i've always wondered why people rave about this lens so much. Sure, it's cheap, but imho it's just fuzzy. Or did i get a dud?
have a look at this cockatoo i shot in aus last september.
first shot slightly cropped, 50% scaled, 93% jpeg compression. second shot 100% crop, 93% jpeg compression. 7D, iso800, 1/1000s, f8, Ljpg straight from the camera.
DOF at that distance (~20m) should be at least 1.3m, at any rate i used spot af expansion.
so do you guys reckon it's just a dud unit, or is this typical for this design?
anyway, when i bought it i justified the expense comparing it to the 70-200f4, i paid â‚¬100 less, and got the 200-300 range and IS to boot. I've since sold it to my sister, she's happy with her 18-55 on her 550d, so she should be happy with this (although, she shoots raw and i don't, go figure), and i'm buying the 70-300L in a week or two duty-free on my way to aus...