Rebel XT 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III Lens Problem & Q?

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/06/2005 06:40:19 PM · #1

Hey everyone,

I've been noticing, that my Camera has been producing slightly blurry images. Even on the tripod, at 250 f5.6. I thought maybe it was the focus at first, but I confirmed now that it wasn't. So I'm beggining to wonder, is my lens the culprit?

I have a Canon 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III 58mm Lens Macro 1.5m/4.9ft AutoFocus, not USM version.

I have gotten some sharp images with this lens attached, so I even wonder if it is that. Anyhow.. if it is the lens, can anyone recommend a lens with similar capabilities in the $150-$220 dollar range.

Thanks in advance.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

06/06/2005 06:45:24 PM · #2

A couple guesses as to settings when you are getting blurry shots:

1.) Your at the long end of the zoom range
2.) You're at max aperture (smallest number) or close to it

The 75-300 is known for being soft in the 200-300mm range, especially wide open. In this price range, though, you'll be hard pressed to do a lot better. Try stopping down to f/8 if you can when you're at the long end. I know that limits your creativity, but it's really not worth replacing this with another so-so performer.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/06/2005 06:48:18 PM · #3

Yeah, I was worried it was something like that. I'm very annoyed because I love the zoom range it gets, I didn't buy the lens it was my fathers on his film slr (rebel II) me thinks. If I were to move the price limit up to $400 dollars do you think I could do better?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

06/06/2005 07:03:33 PM · #4

Very possibly, though my absolute first recommendation in this range would be the Canon 70-200 f/4, though that goes for just over $550.
you simply cannot do better for optical quality in a 70-xxx zoom, however, and you get a constant f/4 aperture to boot. Definitely the best value in the range.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

06/06/2005 07:05:51 PM · #5

Are you using any filters on the lens?...I found out quickly that cheap filters are bad...

06/06/2005 07:10:50 PM · #6

I think that, for the price range, the 75-300 Canons do quite well - not sure what others think. I own the IS USM version, so maybe it's not quite the same judgement.

06/06/2005 07:41:40 PM · #7

I am using filters... But they weren't cheap. I just tested my kit lens with the filters and it seems to be okay.

The 70-300mm performs okay for a certain range on f/8 so I'll just live with it for now... I'm definitly going to buy a sharper lens though because I want crisp images at a decent zoom... I'll look into the 70-200mm, maybe I can afford it if I don't eat anything for a month or so.

I'm thinking of buying that 50mm f/1.8 lens... $70 bucks... it will work well for some of the shots I do, I just need a zoom badly... and I need one that opens wide, for low light.

06/06/2005 08:52:08 PM · #8

I'd recommend the Sigma 70-300mm APO II Macro. I think it's very sharp, even at 300mm and it's under $200. It focuses slower than the Canon and the motor is a bit noisier. However, it's heavier, feels more solid than the Canon, comes with a bag and a shade.

The Canon 75-300 is soft after 200mm, even in the center if you can believe that and suffers from CA as well.
Check Bob Atkins review of the IS version here:
//bobatkins.photo.net/photography/reviews/300mm_lenses.html

You can also check my "Street Candid" section on my site and click on the photo information. All of the 200mm plus focal lengths were done with the Sigma 70-300.

Prof_Fate

06/06/2005 10:22:56 PM · #9

i second the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO Macro Super II. You must be sure it is the APO version. I got mine new on ebay for $180 or so. I have been trying to get birds lately, and have had some _image_ issues - most likley me (camera shake, I am at full 300mm after 7:30 or 8 at night...running high ISO to compensate...) If the 1/focal lenght holds true, then you need 1/500th for good handlehld 300mm shots (ona 1.6x crop camera it is - to 480mm). As for the tripod - how sturdy is it? using a timer or remote shutter release?

The macro mode on the Sigam definetly impressed me. Some sample shots from that lens:
Macro shots:

and some 'regular' shots.

06/07/2005 03:10:45 AM · #10

It sounds like the sigma might be a good investment, but I'll have to do just a bit more research and budget calculating, i may be able to spend a little more... I have until June 16th to decide, because I'm leaving the country and I want the lens for crisp travel photos. Tripod is sturdy, on timer, I really need to get the remote shutter release.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/07/2005 03:16:23 AM · #11

Why don't you post some shots so we can see this 'softness' you're talking about and maybe let you know if it is the lens - if it's not, you might just be throwing your money away. Try to include some shots at focal lengths that produce sharp images as well.

edit: You could also try calling Canon and seeing what their policy is about getting them to look at it/possibly exchange it.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 03:17:01.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

06/07/2005 03:21:55 AM · #12

Originally posted by yido:

I'd recommend the Sigma 70-300mm APO II Macro. I think it's very sharp, even at 300mm and it's under $200.

