting I used.
I'm finding in my test shooting that I can get a much better photo with this lens then any of my other lenses. Hate to say this, but it's better then my trusty 24-105. Ouch...that hurt saying that, but it's true.
I've taken photos at f/8 -- and it seems to let in more light then if I shot using any of my other lenses. This has me wondering why that is. Oh no...another thing to think about
Does this lens let in more light even at other settings? A good example is the photo I'm going to post in a second. It's the snowmobile photo. There is no way I could get that shot to come out like that with any of my lenses at the setting I used.
Canon's "L" series lenses should be very close to each other in terms of aperture ratings. An f8 on one "L" lens should be very close to an f8 on another "L" lens.
Again, you should do controlled tests. If you see a discrepancy, feel free to post examples.
I have both the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. The f2.8 is indeed somewhat soft wide open but soft is a relative term and the image responds very well to different sharpening methods. If you need the f2.8 aperture you need not be afraid.
If you need both 200mm and an f2.8 aperture then the Canon EF 200mm, f2.8L USM prime lens might be a good selection and I do believe it is sharper wide open than the zoom (although less versatile).
I would say that the f4L is indeed sharper at f4 than the f2.8L at f4, but the difference is small and I would not make a choice on that alone. I choose the F4L IS as a travel lens and it works really well for that purpose. If I truly need the f2.8 aperture for an indoor event or indoor sports or outdoor night sports, I wouldn't hesitate to use the f2.8 version of the 70-200mm zoom.
I also think that the f2.8 zoom is slightly faster to AF than the f4. Again, they are very close in speed so it's not a problem.
Remember too that some cameras are able to use a special AF sensor that is both more sensitive and more accurate using lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.8 or greater.
The different lenses are indeed there for very good reasons and you should choose according to your needs, not according to some reviews' claims of sharpness.
Ziggy you always post something that just gets my mind churnin'
Since you have both I'll tell you what I'm looking for and hopefully you can lead me in the right direction.
I need light, but I want sharp. If I can't get sharp at 2.8 then why pay for it. Then again I've taken photos at 3.5 that are sharp. So is this worth the extra money? That's not far from 4.0. Then again I took a photo at 4.0 that I think is good, but I took one that is terrible in the sharpness.
Is this a good lens for the 40d? Or is it much better on an other camera?
I've noticed the fastness of this lens. Much quicker then any lens I have. It even is faster to focus in on something set at any setting I put it on. I practiced on some snowmobilers and I had one blurry photo. Totally amazed me. Usually I'm chasing to get a moving object and this lens seems to attach to the subject so quickly. I've never photographed snowmobilers before.
One thing I've noticed is I can't crop in like I can with my other lenses unless the photo is really sharp. There seems to be more noise. Have you noticed that?
Does the 4.0 lens have the nice bokeh that the 2.8 has. I'm amazed at this on the 2.8.
Did you get the 4.0 just for the weight issue or did the sharpeness of that lens have a lot to play in your decision?
My lens will be used for landscape, photos looking inside old buildings as I don't go in them and night time photography around town. Also I'll be using it for birds. I'd like to add a teleconvertor on it someday. How do the two lenses handle those. I like to take photos of objects I see when I'm out like windows, doors, handles, etc. You know what I mean about objects so I don't need to type a list
I've attached some photos I took for sharpness. I've only lightened them, but I may of addes some saturation to one of them. No sharpness was applied and all were from the RAW file. Also I've painted a little gray circle where the focal point is. Since I don't know how to attach the EXIF file I'll type it by each photo.
After looking at these -- do you think I have a good lens? I know you can get a good one or a bad one.
1. Taken at f2.8 - 1/1000 - 400iso - 100mm - cropped to 50%
2. Taken at f2.8 - 1/500 - 400iso - 100mm - cropped at 50%
3. Taken at f2.8 - 1/320 - 400iso - 200mm - cropped 50% -- this one cropped the best in my opinion. He's sad because the Vikings lost yesterday :cry
4. Taken at f/4 - 1/1600 - 250iso - 200mm - cropped 66%. This was in the shadows of the trees on a cloudy day. There is no way I could of gotten this with any of my other lenses unless I had used a tripod. This one I rested the camera on the jeep when I took it. I've never been able to use these settings on a cloudy day in trees. That's why I ask if this lens lets in more light at all settings.
