September 22, 2014, 08:50:53 PM

Author Topic: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review  (Read 13359 times)

x-vision

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2010, 10:04:07 PM »
Thanks for the good write up, CR.

Excellent captures!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2010, 10:04:07 PM »

canonmonster

  • Guest
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2010, 03:19:50 AM »
very nice review and pictures.
i also like this lens very much so i sold my 70-200mm IS LII cause of it.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/canonmonster/sets/72157625539625212/

UngerPhotography

  • Guest
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2010, 08:37:43 AM »
Really enjoyed the review. Looks like you really did beat up the lens. I was interested to know what aperture and shutter speed you were using for some of the shots. Also were you mostly hand holding, or were you using a monopod or tripod at times?

EDIT: Never mind. Downloaded a few images and looked at the EXIF.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 09:16:27 AM by UngerPhotography »

mrprotocol

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2010, 01:10:35 PM »
For what it's worth, the Tamron 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters would fit, because they have no projecting bits.  How good the images would be, I have no idea, but they work well enough when I use them.  They're not Canons, but they fit lenses the Canons won't.  Atmospheric haze is the big enemy, though it's hard to tell that from spherical aberration.

Edwin Herdman

  • Guest
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2010, 07:44:05 PM »
One of Photozone's highest-rated zoom lenses is the Sigma 100-300 f/4.  It has no IS, so that's certainly a tradeoff, but with the added light-gathering I'd just as soon shoot multiple exposures (as I do normally anyway) and pick the best one.  It's not really expensive either, coming in at around $1050.  Internal focusing too!

Sharky

  • Guest
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2010, 01:40:05 AM »
Enjoyed the review as this lens is definately on my mind for a future purchase.  One (well two) questions i do have to are regarding the photos posted with the review. In todays modern post processing era,  how much post processing has been done to the photos to juice them up ? and are the originals available if there has been post processing ?
Thanks, keep up the great work.

CR Backup Admin

  • Administrator
  • 1D Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
    • View Profile
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #21 on: December 31, 2010, 11:49:17 AM »
Enjoyed the review as this lens is definately on my mind for a future purchase.  One (well two) questions i do have to are regarding the photos posted with the review. In todays modern post processing era,  how much post processing has been done to the photos to juice them up ? and are the originals available if there has been post processing ?
Thanks, keep up the great work.

Digital is different from film. 

Processing of the image pulled from the sensor is always required.  When using jpeg, the processing to add noise reduction, sharpness, contrast, color balance, etc are done in camera according to the settings.

Same thing happens with raw, only its done by your computer according to your software settings.  You have more control over it that way, but its still the same thing going on as in the camera processing.

Processing tricks like HDR, splicing,  removal of unwanted items in the image, might be a example of extra post processing, but not noise reduction, sharpness, etc, but they are often done in camera by some manufacturers as well.

What does post processing mean to you??

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #21 on: December 31, 2010, 11:49:17 AM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2109
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2010, 12:44:46 PM »
CR Guy,

I hope you'll give us more details on the safari itself. I'm really amazed at the shots you got using just a maximum focal length of 300mm. I've read reviews that recommend a minimum length of 400mm for any trip to Africa, so I was amazed at what you got with the focal lengths you took along.

I tried to shoot some bald eagles this week with a Canon 400mm on my 7D and they fill less than 5% of the frame at their closest. I can't imagine how close you had to be to get these shots with the 300mm.

Please, more details on the trip itself.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

Sharky

  • Guest
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2010, 03:38:16 PM »
Enjoyed the review as this lens is definately on my mind for a future purchase.  One (well two) questions i do have to are regarding the photos posted with the review. In todays modern post processing era,  how much post processing has been done to the photos to juice them up ? and are the originals available if there has been post processing ?
Thanks, keep up the great work.

Digital is different from film. 

Processing of the image pulled from the sensor is always required.  When using jpeg, the processing to add noise reduction, sharpness, contrast, color balance, etc are done in camera according to the settings.

Same thing happens with raw, only its done by your computer according to your software settings.  You have more control over it that way, but its still the same thing going on as in the camera processing.

Processing tricks like HDR, splicing,  removal of unwanted items in the image, might be a example of extra post processing, but not noise reduction, sharpness, etc, but they are often done in camera by some manufacturers as well.

What does post processing mean to you??

well, typically what i have seen (in magazines that show before and after) is that photos straight out of the camera are usually dull and plain unless considerable time and effort has been taken to set the photo up in the first place.(lighting, color filters, etc) In the post processing therefore you can do the cropping, masking, change the color hue, saturation, add or remove sharpness and noise, even add lighting effects, pretty well anything you desire can be done during post... so you end up with the "perfect" image when the original was only "hohum"  at the camera default settings. like any magazine, the printed images are perfect but not necessarily what the eye saw in the first place.

CR Backup Admin

  • Administrator
  • 1D Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
    • View Profile
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2010, 05:47:47 PM »
You do not get default out of camera settings with RAW, only the raw data. 

With jpeg, Canon cameras have different picture styles which give different looks, or you can setup your own.  All of them have settings for Noise, contrast, sharpness, etc.  If you use a picture style like Neutral, then it has minimal processing and that setting is considered to be for those who like to adjust the image later in the computer. It will look pretty flat, but then, it is probably not intended to be a finished image.

My definition of post processing is processing that modifies the picture to remove facial features or blur them, or to make other modifications that enhance the image, but also modify the content or look to be something different than what you actually saw.  Just adjusting color, sharpness, brightness, etc so it is a true representation of what you saw is just a basic part of developing a raw image.

Everyone is free to define their own meaning, but be careful with statements like out of camera with default settings, particularly as it applies to RAW, because different RAW processors produce different results at their default factory setting. 

Eirik

  • Guest
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2011, 06:21:00 AM »
I'm going on a safari to Kenya this summer, and is therefore planning to purchase a telephoto lens. My camera is a Canon EOS 7D. I've read several  places, that the minimum recommended focal length is 400mm. A 300mm on a cropbody would equal 480mm, which should be enough. I am therefore having a hard time choosing between   Canon EF 300mm F/4 L IS USM(and maybe a teleconverter), Canon EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 L IS USM or Canon 70-200mm F/4 L IS USM with a teleconverter.

All this leneses are good performers. The 300mm F/4 would give me very sharp results and is relatively fast, and would perform good event with a teleconverter. The 100-400mm is a very versatile lens, with a long range. The 70-300mm is versatile, but i'm not sure if it would give me a long enough focal length for a safari. The 70-200mm with a converter would also be very versatile, as could use it as a very good 70-200mm when the 280mm wasn't needed.

So, which focal lengths would you recommend for safari on the Masai Mara? I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm, so which would you choose. 

CR Backup Admin

  • Administrator
  • 1D Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
    • View Profile
Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2011, 09:31:48 PM »
I love the 100-400mm L on my 5D MK II and 1D MK III, but with a crop camera, I might go for the 70-300mm L.  There are more things to consider than focal length, and with a lighter camera, the 70-300 would balance well.

I don't think you could go wrong with either, I've used my 100-400mm on my 1D MK III at 1/25 sec handheld in a pinch, and the results came out much better than I hoped for.  Not totally sharp, but plenty good for normal sized prints.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS Review
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2011, 09:31:48 PM »