"very sharp" with comparison to what?

06/07/2005 03:37:12 AM · #13

I'll take some photos tommorow afternoon and post them to show you. I shoot in Raw and will most likely convert to a jpg... so there may be loss of quality there, very little though and not enough to do what is going on in the image. I'll post 100% crops actually, it just seems like there is 1-2px gaussian blur being automatically applied to the photo. I have some sharper photos that I will crop and show aswell.

06/07/2005 11:05:22 AM · #14

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by yido:
I'd recommend the Sigma 70-300mm APO II Macro. I think it's very sharp, even at 300mm and it's under $200.

"very sharp" with comparison to what?

From my personal experience comparing it to my Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens, Canon 55-200mm USM MII lens, and friends Canon 75-300 III lens.
I haven't measured the pixels at 400% crop from a tripod with MLU and stuff, but just do some internet research and you'll find a general consensus.

06/07/2005 11:20:42 AM · #15

Okie, here is the 100% crop from an 8mp image (raw to jpeg (and yes, the image below looks just like that in raw too)) that I took this morning around 10:00am... just for illustration purposes.

shutter speed 1/500, f5.6, 300mm focal length.

here is a sharper image

shutter speed 1/2000, f5.6, 300mm focal length.

It seems to be a recent occurance... don't know if that helps much. I did levels on the second picture so there is some added noise. Forgive the speed, my server is going a bit slow today.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 11:30:18.

06/07/2005 11:23:29 AM · #16

Since it was at 10am, I don't supposed you wound up with too slow of a shutter speed - but just for our reference, what were the focal lengths and shutter speeds for these two shots?

06/07/2005 12:16:05 PM · #17

*made an edit to the reply with the photos in it, so check the shutter speed and other info there.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 12:16:21.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/07/2005 12:52:34 PM · #18

well,
You'll have to decide if that is sharp enough for you or not.
I agree with you, both of the shots seem soft. I'm also assuming that they are in the center as well.

You seem to have fast enough shutter speed, so camera shake is less likely the cause.

What might be good is if you shoot again around f8.0 and see if it sharpens up. If you can live with it at higher aperature (assuming it is sharper) it may not be worth buying another lens. If you cannot live with the lens's limitations, then you might considering upgrading, though to go to a prolevel lens in the 300mm range will run you about $1000 or more.

If you want to stay within the $220 range, then your only other options are the Sigma and the Tamron's 70-300.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 12:53:32.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

06/07/2005 12:54:42 PM · #19

Originally posted by yido:

Originally posted by yido:
Sigma 70-300mm APO II Macro.

comparing it to my Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens

Hahahaha, you've got to be kidding me.. I'm sure the vast difference in price is negligable to quality.

Not necessarily the brand new versions, however, according to PhotoDo:

Grade: 2.9 35mm/AF Sigma AF 70-300/4-5,6 DL macro super

Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L USM

I'm sure the 70-300 is a reasonable lens, but it's nowhere near the 70-200L.

(Edit: Changed to a more comparative lens.)

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 13:02:06.

06/07/2005 02:30:04 PM · #20

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by yido:
Originally posted by yido:
Sigma 70-300mm APO II Macro.

comparing it to my Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens

Hahahaha, you've got to be kidding me.. I'm sure the vast difference in price is negligable to quality.

Not necessarily the brand new versions, however, according to PhotoDo:

Grade: 2.9 35mm/AF Sigma AF 70-300/4-5,6 DL macro super

Grade: 4.1 35mm/AF Canon EF 70-200/2,8 L USM

I'm sure the 70-300 is a reasonable lens, but it's nowhere near the 70-200L.

(Edit: Changed to a more comparative lens.)

You seem to misundestand me and are misquoting me. I've used and reviewed photos from all of the zooms. When I say that the Sigma is sharp, I'm considering the lenses I've used and their price. I didn't say that it is sharper than a 70-200 f2.8L. All I can tell you is that when I get a good shot from a Sigma, I can't just look at the picture and say this is the Canno L and this is the Sigma.