5. My first moving object. Taken at f5.6 - 1/1250 - 400iso - 100mm. It was a cloudy day and I would of had a hard time trying to set my settings for this photo. No tripod used -- may of been leaning on the hood of the jeep tho. I blew out the snow lightening it...sorry
Canon's "L" series lenses should be very close to each other in terms of aperture ratings. An f8 on one "L" lens should be very close to an f8 on another "L" lens.
Again, you should do controlled tests. If you see a discrepancy, feel free to post examples.
That's a good idea -- I'll try this tomorrow and post some samples. Oh my...you all are going to get tired of my samples
I took some photos using my 24-104L and the 70-200L lens to see if there was a difference in the lighting produced in the photo. They came out looking the same So I won't post any photos. But I did notice that my 70-300 lens is sharper. That has me a concerned. I would think that wouldn't of happend. Maybe this bugger needs to go back and they can send me out another copy.
No one has commented on the sharpness I'm getting with the photos I posted taken with the 70-200 -- are they that bad :cry Or is the accepted sharpness for this lens?
I took some photos using my 24-104L and the 70-200L lens to see if there was a difference in the lighting produced in the photo. They came out looking the same So I won't post any photos. But I did notice that my 70-300 lens is sharper. That has me a concerned. I would think that wouldn't of happend. Maybe this bugger needs to go back and they can send me out another copy.
No one has commented on the sharpness I'm getting with the photos I posted taken with the 70-200 -- are they that bad :cry Or is the accepted sharpness for this lens?
Quite the contrary, at the sizes posted your 70-200mm, f2.8L looks very sharp. I am a little concerned that you say your "... 70-300 lens is sharper."
If you were to post links to full resolution images for us to see we could comment better about what you are seeing.
I notice when I crop in my 70-300 is sharper. I focused on the eye. Let me know what you think. There are 2 photos take off of each lens.
This really has me baffled
Good Afternoon MK,
Photo's 3 and 4 (originals) are sharper along the entire trunk area, and around the mouth as well, at least on my monitor Talk to you soon
Have a good evening
Jim...
Good Afternoon MK,
Photo's 3 and 4 (originals) are sharper along the entire trunk area, and around the mouth as well, at least on my monitor Talk to you soon
Have a good evening
Jim...
Jim...Jim...Jim....You do make it harder for me How about the eye? I focused dead on -- on the eye.
I notice when I crop in my 70-300 is sharper. I focused on the eye. Let me know what you think. There are 2 photos take off of each lens.
This really has me baffled
When I look at identical areas they look too close to easily tell apart. While this is actually better performance than I would have predicted for the 70-300mm lens (since it is at f5.6, not the best aperture for that lens at 200mm) the 70-200mm is still pretty good. Another thing to consider is that the 70-200mm is not sharpest at close focus. If this subject is fairly close then there are much better lenses to use.
I would still rate both lens' images as acceptable sharpness for the subject and circumstances.
I don't claim a particularly good eye... but I don't see any diff in sharpness between the elephant eyes in 2 & 3. At the end of the trunk 3 looks a bit sharper than 2 does to me. I compared 3X size.
Maybe just tape a page of a newspaper to the wall and photograph the newsprint?
When I look at identical areas they look too close to easily tell apart. While this is actually better performance than I would have predicted for the 70-300mm lens (since it is at f5.6, not the best aperture for that lens at 200mm) the 70-200mm is still pretty good. Another thing to consider is that the 70-200mm is not sharpest at close focus. If this subject is fairly close then there are much better lenses to use.
I would still rate both lens' images as acceptable sharpness for the subject and circumstances.
I set it at 5.6 because at 200mm my 70-300 can only go to 5.0 and I just wanted to make sure it was accurate at the 200mm setting. Wish there was a way the camera could tell you the mm's when you look through the eyepiece.
