October 25, 2014, 02:41:15 PM

Author Topic: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.  (Read 14901 times)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3097
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 02:47:36 PM »
ok, i was going to upload a couple of pics but various tools don't make it easy to select the middle 500x500 region of a pic.

dilbert, do you have photoshop?

yup... but I don't know how to use that to just get the centre area of a pic...reliably. I can crop with the cut tool, but that's not as precise as i'd like..

ah... change canvas size.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 02:49:14 PM by dilbert »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2011, 02:47:36 PM »

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2011, 02:51:35 PM »
what you can do is to go to:

Image > Canvas Size...

and then input "500" and "pixels" in the extry boxes and pulldown menus for width and height.

when you hit "OK" it will give you an alert that says "The new canvas size is smaller than the current cavas size; some clipping will occur."

hit "Proceed", since you want that to happen, and then just make sure you do a "Save As..." so your file doesn't get ruined permanently.

this will always generate a 500x500, 100% crop at the exact center of your image.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3097
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2011, 03:08:47 PM »
This shot was shooting out the front door of the shop. Unfortunately a car parked right outside the door between changing lenses so I couldn't get the same composition or subject matter to focus on.

Both lenses show good detail in the scratches in the car's bodywork. That's at 300/5.6.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3097
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2011, 03:19:57 PM »
This was indoors, ISO 3200 but here you can see what is the more significant difference: the chromatic aberration on the Tamron that's nowhere to be found on the Canon L. Although the composition isn't exactly the same, the point of this to show what I've mentioned above. In areas where the Tamron shows CA, the Canon doesn't.

I've not attached shots made with the Canon 70-300IS USM because they simply aren't even in the same ballpark at these two. How much of that is simply due to the IS on that lens not being as good as the two newer ones (and those shake produces less clarity) I can't say.

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2011, 03:25:58 PM »
the tamron definitely appears to perform better than its' chart data would suggest.  very interesting; it looks like a good buy.  definitely would be ideal to see low-ISO shots where they're focused on the exact same element, but it's clear the difference in IQ between the two aren't massive

Gothmoth

  • Guest
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2011, 11:38:13 AM »
get a clue what you talking about or everyone is lauging about you.

the canon 70-300mm L is optical and mechanical much better then the tamron.
if you have not enough money to buy the canon.. ok.... but don´t make such stupid claims.

the EF 70-300mm non L is a more complicated topic.
but from my own tests the tamron is better in terms of sharpness, when you get a good one.

one problem i hear again and again from my nikon customers is that the tamron is underexposing.
my nikon customers complain about having to overexpose by 2/3 to 1 stop to get the same results as with other lenses.

 
Quote
The 30-second review on the back of the camera showed little that I could discern between the two

that one sentence says it all......

the images you posted for comparisation are completely worthless.
learn to make reproducibility test images or forget it.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 12:11:07 PM by Gothmoth »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3097
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2011, 03:18:49 PM »
get a clue what you talking about or everyone is lauging about you.

the canon 70-300mm L is optical and mechanical much better then the tamron.
if you have not enough money to buy the canon.. ok.... but don´t make such stupid claims.

the EF 70-300mm non L is a more complicated topic.
but from my own tests the tamron is better in terms of sharpness, when you get a good one.

one problem i hear again and again from my nikon customers is that the tamron is underexposing.
my nikon customers complain about having to overexpose by 2/3 to 1 stop to get the same results as with other lenses.

Err, I think you're misreading the problem. It's being discussed on photozone and the issue appears to be that it meters for the Tamron wrong:
http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/355-tamron-70-300-vc-exposure-issues/
... but there appears to be no consensus on why and what the exposure issues are.

Quote
Quote
The 30-second review on the back of the camera showed little that I could discern between the two

that one sentence says it all......

the images you posted for comparisation are completely worthless.
learn to make reproducibility test images or forget it.

Well, since you're so knowledgeable and seemingly have access to said lenses, why don't you post some examples?

FWIW, it's not a matter (for me) about whether I can afford the lens or not but rather what do I get for my money?

And that's the question that everyone should ask. In the face of the Tamron lens, is the Canon worth the $1100 premium? Without question if you use the lens to make money, yes (it's a capital equipment cost), but for non-professionals, what is the small incremental gain worth? And it is seemingly a small incremental gain..

FWIW, I've got two 70-300IS USMs but both are a source of great frustration. For landscape, when I can zoom, tripod mount and use live-view to focus, they work but in almost any other scenario, they fail.