I can, when seeing a Canon 75-300 lens by the softness and CA that it wasn't an L lens or a Sigma (especially b/c of the CA).
Maybe if they were over 11x14 inch prints I could tell the difference between a Sigma and Cannon L lens.

The review of the Sigma you state is a DL version which has differnt optics than the APO version.
Goto Shuttlebug and see their review of the Sigma 70-300 DL and the APO version. See what they say about the lens.
Also review the comparison between consumer lenses and pro lenses on Popular Photo and see what they conclude about difference in sharpness between the classes.

People somehow think if they spend lots of money or buy the right brand that their pictures will be wonderful magically and that cheap or the wrong brand of lens will make lousy pictures.

Give a poor photog the best equipment and you'll get poor pics.
Give a great photog a cheap equipment and you'll get great shots.
For most of us, it's the human, not the equipment that is the limiting factor.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 14:40:12.

06/07/2005 02:57:15 PM · #21

That is quite noticeable blur - quite unfortunate. But here's a possible saving grace - How big are you blowing up the photos/what resolution are you using them on your computer? While 100% crops are nice to determine total sharpness, the appearance is what matters most. At the extreme example, I can upload almost any image with slight blur to my buzznet (see signature), which has max resolution at 400x400.. at such a small size, everything looks sharp. If you don't absolutely need it for the sizes that have noticeable blur, then maybe you can save up for a better lens or a different type of lens/accessory.

I still think you should consider calling Canon about it. Many people over at dpreview will send lenses back that have what they consider bad characteristics (in comparison to what is 'normal' for that lens). I'm not sure if how long you've had it would make it eligible - but if it could save you the $200, it's definitely worth a thought.

06/07/2005 03:12:49 PM · #22

Oh it prints relatively well 4x6, havent tried much higher seeing as how they are expensive, and I can do it later when I really want to. But, I also like to use crops from the photos for many things, and I am disappointed with the sharpness of the lens, I would like a sharp replacement lens... it doesn't have to be the greatest lens on earth... not that i don't want the greatest lens on earth, it just has to be similar enough that I wont miss the zoom range and it should be sharp at both ends and everything in between. I just come to expect more from lenses... i've never tried printing something from film much larger either and probably didn't realize the lens was so bad with CA.

What's the best walkaround lens any of you have for a Digital Canon, that is sharp?

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 15:17:15.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/07/2005 05:16:33 PM · #23

Now hold on here,
Most would say that 70-300mm is not a walking around range. Most would point toward something like a 17-40, 24-70, 28-75, 18-125, or maybe 28-135 as a walking around range.
Probably the sharpest walking around lens would be the Canon 24-70 f2.8L, but it's almost $1500 and it's not the zoom or the price range you are looking at.

Most lenses are sharp enough for 4x6, so if you rarely print larger than that, you may not notice much difference between a consumer lens and a pro lens. However, you're more likely to notice things like CA, poor color, barrel distortion, slower focusing, flare, etc with a consumer lens. Even if you print only 4x6 size.

The fact that you are cropping shots from a 75-300mm lens tells me that you should stick to that range, or possibly longer. Next ask yourself what is your budget and buy from there. If you are looking at $400 as the max, that's a tough area b/c most consumers are about $250 then there is a jump to over $500 for a enthusiast level lenses. Not a lot in the $400 range.

I'd recommend you consider the following zooms.

Less than $200: Sigma 70-300mm APO II, Canon 55-200mm USM M II, the Canon 100-300 I heard has similar optics to their 75-300.

Less than $600: Canon 70-200mm f4L (you probably want more reach)
Less than $700-1000: Tough category. Sigma 70-200 f2.8, Sigma 100-300 f4, Sigma 50-500mm
Over $1000 category: Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS or non IS, Canon 100-300L

If you can live with the reach and the cost, the 70-200 f4L would probably be the best bang for the bucks. If you want 300mm range, then I'd either recommend the Sigma 70-300 APO II, or the Sigma 100-300 EX.
Good luck in your search.

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 17:23:33.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

06/07/2005 05:47:45 PM · #24

Originally posted by yido:

You seem to misundestand me and are misquoting me.

My apologies if that's the case.

You said the Sigma was "very sharp" with no qualifier. The Sigma is "very sharp" compared to lesser lenses, it is not "very sharp" generally, nor is it "very sharp" compared to an L or a prime.

I do completely agree that a lot of people will not get a useful quality gain between the Sigma and a 70-200L, especially with the extra zoom range.