"L" lenses to watch out for... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

12/16/2005 11:56:43 AM · #4

The push/pull on the 100-400mm can collect dust if pump like a air pump. Haven't had any problems, also remember to compare apples to apples. I see to many people comparing 5k prime lens to this one. Sorry prime are sharper in most cases.......ace

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

12/16/2005 11:59:32 AM · #5

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Neil, I've been looking at the 70-200 f4 and seeing that you've got what some would call a downgrade, I was wondering if you can see a difference in the image quality?

I have the older 75-300 IS which I've got some very sharp images out of. I've been meaning to look for comparisons of this older lens and the one you got.

Any insight would be appreciated.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

12/16/2005 12:05:39 PM · #6

Originally posted by mmckenna:

a friend of mine told me that his 100-400L is a sensor dust magnet.

I've heard from many owners that this isn't normal.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

12/16/2005 12:10:59 PM · #7

I wouldn't say there are any to "watch out" for, but I will share some of my thoughts. Much of my opinions is based on internet reading, so I wouldn't call myself an expert:

Any L lens that only has a maximum aperature of f4 is something you should think about long and hard. These lenses are all limited greatly at dawn and dusk (or indoors). I'm speaking of lenses under 200mm.

Also (and seeping with personal opinion), 200mm is not all that long, even on a 1.6 crop camera. At least if you get a 2.8 lens, you can add the 1.4x extender without much sacrifice to quality.

Primes are awesome ... period. But I wouldn't recommend an L prime unless you were absolutely positive you needed one. The non-L primes are often much better performers than L zooms.

For me, there's only 3 L lenses I want:

24-70mm 2.8 L
200mm 2.8 L with 1.4x extender and extension tubes
400mm 5.6 L

but that's me :)

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

12/16/2005 12:29:45 PM · #8

Always try and check wide lenses (16-35 especially) for sharpness. There are 'sharp copies' and 'unsharp copies'...test before buying if you can.

That being said, I used to think my 16-35 was not quite sharp but once I switched from the 300d to 1d my 16-35 performed flawlessly. I love this lens and now realize that the focus problems were probably with the 300d.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

12/16/2005 01:15:05 PM · #9

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
I'm getting closer to wanting to sell my 70-200/F4L. But it's hardly used (and almost exactly 1 year old) and so I am hoping to get fair market value or better, if someone is interested in getting a used lens from a "trustworthy" source rather than 'cheap'. I have a B+W UV filter on it (and has been since day 1). I've probably used it < 12 times, 6 of which were probably in my yard.

I just didn't like carrying it (nor the LowePro offtrail bag I bought to be able to handle it--will sell that too).

I bought the Canon 70-300 IS DO instead. It's just as heavy, but not as long, and thus feels better to me when carrying the camera and lens. Plus it has an extra 100mm and IS!

Neil, I've been looking at the 70-200 f4 and seeing that you've got what some would call a downgrade, I was wondering if you can see a difference in the image quality?

I have the older 75-300 IS which I've got some very sharp images out of. I've been meaning to look for comparisons of this older lens and the one you got.

Any insight would be appreciated.

I had the 75-300 IS and changed it for a 70-200f4 with 1.4 TC. The difference in sharpness was noticeable, even to me. I already had the 28-105 USM, so the autofocus on the 75-300 seemed to take an age in comparison. With the f4, you do, however, lose IS, so you must watch the shutter speed that much more closely.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/16/2005 01:43:38 PM · #10

The 70-300 IS DO is better than the 75-300, though it has some drawbacks as well as pluses. I've been really happy with it except that it doesn't go to 400mm. My 70-200/F4 was always "left at home" so I didn't get very good pics with it at all ;) I don't mind carrying the 70-300 at all, even though it's pretty heavy (it's not big).

Here's a good comparison review of the 75-300 to the 70-300 IS DO, and the 100-400L (just found it though and didn't read the whole thing yet):

Photo.Net Review

and it's conclusion:

In real world photography, with normal subjects taken in good light, most people will be very pleased with the results from this lens. The resolution can be close to that of the 100-400 IS but with a much smaller, easier to handle lens. The excellent image stabilizer performance, coupled with the good balance of this lens allows sharp photographs to be taken hand-held at very low shutter speeds.

I have a photo taken with this lens as the wallpaper on my computer at the moment and every time I switch on the computer I marvel at the feather detail in the side-lit bird.