But since you haven't pony'd up with any actual photos to argue your point and just intended to criticize, I'll reward your laziness with this URL:
http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/641-tamron-af-sp-70-300mm-f40-56-di-vc-usd-for-canon-5d/

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2011, 03:18:49 PM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2189
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2011, 04:09:46 PM »
Okay, I actually own the new Tamron 70-300 IS.

I've only had it for about a week, so can't give a real thorough evaluation, but so far I am pleased. I was not expecting it to be of the same quality as the new Canon "L" 70-300 but I did want a sharp lens with a bit more reach than the 55-250 mm EF-S.

Anyone familiar with the 55-250 mm knows that it is an extremely sharp lens and with IS it remains one of the best values available. The biggest problem with the 55-250mm is the build quality (or at least the perceived build quality). It's light and feels plastic-y, although I have to say I've been carrying one around for the past 2 1/2 years and never had a problem with it.

When considering the Tamron, my questions were:
  • Would it be as sharp or sharper than the Canon?
  • Would the IS be as good or better than the Canon?
  • Would the build quality be better than the EF-S lens?
  • Would the extra 50mm reach be significant?

So far, all the answers have been "yes."

  • It is at least as sharp throughout its range as the 55-250 is throughout its range (which is very sharp);
  • It's a little premature to tell, but so far the IS seems to turn in results that are at least as good as the Canon and maybe better;
  • The build quality "feels" better. But, again, only time will tell. It is a much heavier lens overall and feels solid. (In fact, because it is so much more robust than the 55-250mm I'm actually thinking about keeping the Canon for times when I want a lighter lens);
  • The extra 50mm reach really is significant. Of course, on a 7D it's the equivalent of about 75mm.

If I had unlimited resources, would I have gone with the "L" lens? Maybe, but that's academic. For my purposes, I decided this lens was worth trying. I did not want to invest $1,500 in a lens when the truth is, the telephoto zoom I really want needs to be at least 400mm. I can use this lens most of the time, rent a longer lens for travel or special occasions and either wait until Canon or Tokina finally comes out with their long-promised 400mm zooms or Sigma improves on their 500mm zoom.

Some people need or want the "L" version. It's a personal decision. Everyone needs to decide for themselves. Dilbert seems to have decided the incremental value isn't worth the added cost. Neuro decided it was. Neither one is right or wrong, just different viewpoints.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3097
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2011, 06:10:33 AM »
First serious review of the Tamron:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=284
... echoes my concern about chromatic aberration.

FWIW, resolution graphs for lenses:

http://www.lenstip.com/284.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_Di_VC_USD_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/8.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

And the holy grail...
http://www.lenstip.com/270.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-200_mm_f_2.8L_IS_II_USM_Image_resolution.html ... but note where it scores with the TC1.4vII - not much different to the above two lenses.

... unfortunately that website has not yet reviewed the 70-300L.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 06:12:10 AM by dilbert »

FatDaddyJones

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
  • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2011, 10:03:25 AM »
Certainly new technology will always be pushing the envelope on quality, but just because the new L class is out (or the Tamron for that matter) the Canon 70-300mm non-L is still a great lens and is by no means irrelevant or "pointless." For new purchases, sure, you might want to look at cost factors, but the non-L class Canon is not out of the running, and Canon knows it. They are still marketing it in their current lineup, and I sure are still selling lots of them.

The Canon Canon 70-300mm non-L is truly is a great lens and worthy of the reviews that call it a "hidden L" lens. It continues to be one of my favorite lenses, and I've taken some of my favorite pictures with it. I've considered upgrading to the L class version, but you're right about the price difference. I love the quality of the pictures I get with the non-L. Is a slight upgrade in IQ worth that much money?  The Tamron might be a great lens, but already owning the Canon 70-300mm, buying that lens is pointless, not to mention I'm one of those guys who just can't buy anything but Canon glass. (Call me crazy. Call me a Canonite. There are a lot of photographers out there like me, and that's why Canon's non-L 70-300mm is not pointless.)

5D Mark III, 7D, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 70-300mm IS USM, EF-S 17-55mm IS USM, Redrock shoulder rig, matte box & follow focus, Rode Videomic, Zoom R16, Sure PG42, DSTE Pro BG-E11, Excella Neo D400 Studio Strobes, Excella Stardust 50, 580 EX II, lots of other fun stu

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3097
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 10:30:58 PM by dilbert »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2011, 10:27:54 PM »