Better shots from a 70- 300?

Hi,

 

I currently have a Rebel XT, (before that, I had a 300D). I also have the Canon

50mm f1.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and Tamron 75-300 f4-5.6. I am thinking about

upgrading my 75-300. Though, honestly, I'm not sure if the results I'm getting

could be improved on. (for the price range)

 

I took photos at an outdoor concert/speech. I was sitting pretty far back, and I

used the Tamron at 300mm (equiv. to 480mm), to get some shots. It was about

6:30-7p, so lighting was so-so.

 

Here is one picture at 300mm (480mm), Aperture= 7.1, 1/500th, @ ISO 800. Shot

as JPG, No processing (No sharpening, No curves/levels etc.) . (I know, I

should have shot in RAW)

 

Are there other lenses, in the 70/75-300mm that will get better results? I was

looking at the newer Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. But at, $555, it is

bordering on too expensive (for a hobbyist). Also looked at the Canon 70-200 f4

L USM, which runs in the same price range, but I wanted something in the 300mm

range.

 

So, the other alternative is, maybe, a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro,

which runs about $200.

 

But if, the Sigma quality is as bad as the Tamron, then I should probably just

keep the Tamron. Or should I just save up for the Canon 70-300 IS USM? (Which

may mean waiting a year or more.) I'm assuming the Canon 70-300, IS feature

will help also. But it seems, from looking at reviews/forum-posts, that

typically a 70-300 lenses weak point, is in the 200-300mm range.

 

(I read Bob's review, he has some good info:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html)

 

 

 

Any other suggestions,

 

Thanks,

Amol<div></div>

Here is one at 17mm, with the Tamron 17-50. Just to give you perspective.<div></div>

The Sigma APO will give results that are a little better. You can see the difference. It seems it's price has come down about $50 from what it was a year or two ago, and is well worth the $50-70 upgrade if you were buying one to start with. I'm not so sure it's worth selling what you have and buying new though. That's going to run you over $100 I suspect, and the gains are not all that significant.

 

Oddly, I think the Canon 70-300 USM IS is worth the money. That's odd because I'm normally such a cheapskate. But it is significantly sharper at 300mm than the others, and the IS on a tele lens is very useful and worth the cost. It frequently makes the difference between a usable photo and a non-usable photo.

I have used some sigma lenses, and I think that if there is a difference, you would find it small. Did you use a tripod? I have found that over 200mm, there is alot more softening due to vibration than most people realize. With some lenses 1/mm isn't enough.

 

In any event, I would recommend that if you are going to try these 3rd party lenses, buy them used. You can often get them for a small fraction of their retail, and often they have hardly been used when they're not pro lenses.

 

In fact, I would recommend that you buy a nice Canon lens with IS. Buy it used, too. If you decide you like it and really want a new one, you can likely get most of your money back later if you treat it well. Then go get yourself a new one when you have the money saved up.

 

Also start looking for a local shop that does rentals. That way you can find out which lens is going to get you the best results for the price you can afford. You can also rent a "real" lens when you have a special occasion you don't want to compromise on.

Don't buy the older Canon 75-300 USM IS. It will be no better than what you have optically. The IS will help, but it is the first version of Canon's IS and is not as good as the newer ones. Also, the newer 70-300 USM IS is much sharper, and this is very obvious. It's worth the difference in cost.

Some interesting shots comparing the long ends of (a) 70-300 IS, (b) 70-200/4 + 1.4 TC, and © 70-200/2.8 IS + 1.4 TC, can be found here: http://www.pbase.com/nitor/technical

Interesting, but not necessarily accurate...

Thanks for the responses. Just wondering, are there any Canon 70(75)-300mm lenses, that are priced cheaper, without IS, BUT the same image quality, as the 70-300 IS USM. They all seem to get mixed reviews (as Jim pointed out, even the older "IS" version seems to get mixed reviews).

 

Also, is it true that, even though the 70-300, has a USM motor, it does not offer FTM? I thought, all USM lenses had FTM? (or is it one of those "mirco-USM" lens)

 

 

The 1.4 TC looks interesting. But a review from Digital-Picture suggests a 300mm lens is going to give a nicer quality image. Not to mention it costs $280, paired with a 70-200 f4 L, that comes to almost $800. (and turns the f4 into a f5.6) Of course, I can't afford that, I was looking for $500, or less. I suppose, preferably $300 range.

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-II-Tele-Converter-Review.aspx

 

Considering the Tamron was $115 (New), I'm thinking "upgrading" to a $300 lens will show some improvement in quality? Perhaps, an incorrect assumption?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Amol

Amol,

 

1. There is no non-IS equivalent of the 70-300IS

 

2. Whether the 70-300IS and the 75-300IS/non IS (and presumably the 100-300) differ in image quality seems very much subject to conjecture (as you yourself point out!) As I understand it, the optical construction of the 70-300IS is different, and that of the others is the same, FWIW.

 

3. You are right about the AF motor. It is a microUSM which does NOT offer FTM. It also seems to hunt a little more in low light than my older 100-300 (ring USM).

 

4. It seems to be uncertain which of the many 300mm options will give the best results (apart from a 300mm prime, of course!) There can be no uncertainty about the relative costs, however!

I did similar shots a while back using a 100 300 canon on a monopod which were ok, but I try not to go past 280 as it gets soft, The only lower priced lens I`ve seen is the Sigma 100 300f4 EX, which is in a class of its own, Any significant improvement may warrent bigger bucks, either a 300 prime or 100 400 L.

This shot was taken bout 100yrd away on a hill/ 1/500th,f7.1,400ISO,late avo hard sun, EOS D30 canon 100 300 @ 300mm Aug03. I used a monopod to steady, just to give idea of focus.

here is 100% crop from centre, its had usm as it was a D30 bout 80/1/0. It was shot Jpeg.<div></div>