The major advantage of this lens, the small size, is only possible because of the DO optics. The disadvantages of this lens, prismatic flare, dreamy quality at full aperture and different bokeh are all caused, in my view, by the DO optics. Only you can decide on the balance of the trade-offs. I hope these tests will allow you to make a better informed choice.

Remember, photographs taken by a lens you have with you are ALWAYS better than photographs taken by a lens you have left at home.

(As ever, the findings only apply to a single example of each lens.)

And here's the luminous landscape review and conclusion:

Luminous Landscape Review

This is an appealing lens in many ways. It measures reasonably well, and though the price is a bit high it is appropriate for what you get. The low weight and small size are real plusses. Resolution appears high, but I have to admit that on-screen and in prints I see a certain "softness" to images produced by this lens that doesn't show up in lab measurements.

A bit of experimentation shows that it definitely isn't lack of resolution, but rather a softening of accutance as compared to non-DO lenses. I found that this can be easily compensated for by using a moderate amount of additional sharpening in post-processing. With my preferred sharpening program, Photokit Sharpener, by using Edge Sharpen 1 in addition to normal Input and Output sharpening I was able to get results that are very close to those produced by a non-DO lens. I would imagine though that users who do not take the time and effort to apply appropriate sharpening to files produced by this lens may find the results disappointing. Those that do will be rewarded by crisp images and the pleasure of using a very versatile lens.

If I didn't already own the superb Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS I'd be very tempted by the new DO, since I'll take the trade-off of 2 extra stops of aperture for the extra focal length any time. Nevertheless the 70 - 300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS is a very appealing lens indeed.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

12/16/2005 01:48:16 PM · #11

Thanks for posting the links and info.

12/16/2005 02:50:12 PM · #12

There really aren't any "Bad" L lenses in the current lineup.
I however think some are overpriced and their optics can be matched by non Canon makers for a lot less money, with the exception of robustness of the lens. If you work daily outside with your gear, then it's worth it to pay for the durability, if not, then perhaps not.

Some L lenses that I'm not impressed by are the
1. 300L f4 with IS
(check out it's softness on photozone.de)
2. 28-300 L lens ( I think Popular PHotography reviewed this, distortion and soft at 300, if I remember)
3. 100-400mm L IS-this is kind of a mixed bag, good range but ok sharpness, I just think this is overpriced, especially when a Sigma 50-500 is just as sharp, offers more range and is only 2/3 of the price.
Once again check Photozone.de for review.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/16/2005 02:58:00 PM · #13

Originally posted by yido:

...Some L lenses that I'm not impressed by are the
1. 300L f4 with IS
(check out it's softness on photozone.de)...

Uh, I'd beg to differ with that one...I have the 300mm f/4L IS and have printed 20x30's of shots taken with it and the sharpness is amazing!! Best 300mm out there after its MUCH much more expensive big brother the 300mm f/2.8L IS

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

12/16/2005 03:21:24 PM · #14

I see it pretty consistenty that the 85L is much slower focusing then the 85f1.8. If you were looking for sporting use then you might want to check that out as it might be an issue.

I would suspect the 28-350L is too much of a range without some sort of crompromise but I don't know.

I also imagine the 1200L is a little too heavy :-)

I own none of these, so take that with a rock of salt.

ace flyman

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/16/2005 03:36:33 PM · #15

3. 100-400mm L IS-this is kind of a mixed bag, good range but ok sharpness, I just think this is overpriced, especially when a Sigma 50-500 is just as sharp, offers more range and is only 2/3 of the price.
Once again check Photozone.de for review. [/quote]text

Have to disagree on this one, my boss just got the 50-500mm sigma. Its to big and heavy to hand hold, no IS function. We compared shots, the cannon is much sharper.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

12/16/2005 05:27:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by robs:

I see it pretty consistenty that the 85L is much slower focusing then the 85f1.8. If you were looking for sporting use then you might want to check that out as it might be an issue.

Much, much slower. More glass to move and it has to be more precise when doing it. It's not bad if you prefocus on the spot where the action is.

12/16/2005 06:25:01 PM · #17

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by yido:
...Some L lenses that I'm not impressed by are the
1. 300L f4 with IS
(check out it's softness on photozone.de)...

