ulrich_brandl Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Who has experience and can compare the image quality of the 28-135mm IS and the 75-300mm IS lenses in the overlapping range ? This question might look quite silly at a first glance. But let me explain: I am travelling a lot, therefore weight and size of equipment is an issue. When I look which photograhps I've shot in the last 20 years I rarely used focal length above 150mm (in 35mm film). So I bought a 28-135mm IS when I went digital to cover the telephoto range. But I was wrong when I thought that I never would need a longer lens than 200mm equivalent. As I own very good shorter lenses (17-40, 50mm) the wide end of the 28-135 is not really needed. And as I don't want to carry too much equipment I consider the 75-300mm IS instead (I have found IS to be very useful for me). Its a cheap construction and I heard from weaknesses at its very long end. But how good is it from its short end to its middle length (where I will still mostly use it) compared to the 28-135 ? Where do the weaknesses start, what about 200mm ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maureen_m Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Not really a direct response to your questions, but <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=352882">Barry Walthall's</a> folder is worth looking at just to see that the 75-300 can be a great lens in the right hands. "IS" can only make it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 <p>Not having used the 75-300 IS (except having briefly played with one at a photo show), I can't offer you a comparison of the optics of the two. I can tell you that common wisdom is that it's good out to 200mm or thereabouts and soft beyond, which I think you already know.</p> <p>Is AF speed a consideration for you? If so, you will want to be aware that the 75-300s are not quick in this regard. I have the 28-135 and 17-40, both of which have dramatically faster AF than the 75-300. You don't say which 50 you have; I have the 50/1.4, which also easily beats the 75-300's AF speed. And the 75-300 lacks full-time manual focusing, so it's not even practical to prefocus manually at approximately the right distance (because doing this would require you to flip the switch to MF, prefocus, then flip the switch back to AF, which is a cumbersome procedure).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 I can tell you that at 100mm the 75-300 IS is better than the 28-105. You can see some sample images at <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_300_review_2.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_300_review_2.html</a>. <p> Past experience tells me that the 28-135 and 28-105 are pretty similar, so I'd guess the 75-300 IS would be better than the 28-135 IS around 100mm. It's also faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapani Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 I've been in the same boat, and I know the perfect lens for you: EF 70-200/4L IS. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist. :-( <p> But I've tried all consumer IS zooms, so: the 75-300 is optically about as good as the 28-135 on the range where they overlap, and up to a full stop faster, too (the 28-135 drops to f/5.6 at around 80mm, where the 75-300 is still f/4). Mechanically the 75-300 is clearly worse, though, it has no FTM and much slower AF. <p> If you don't need the 200-300mm range much and find the 28-135 good enough, the 75-300 might be OK for you. <p> If money is no concern, the 70-300DO is a better choice, it is acceptably sharp even in the long end (not L class though), and very good mechanically, slightly smaller even, and it focuses much faster, although it is 1/3 stop slower at the short end. <p> Otherwise, you'll either have to give up IS and get the 700/4L anyway, or relax on the weight department - the 70-200/2.8L IS has no drawbacks but size and price... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc, portsmouth, uk Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Hello Ulrich I have BOTH lenses sitting next to me in a bag as I'm writing this. I too value the IS very highly. The opinions of those that DO have the lenses sound about right IMHO. The 28-135mm IS is good to about 90 to 100mm then starts to soften (and as you have intimated, isn't so hot at the wide end either), and the 75-300mm IS is good from around 90 through to 200mm IMHO, so in other words, there is no overlap for me... 28-135 to 100 ish or less, and the 75-300 from 100 onwards, bearing in mind its past it's best when racked out much beyond the 200mm mark... But the IS makes up these shortcomings in my opinion... HTH and happy shooting Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 As have many here, I went sort of freaky with stereo gear. Not overboard mind you but definitely freaky. The term, "Stereo Nervosa." An apt term for a questionable malady. Was there a difference in sound quality for the effort, sure, you could pick up a difference.... but, only to a point and then you had to be in critical listening mode to pick up the nuaunces. So with that thought in mind I was cured, never to go there again. Why? How do most really listen to their system? With a critical ear, always turned to the speaker or while sitting on the floor, sucking on a halfway decent glass of wine playing "Yatzee" with family and friends? Well, if you're like me, the wine and evenings entertainment wins out as to which I really want to spend time enjoying. Music in the background; family, friends and evening's entertainment to the forefront. Now how does the above apply to photography and a person's