Schlotkins Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Charlie N wrote:
at that one focal length/aperture combo, the 75-300 has it beat, but you can stop down the 70-300ii to F11, and it's closed up quite a bit. The 75-300 never gets good at 300 (or even 200).
bryan's own words: If you care about great image quality and sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is not for you. And Photoshop cannot enhance details that are not there.
the lens looks OK from 75-135, but if that's all you care for, then simply look for an older 70-200 f4 L non IS, you can snatch up for around 400-500. Sure, that's a bit more, but it's quite a bit better.
...Show more →
I'm not arguing with you there. I have the 70-200 f4 IS. However, it's pretty big and heavy to take along traveling if you don't know if you are going to use it that much. The 75-300 III is 40% lighter and 40% smaller. By itself it's the same weight/size as the 200mm FD Canon f4. I'm not saying it's IQ will be 100% as good, but my guess is it would work. And it's cheap.
Bryan is clearly not referring to using the lens from just 75 to 150. I think we can all agree it looks pretty good (That's a 50mpx sensor on the crops.) He's talking about how it is not good wide open or at 300mm. I'm not talking about using it under those conditions.
On an aside, I don't know if he had a different copy for his 1ds mark III crops because I agree those look awful even at 135 where on the 5dsr it looks good.
Certainly, if you don't care about weight/size, the Contax 100-300 is the way to go or the modern 70-200 f2.8/f4 options.
|