Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

[RS2021]

...but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low.

*yawn*

Overall IQ, excellent IS, good focal range, weather sealing, portability.... it is an excellent zoom.

[Sporgon]

All of those pictures looks nice, but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low. No concerns from 70 to 200mm.
I have the 70-200L II, but sometimes I use the 70-300 when I do not want to carry a heavy equipment with me or when I am traveling to an insecure country.

Hardly true I suppose but the way you say it makes it sound quite bad. This lens is actually just as good as the EF 300mm f4 IS at f5.6. To go better than this you need an EF 300mm f2.8 ( and about £5,200    )

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

...but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low.

*yawn*

Overall IQ, excellent IS, good focal range, weather sealing, portability.... it is an excellent zoom.

Not very sharp, low contrast?  Where does that come from?  The advantage of this lens according to all reviews is that it does the exact opposite of what you say.  Here's one of my own 300mm pictures - looks pretty sharp to me!

[ahab1372]

All of those pictures looks nice, but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low. No concerns from 70 to 200mm.
I have the 70-200L II, but sometimes I use the 70-300 when I do not want to carry a heavy equipment with me or when I am traveling to an insecure country.

Are you talking about the non-L version maybe? That I could agree with

[RS2021]

Very sharp...and very plesant shallow DOF in spite of the aperture starting at f/4. The focus in this picture was on the hairs above her eye as I wanted her over-obvious whiskers out of focus...I have no complaints...great zoom.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another from the series:


Winter's Splendor #3 - Pastels by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

[Sporgon]

Here's another from the series:


Winter's Splendor #3 - Pastels by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Lovely subtle image, reminds me of the fantasy "Narnia"

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Had an interesting experience out in the woods with the 70-300L today and a large grey owl.  Here's a link to an article with photos if you're interested.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/02/my-grey-owl-experience/

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another from the series:


Winter's Splendor #3 - Pastels by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Thank you, and a good call.  That morning was very much like the fantasy version of winter.

Lovely subtle image, reminds me of the fantasy "Narnia"

[SpecialGregg]

All of those pictures looks nice, but this lens (from 200mm till 300) produces not very sharp images and the contrast is very low. No concerns from 70 to 200mm.
I have the 70-200L II, but sometimes I use the 70-300 when I do not want to carry a heavy equipment with me or when I am traveling to an insecure country.

Are you talking about the non-L version maybe? That I could agree with

That's what I was thinking. He must have them mixed up. The non-L is very soft from 200-300mm.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Here's another from the series:


Winter's Splendor #3 - Pastels by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

verynice

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks to everyone on the nice comments of the image above.  Here's another that I took with the 70-300L this week.  I hadn't yet done the AFMA on the lens, which I did the latter part of this week.  I've had a bit of an issue dialing in the long end - it is great at/up to AFMA distance (roughly 25 feet), but out closer to infinity (75 feet +) I find it is a little out as compared to the Live View focus.  I tried AFMA from a little further away, but it does get a little harder to be precise (longer distance + f/5.6 is not a great combination).  I ended up with only one point further (-3), so I'll have to see how it goes.


The Grey Owl by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another horse shot.  I am really pleasantly surprised at how good the bokeh (very smooth) is on this lens for a variable aperture telephoto zoom.


Delicate by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

[killswitch]

Here's another horse shot.  I am really pleasantly surprised at how good the bokeh (very smooth) is on this lens for a variable aperture telephoto zoom.

Dustin, have to ask you...how do you get such nice/soft tones? Love how you process your images!

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another horse shot.  I am really pleasantly surprised at how good the bokeh (very smooth) is on this lens for a variable aperture telephoto zoom.

Dustin, have to ask you...how do you get such nice/soft tones? Love how you process your images!

That whole workflow was all within Lightroom (4), so no Photoshop there.  I have invested in some presets for LR that I further customize.  The basic look is from a preset collection (http://www.adobelightroompresets.net/lightroom-presets/ultrafaded-presets/) Preset 9.  By the way, these preset collections often go on sale for 50% off.  I then further tweaked the tone curve to bring a little of the low end back, used a preset brush to paint in a little sharpness and contrast to the forelock.  I probably tweaked the sliders a hair, but I doubt that I have any more than about 4 minutes in processing this particular image.  Another collection I use a lot in my workflow is the "Instagram style" presets.  I usually customize the sliders somewhat after processing, as I am pretty familiar with the way that LR works at this point.  I typically spend as much or more time in adding metadata, descriptions, and keywords as I do processing.  I am careful about all of those things because a fair bit of my work moves commercially in one way or another.