choice of lenses? If you're only wanting the lense to get some pics so you can roll around on the floor drinking a glass of wine, sharing an evening with family and friends in the process, the 75-300mm IS is a darn fine lense to get the grabs with. If you're just wanting a few captures to send over the web, the 75-300 IS will do you fine. So unless you're gonna be doing critical viewing in the case of all the images, including A3 or larger enlargements, I wouldn't worry too much about soft or sharp in the case of either the 28-135mm IS or the 75-300mm IS. Now if you're gonna take the time to enlarge the image captures to 11"X17" or larger, then yes, the lense quality "might" become a consideration. Wishing you the best with your dillema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 There is a thread, now archived under "lenses" called "70-200 Shootout", and others that test this lens at the 100-200 range on this and other sites, and they just about all go "well, surprise, surprise, I must have gotten the good one", as this much maligned "consumer" lens comes off pretty well against much more expensive lenses, especially that DO model, which looks to me disapointing as hell for the price Also, when I enlarge a shot to, e.g., 12x18 or the like, I don't stick my nose up to it: I view it from a reasonable distance I've started looking for a used 75-300 IS, and just may get one new if I can't find one before my next road trip in May Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 "...I don't stick my nose up to it: I view it from a reasonable distance:..." What's wrong with you man! Don't ya know that not only are you suppose to stick your nose up to it but you're suppose to have a 10x loupe glue to one eye:) It's da law! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Thomas G. You'd better explain that little :) to some of the denizens of this .net: they think it IS a law that you can't just look at a pic As an attorney (no, really) I advise myself to step back a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrich_brandl Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Folks, many thanks for your answers and your advice. I agree, that a 1:4 70-200mm L IS would be the perfect lens for me (and many others) maybe Canon will make one in the next few years. Your anwers encourage me to try the 75-300 IS and look how I can handle the shortcomings of slower AF and no FTM. I definitely did not ask for optical perfection, I want to use it mainly for HANDHELD photos, where the lens quality is always second to the stability of holding the camera (and IS). But is was essential to hear that its image quality would not be worse than that of the 28-135 as the 75-300. The latter is dissed on some web pages as a very bad 'cheapo'. Thanks and happy shooting Ulrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 >> I definitely did not ask for optical perfection, I want to use it mainly for HANDHELD photos, where the lens quality is always second to the stability of holding the camera (and IS). Don't want to sound rude or disrespecting but I think your preferences need re-evaluating. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc, portsmouth, uk Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Hi Yakim ! Chill I think is the word. There is a big difference in disregarding a lens' performance and NOT seeking 'optical perfection.' I agree, buy the best glass possible, I appreciate you tend to advocate the use of prime lenses - I can't argue with the quality there... ...but photography is all about compromises, not everyone can haul around a rucksack/bag with primes from 20mm upwards ! Sometimes it's just too heavy - or more likely expensive! I don't think Ulrich was dismissing optical quality just for the sake of IS. I can read his post (and between the lines) and see that he was just asking for reassurance that the 75-300 USM IS isn't going to turn in a load of dross, as it's toward the cheaper end of the market, and he's already stressed how important IS is to him - presumably low light or wanting to use slower ISO equiv on his digital camera..? Anyway to quote "But let me explain: I am travelling a lot, therefore weight and size of equipment is an issue" - that says it all to me. What would YOU do if restricted to two lenses and one body due to weight or other reasons.... you'd spend a fair bit of time sorting through those lovely primes - whereas unless HUGE enlargements are the order of the day, a pair of half-decent IS zooms should do the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 "Don't want to sound rude or disrespecting but I think your preferences need re-evaluating." Why's that? Based upon Ulrich's list, he already has a 17-40mm f/4.0L, so for a traveling person, who just wants some snaps, what really is wrong with a 75-300mm IS where "IS" is a helpful necessity? The <a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7342">MTF charts</a> of the 75-300mm IS, when attached to a 1.6X crop sensor are just fine, in fact they'd qualify as excellent. Thas a pretty good chart when compared to some other charts. Level all the way across and pretty good numbers I might add. Is it a 70-200mm f/4.0L or better, no but still a respectable lense for the price. So what needs to be reevaluated on the part of Ulrich's choice of lenses when there's such a huge disparity in price and convenience between the equivalents; a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 300mm f/4.0L IS as those are the equivalents Canon has for the 75-300mm IS. What I'd like to know is why Canon isn't making a 75-300mm f/4.0L IS? That's the real question consumers need to be asking and discussing:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Me bad. Not paying attention to my HTML efforts. D'oh!