Options

Canon 75-300 vs 70-200

ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
edited February 20, 2011 in Cameras
Two very similar lenses, huh? :rofl
Tripod, 2sec timer, ISO 100. 200mm.

75-300 4-5.6 III, 1/100th, f/5.6
1190548747_kyoWx-XL.jpg

70-200 (f4 non-IS version), 1/100th, f/5.6
1190549003_Ws2eW-XL.jpg

75-300, 1/100th, f/8
1190549311_dDVSv-XL.jpg

70-200, 1/60th, f/8
1190549681_n5B4F-XL.jpg

This really surprises me. The 75-300 seems to be almost as sharp as the 70-200. Especially at f/8, not as much at 5.6.

Comments

  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,848 moderator
    edited February 17, 2011
    The 70-200mm, f4L handily beats the 75-300mm, f4-f5.6 when the first is at f4 and the latter is at f5.6. As you say, the latter improves as you stop it down a bit, but look how much light gathering you lose. 2 stops is an efficiency factor of 4. Plus you lose some DOF control if you have to constantly stop down just to achieve "acceptable" sharpness.

    That's the true value of the very expensive lenses like the Canon "L" lineup.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Options
    ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2011
    Exactly. But if you're always at f8 (although I have no idea who would be doing that in this range) then you might want to consider the cheaper option...
  • Options
    chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 771 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Exactly. But if you're always at f8 (although I have no idea who would be doing that in this range) then you might want to consider the cheaper option...

    Interesting. I remember when I bought my 70-300 that the 75-300 was being bad-mouthed all over the place.

    Looks like the 70-200 does a much better job with the colors.
  • Options
    Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    This really surprises me. The 75-300 seems to be almost as sharp as the 70-200. Especially at f/8, not as much at 5.6.

    Ummm .... not so much. Take a closer look at your corners and the bottom of the trunk. Even at f/8 and at this size image, there's a world of difference to be seen there.
    Scott
    My Photos
    Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
    Equipment List - Check my profile
  • Options
    tsk1979tsk1979 Registered Users Posts: 937 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    This is weird. I had the 75-300 III from canon(non IS) and it was a truly horrid lens.
    Maybe you got a rare good copy. I had to stop down to F9 to get decent stuff. even at F8 it was not sharp enough.
    Smugmug: http://tanveer.smugmug.com
    FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    Site :http://www.tanveer.in
    Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
  • Options
    cmasoncmason Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Scott_Quier wrote: »
    Ummm .... not so much. Take a closer look at your corners and the bottom of the trunk. Even at f/8 and at this size image, there's a world of difference to be seen there.

    Agree. the detail from the L lens is really quite obvious, especially in the bark of the tree. And I am not saying that because I own the L lens.

    Frankly, the reason the L is so much better is consistency: even after all these years, I am often surprised at how sharp and detailed shots are with it. It is the best price/performance lens in the Canon line-up.
    Photos
  • Options
    mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Exactly. But if you're always at f8 (although I have no idea who would be doing that in this range) then you might want to consider the cheaper option...

    First, to my eye, your shots show the 70-200 to be noticeably sharper and better in all respects. They are not close. Take a better, more critical look at them. Two, even if you shoot at f/8 there are good reasons to have faster glass. Your camera always meters and focuses wide-open, only stepping down the aperture when you press the shutter button. So faster glass lets in more light during the crucial steps of metering exposure and setting auto-focus. More light equals more data equals more accurate focusing and metering of your scene. It also helps immensely in low-light shooting (even if shooting at f/8).
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • Options
    ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Good points, I now notice how different the corners look. I wasn't saying that I'd rather have the 75-300 for the value (I love my 70-200) but just that it's closer than I expected.
  • Options
    Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited February 20, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Good points, I now notice how different the corners look. I wasn't saying that I'd rather have the 75-300 for the value (I love my 70-200) but just that it's closer than I expected.

    the difference is even greater on a XXXD or XXD body, especially at the longer focal lengths
Sign In or Register to comment.