Really...I didn't know that the 70-200 isn't the sharpest close to a subject. Hmmmm...that is really intersting as that is something I'd like to have.
I don't claim a particularly good eye... but I don't see any diff in sharpness between the elephant eyes in 2 & 3. At the end of the trunk 3 looks a bit sharper than 2 does to me. I compared 3X size.
Maybe just tape a page of a newspaper to the wall and photograph the newsprint?
Dan
I'll do the newspaper tonight -- never thought about newspaper
Thanks for taking a look at the comparisons. I was looking at the shine of the eye.
Canon spec's the MFD as the Closest Focusing Distance. For your 70-200 it's spec'd to be 4.9ft and about the the same for the 70-300, so using Ziggy's 2*MFD you should be about 10 ft away.
Jim...Jim...Jim....You do make it harder for me How about the eye? I focused dead on -- on the eye.
Good Evening MK,
The eyes look the same, sharpness wise. The only difference I see is at the end of the trunk, where it's sharper on the 70-200, then on the 70-300. Still, not a bad lens (70-300) when you consider that lens can be bought for around $400 (used), and the 70-200 IS goes around $1350 and up.
Have a good evening
Jim...
Canon spec's the MFD as the Closest Focusing Distance. For your 70-200 it's spec'd to be 4.9ft and about the the same for the 70-300, so using Ziggy's 2*MFD you should be about 10 ft away.
10ft. away -- I'll do that. Thought that's what it ment, but since I wasn't sure -- thought I'd better ask before I took any photos.
Good Evening MK,
The eyes look the same, sharpness wise. The only difference I see is at the end of the trunk, where it's sharper on the 70-200, then on the 70-300. Still, not a bad lens (70-300) when you consider that lens can be bought for around $400 (used), and the 70-200 IS goes around $1350 and up.
Have a good evening
Jim...
Dang you see the trunk too -- so does the hubby. Could my focus be off??? I'll take a photo of the newspaper and that should tell.
Comments
- Thank you Craig
You explained this so I could really understand it
Gotta love the word "Theory" -- That's going to become my favorite word through my learning process with this lens
I've been checking sharpness too -- I heard that the 70-200 4.0 is sharper then this lens. Now why would Canon make a 2.8 lens that isn't sharp at 2.8
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Your seeing what I'm seeing
This really make me look at my lenses differently.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
…complicated discussion!
Makes me wonder what Henri Cartier-Bresson did when faced with a similar problem…
- Wil
I had to google Henri to see who he was. His photography is wonderful, but of what I read -- he'd probably think we were wasting our time
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Understanding how something works makes it so much easier to use effectively, and I admire your tenacity!
- Wil
I enjoy stuff like this, and I don't consider time enjoyed to be wasted.
I think my results just show that while the lens is marketed as 17-50, it doesn't quite get to 50. Perhaps, if it was thoroughly tested, it would be something like 17-45. But it's rounded up for marketing purposes. The only thing that really matters is, do you like the lens? Can you take good photos with it? Do you think your results will be better with a 70-200 2.8L or a consumer class 70-300 variable? There's a good reason why some lenses are (quite a bit) more expensive than others.
As for your earlier question about why would Canon make a 2.8 lens that isn't sharp at 2.8... from what I've read, almost all lenses are softest wide open, even the expensive pro ones. The 2.8 lens should be sharper at 4 than the f/4 lens.
My site 365 Project
Cartier-Bresson is one of the all-time great street photographers. I recommend you pick up a book of his work sometime. There is an inexpensive one in the Photofile series that is pretty good, though short on discussion.
Yes, I think he'd probably just think we were being silly to worry about all this technical minutiae rather than going out there and shooting!
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Many people state that the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8 version, but what that actually amounts to would be the important fact. Saying the f/2.8 is not sharp does not do the lens the justice it deserves. It is extremely sharp, even in the hands of an amateur like me. I have not used the f/4 version, but have seen many examples on the forums of both...each are great. Bottom line is they each serve a purpose.