<p> <a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7342">MTF charts</a><p> I thought I had imbedded a link in there somewhere:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapani Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 "...why Canon isn't making a 75-300mm f/4.0L IS?" <p> That would indeed be an interesting lens. I'm afraid it would, however, be at least as big as the 100-400L (even the 300/4L IS is almost as big) and thus less useful as a travel lens. Unless of course they can improve DO technique or come up with some other way to make it smaller - but then they might use the same trick to make a lightweight 70-200/2.8... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 "I'm afraid it would, however, be at least as big as the 100-400L (even the 300/4L IS is almost as big) and thus less useful as a travel lens." And it's gotta be a twist motion zoom as opposed to a trombone style push-pull. I want it under $1,500.00 (US) and I want it now:) The 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS isn't big; which I have. I also have a Sigma 100-300 f/4.0 non-IS and it's not "that" big but a monopod/ballhead under it doesn't hurt. And the 70-200mm f/4.0L is small and light by comparative standards; it's handholdable. I didn't think asking for a 75-300mm f/4.0L IS would be that far out as to weight/size considerations. Am I that far off in my thinking to think that a 75-300 f/4.0L IS, based upon these experiences, is easily do able, both in price and weight/size consideration? Maybe all the internal glass necessary for a constant f/4.0L configuration would add a lot of weight to the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I too really want a 100-300/4L-IS or something like it. Basically, I want a non-push-pull version of the 100-400/5.6L-IS. Unfortunately, based on recent Canon pricing history, such a lens would be over $2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Okay. We'll meet you half-way. Canon does a 100-400mm f/4.0L IS (non-DO) for $2,200.00 (US). Would that get you to pull the plastic from your wallet:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Twist zoom ring of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Maybe we can get the price under $1,500.00 (US) as I have a Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 zoom, delivered, it was about $750.00 (US). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrich_brandl Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 Yakim, I don't find your comment rude in any way, but still I can't fully agree. Many people have read my question correctly. On travel I often do street photograpy and portraiture, sometimes landscapes... . Therefore my equipment is optimized for the shorter focal ranges. But sometimes I need a telephoto - not frequent enough to carry 2-3 primes and a tripod (unfortunately then the 135mm often was too short and I had to crop). But If I regard telephotos - I am still convinced that a maximum of picture quality is only obtainable by use of a tripod. Of course there are expetions in bright light or if you have 1:2.8 (too heavy and too expensive for use in many places in the world). My problem was only not to get a much worse lens for the longer reach... Ulrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 "My problem was only not to get a much worse lens for the longer reach..."<p> I think for price, performance and features, you'd be hard pressed to beat the Canon 75-300mm IS.<p> Is it the best of any lense around? Of course not. But the only way one could compete with the 75-300mm IS would be to either buy two very expensive, by comparison, lenses; Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the 300mm f/4.0L IS. Or barring the purchase of these two lenses, the next possible offering, would be <a href="http://hotbuyselectronics.com/sigma_af_80_400_ex_apo.html">Sigma's 80-400mm OS.</a> From Sigma's offering there's Canon's offering, a very reasonably priced 75-300mm IS.<p> If the money's there, you might want to check the Sigma offering out as Sigma is well known for image quality, equaling Canon's best, at an excellent, by comparison price and they're very willing to rechip a lense should Canon program their later offerings to not respond to the Sigma design.<p> I wouldn't hesitate to pair Canon's 28-135 IS with Sigma's 80-400mm IS. I have a Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 and the image quality is, by repeatable tests, up to that of Canon's f/4.0L non-IS, which also is currently in possession.<p> Which ever you choose to do, Canon 75-300 or Sigma 80-400 OS, I know you'll be happy. But do check out Sigma's offering before you make a final decision.<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrich_brandl Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 Thomas, many thanks for your hint, I didn't know about the existence of that Sigma lens. I will look for a shop that allows to compare these lenses. As I've already explained, I don't want to go with the 1:2.8 70-200 L IS, although I'm convinced that it is a great lens. But every thief knows abot the price of "white lenses". Ulrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I have several Sigma lenses (100-300 f/4.0, 180mm macro, 15-30mm) and feel comfortable, based upon past purchases of Sigma products, recommending this lense.<p> This link is the result of a <a href="http://search.pbase.com/search?q=Sigma+80-400mm&b=Search+Photos&c=sp">pbase search.</a><p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now