New 70-300mm IS images

keving54keving54 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
edited October 20, 2005 in Wildlife
Hello,

A few weeks ago I posted a few 'zoo' pics taken with my older 75-300mm IS lens. I was generally happy with it's performance, within its limits. Well, I've sold that and picked up this newer version, which I feel is head and shoulders above its predecessor.
These are a few I took last weekend using it. Pics not so interesting, but I found the lens sharp at 300mm at f5.6.
Comments welcome,
Kevin

40051246-L-1.jpg

40051245-L-1.jpg

40051243-L-1.jpg

40079336-L-1.jpg
My on-line Gallery:

http://www.newhopeimages.com/

Comments

  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited October 19, 2005
    Looks good! :D

    How much post processing went into these images?

    I've been contemplating this lens for awhile. headscratch.gif
  • keving54keving54 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
    edited October 19, 2005
    Ric Grupe wrote:
    Looks good! :D

    How much post processing went into these images?

    I've been contemplating this lens for awhile. headscratch.gif
    Hi Ric,

    The usual level adjustments and a bit of saturation, which I do for everything. After I re-size for the web (900 x ?), I also use a bit of USM sharpening, and fade this a bit if it looks like it's too much.
    In short, nothing I wouldn't do for any other picture. I feel the color/contrast of the lens is much better than the previous version, the IS is more effective, and it is sharp!
    Regards,
    Kevin
    My on-line Gallery:

    http://www.newhopeimages.com/
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited October 19, 2005
    keving54 wrote:
    Hi Ric,

    The usual level adjustments and a bit of saturation, which I do for everything. After I re-size for the web (900 x ?), I also use a bit of USM sharpening, and fade this a bit if it looks like it's too much.
    In short, nothing I wouldn't do for any other picture. I feel the color/contrast of the lens is much better than the previous version, the IS is more effective, and it is sharp!
    Regards,
    Kevin
    Thanks, Kevin.

    This is valuable information for me. I've always settled on something less because the L glass is grossly overpriced, IMO. I am not a pro and have no aspirations on becoming one. I used to take better images with my film camera, a Minolta AF-7000! Digital opens a whole new world, but to be an accomplished amateur is not viable with the consumer grade lens offerings, again IMO.

    Maybe Canon has finally got it right for digital...let's hope. :D
  • HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited October 19, 2005
    Those are fine shots Kevin. The lens looks like a keeper. How does it do when you shoot wide open?
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • keving54keving54 Registered Users Posts: 94 Big grins
    edited October 20, 2005
    Harryb wrote:
    Those are fine shots Kevin. The lens looks like a keeper. How does it do when you shoot wide open?
    Thanks Harry,

    It seems just as sharp at f5.6 even at 300mm. That's where I shot all of these I believe, when I was testing the lens out. I know with the older version I was pretty much limited to shooting around f8-f11. All of what I've read about the lens has been positive, so I decided to go for it!
    Regards,
    Kevin
    My on-line Gallery:

    http://www.newhopeimages.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.