.02
This business about the EF 70-200mm f/4 lenses being sharper than the f/2.8 models is nonsense as far as I can tell. It may be true that the f/4 lenses at f/4 are sharper than the f/2.8 lenses at f/2.8 (in other words, shot wide open), but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. What you really want to know is how the lenses compare at the same settings. The f/2.8 lenses at f/4 are just as good as the f/4 lenses at f/4; in fact, from my observations, I'd say the f/2.8 lenses at f/3.5 are as sharp as the f/4 lenses at f/4.
Here is an interesting comparison of standardized test shots:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
If you hover your mouse over the test shots, you will be looking at the f/4 IS model. If you move the mouse away, you will see the f/2.8 IS. This comparison is at 135mm f/4. To my eyes, both are great in the center, but the f/2.8 version is sharper in the mid-frame and corner, and the f/2.8 shows less vignetting (that is, the mid-frame and corner samples are the same brightness as the center sample with the f/2.8 lens, but noticeably darker with the f/4 lens).
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
If you need both 200mm and an f2.8 aperture then the Canon EF 200mm, f2.8L USM prime lens might be a good selection and I do believe it is sharper wide open than the zoom (although less versatile).
I would say that the f4L is indeed sharper at f4 than the f2.8L at f4, but the difference is small and I would not make a choice on that alone. I choose the F4L IS as a travel lens and it works really well for that purpose. If I truly need the f2.8 aperture for an indoor event or indoor sports or outdoor night sports, I wouldn't hesitate to use the f2.8 version of the 70-200mm zoom.
I also think that the f2.8 zoom is slightly faster to AF than the f4. Again, they are very close in speed so it's not a problem.
Remember too that some cameras are able to use a special AF sensor that is both more sensitive and more accurate using lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.8 or greater.
The different lenses are indeed there for very good reasons and you should choose according to your needs, not according to some reviews' claims of sharpness.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thank you Will -- I'm trying to learn all I can. It will help me use this lens...hopefully
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
I agree with you -- time enjoyed isn't time wasted. While I find this frustrating I'm learning and I love to learn.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
I'm finding in my test shooting that I can get a much better photo with this lens then any of my other lenses. Hate to say this, but it's better then my trusty 24-105. Ouch...that hurt saying that, but it's true.
I've taken photos at f/8 -- and it seems to let in more light then if I shot using any of my other lenses. This has me wondering why that is. Oh no...another thing to think about
Does this lens let in more light even at other settings? A good example is the photo I'm going to post in a second. It's the snowmobile photo. There is no way I could get that shot to come out like that with any of my lenses at the setting I used.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Canon's "L" series lenses should be very close to each other in terms of aperture ratings. An f8 on one "L" lens should be very close to an f8 on another "L" lens.
Again, you should do controlled tests. If you see a discrepancy, feel free to post examples.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ziggy you always post something that just gets my mind churnin'
Since you have both I'll tell you what I'm looking for and hopefully you can lead me in the right direction.
I need light, but I want sharp. If I can't get sharp at 2.8 then why pay for it. Then again I've taken photos at 3.5 that are sharp. So is this worth the extra money? That's not far from 4.0. Then again I took a photo at 4.0 that I think is good, but I took one that is terrible in the sharpness.
Is this a good lens for the 40d? Or is it much better on an other camera?
I've noticed the fastness of this lens. Much quicker then any lens I have. It even is faster to focus in on something set at any setting I put it on. I practiced on some snowmobilers and I had one blurry photo. Totally amazed me. Usually I'm chasing to get a moving object and this lens seems to attach to the subject so quickly. I've never photographed snowmobilers before.
One thing I've noticed is I can't crop in like I can with my other lenses unless the photo is really sharp. There seems to be more noise. Have you noticed that?
Does the 4.0 lens have the nice bokeh that the 2.8 has. I'm amazed at this on the 2.8.
Did you get the 4.0 just for the weight issue or did the sharpeness of that lens have a lot to play in your decision?