Uh, I'd beg to differ with that one...I have the 300mm f/4L IS and have printed 20x30's of shots taken with it and the sharpness is amazing!! Best 300mm out there after its MUCH much more expensive big brother the 300mm f/2.8L IS

Please review the MTF chart at Photozone.de of the 300mm non IS, IS and the f2.8 L version.

12/16/2005 06:26:45 PM · #18

Originally posted by ace flyman:

text

Have to disagree on this one, my boss just got the 50-500mm sigma. Its to big and heavy to hand hold, no IS function. We compared shots, the cannon is much sharper. [/quote]

Please review the MTF charts on PHotozone.de, the sharpness of the Sigma is minimally higher (which should mean that both are about equal in sharpness). Yes the Bigma is bigger and heavier, but I've no problem handholding it for hours.

12/16/2005 06:29:44 PM · #19

Originally posted by yido:

...Please review the MTF chart at Photozone.de of the 300mm non IS, IS and the f2.8 L version.

MTF charts are not the whole story...I'm just saying I've printed 20x30's using that lens and the image sharpness was amazing. The 300 f/2.8 is the best 300mm out there but also 5x the price of the 300 f/4. For all intents and purposes there is NO sharpness issue with the 300mm f/4L IS.

12/16/2005 06:35:21 PM · #20

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by yido:
...Please review the MTF chart at Photozone.de of the 300mm non IS, IS and the f2.8 L version.

MTF charts are not the whole story...I'm just saying I've printed 20x30's using that lens and the image sharpness was amazing. The 300 f/2.8 is the best 300mm out there but also 5x the price of the 300 f/4. For all intents and purposes there is NO sharpness issue with the 300mm f/4L IS.

You are right. MTF charts are not everything to a picture. What the MTF chart does is quantify sharpness to number of linewidths per picture height.
It has nothing to do with contrast, color cast, or distortion. However, it is the best reproducble measure of sharpness/resolution.
Many lenses may produce sharp large prints, however, the 300mm f4L IS lens does not have excellent sharpness per the test at Photozone.de. The 300 f4L non IS and the 2.8L version's sharpness falls mainly into excellent category while the f4L versions sharpness mostly falls into the very good category.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 18:36:53.

12/16/2005 06:43:54 PM · #21

Originally posted by yido:

...Many lenses may produce sharp large prints, however, the 300mm f4L IS lens does not have excellent sharpness per the test at Photozone.de. The 300 f4L non IS and the 2.8L version's sharpness falls mainly into excellent category while the f4L versions sharpness mostly falls into the very good category.

Nitpicking and pixel peeping here....very good vs excellent, that's NOT an issue or deal breaker IMHO...Practically speaking you will not see the difference on a print. The f/4 non-IS is sharper but in practice the IS version will let you get the better shot unless you are shooting with a tripod or bright sunshine...The f/2.8, well there is no question that it's the Reference in terms of quality...better be for US$3900...

12/16/2005 06:46:28 PM · #22

I think in that case the 70-300IS will be a thousand dollar better deal since it's sharpness is about the same and you get 70-299mm versatility and an IS. Hence I still think it's not a good deal since you can get the same sharpness for a lot less money.

If you say the 300L is justified b/c of it'd durability, then I agree and would recommend the cheaper 300mmLf 4 non IS.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 18:47:43.

12/16/2005 07:00:39 PM · #23

Originally posted by yido:

The 70-300 is an f/5.6 lens at the 300mm end...and will not work with a 1.4x TC let alone a 2x TC...The f/4L works very well with the 1.4x TC...

Also the OP was asking about serious issues about certain L-lenses...There are no obvious flaws with the 300 f/4L IS to make it an unacceptable lens.

12/16/2005 07:06:56 PM · #24

The OP also mentions Otical quality as well. I'd be wary of any lens that has same sharpness as a thousand or so dollar cheaper 70-300IS.
Generally, most consider optical quality as the key factor for a lens.

If a prime L lens costs $600+ more but is not sharper, only stop faster, and give up 70-299mm of versatility, I'd say that it's not a good value, unless you intend on treating your equipment very roughly.

Also note what I originally posted:
There really aren't any "Bad" L lenses in the current lineup.
I however think some are overpriced and their optics can be matched by non Canon makers for a lot less money, with the exception of robustness of the lens. If you work daily outside with your gear, then it's worth it to pay for the durability, if not, then perhaps not.

Message edited by author 2005-12-16 19:08:54.