My lens will be used for landscape, photos looking inside old buildings as I don't go in them and night time photography around town. Also I'll be using it for birds. I'd like to add a teleconvertor on it someday. How do the two lenses handle those. I like to take photos of objects I see when I'm out like windows, doors, handles, etc. You know what I mean about objects so I don't need to type a list
I've attached some photos I took for sharpness. I've only lightened them, but I may of addes some saturation to one of them. No sharpness was applied and all were from the RAW file. Also I've painted a little gray circle where the focal point is. Since I don't know how to attach the EXIF file I'll type it by each photo.
After looking at these -- do you think I have a good lens? I know you can get a good one or a bad one.
1. Taken at f2.8 - 1/1000 - 400iso - 100mm - cropped to 50%
2. Taken at f2.8 - 1/500 - 400iso - 100mm - cropped at 50%
3. Taken at f2.8 - 1/320 - 400iso - 200mm - cropped 50% -- this one cropped the best in my opinion. He's sad because the Vikings lost yesterday :cry
4. Taken at f/4 - 1/1600 - 250iso - 200mm - cropped 66%. This was in the shadows of the trees on a cloudy day. There is no way I could of gotten this with any of my other lenses unless I had used a tripod. This one I rested the camera on the jeep when I took it. I've never been able to use these settings on a cloudy day in trees. That's why I ask if this lens lets in more light at all settings.
5. My first moving object. Taken at f5.6 - 1/1250 - 400iso - 100mm. It was a cloudy day and I would of had a hard time trying to set my settings for this photo. No tripod used -- may of been leaning on the hood of the jeep tho. I blew out the snow lightening it...sorry
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
That's a good idea -- I'll try this tomorrow and post some samples. Oh my...you all are going to get tired of my samples
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
No one has commented on the sharpness I'm getting with the photos I posted taken with the 70-200 -- are they that bad :cry Or is the accepted sharpness for this lens?
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Quite the contrary, at the sizes posted your 70-200mm, f2.8L looks very sharp. I am a little concerned that you say your "... 70-300 lens is sharper."
If you were to post links to full resolution images for us to see we could comment better about what you are seeing.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'll do that for you
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
You can find it here: http://www.dogdotsphotography.com/TEST/SHARPNESS/10804314_K24Uj#753293712_ZFhGC
I notice when I crop in my 70-300 is sharper. I focused on the eye. Let me know what you think. There are 2 photos take off of each lens.
This really has me baffled
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Photo's 3 and 4 (originals) are sharper along the entire trunk area, and around the mouth as well, at least on my monitor
Have a good evening
Jim...
Jim...Jim...Jim....You do make it harder for me
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
When I look at identical areas they look too close to easily tell apart. While this is actually better performance than I would have predicted for the 70-300mm lens (since it is at f5.6, not the best aperture for that lens at 200mm) the 70-200mm is still pretty good. Another thing to consider is that the 70-200mm is not sharpest at close focus. If this subject is fairly close then there are much better lenses to use.
I would still rate both lens' images as acceptable sharpness for the subject and circumstances.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Maybe just tape a page of a newspaper to the wall and photograph the newsprint?
Dan
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
I set it at 5.6 because at 200mm my 70-300 can only go to 5.0 and I just wanted to make sure it was accurate at the 200mm setting. Wish there was a way the camera could tell you the mm's when you look through the eyepiece.
Really...I didn't know that the 70-200 isn't the sharpest close to a subject. Hmmmm...that is really intersting as that is something I'd like to have.
Thanks Ziggy
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
I'll do the newspaper tonight -- never thought about newspaper
Thanks for taking a look at the comparisons. I was looking at the shine of the eye.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
The eyes look the same, sharpness wise. The only difference I see is at the end of the trunk, where it's sharper on the 70-200, then on the 70-300. Still, not a bad lens (70-300) when you consider that lens can be bought for around $400 (used), and the 70-200 IS goes around $1350 and up.
Have a good evening
Jim...
10ft. away -- I'll do that. Thought that's what it ment, but since I wasn't sure -- thought I'd better ask before I took any photos.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Dang you see the trunk too -- so does the hubby. Could my focus be off??? I'll take a photo of the newspaper and that should tell.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com