I spent some time today testing my new 70-300mm IS (not DO) against a few other zooms. These included a 75-300mm IS, 100-400mm IS, 28-300mm IS and 70-200 f/4L. I also included the 300mm f/4 IS for the 300mm test, as a control.
All shots taken on tripod, 5D, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/45s to 1/60s, TC-80N3, MLU.
Top row is taken near the center, bottom row is from the upper left corner.
My thoughts... the 300mm obviously kicks the zooms to next week, no surprise there. The 70-300 though is an easy second place, especially in the corner. Much better than the 75-300 IS (but to be honest, I think my last copy of the 75-300 IS was better than this.) The 28-300 IS is very nice in the center, weak in the corner; more importantly, uh, where's the beef? It is substantially shorter than the other lenses. The 100-400 IS (and this is a good copy) holds its own, but the 70-300 IS beats it. --c
The 75-300 is much closer to the others on this end of the range. The 28-300 is still wider than the others.
Overall... the 70-300 IS is a keeper! If not for the CA it would be a really awesome lens. Even so.. it is competitive with the 70-200 f/4L, at around the same price, and with IS and more reach. --c
I've been extremely pleased with the results from my 70-300 IS but never realized it compared so favorably with the 70-200 and the others.
Thanks for running the tests and sharing the results.
I got one of these for my wife when they came out and I have found it to be just as nice as the 70-200 f/4L and with IS and 100mm extra length it makes up for any differences. However my 100-400 IS does perform better than the 70 -300 in comparable ranges. My side by side testing in that area differs from yours.
Here is a shot taken with my wife's 350D and the 70-300 IS through glass @ 1600 ISO, 1/50, f/5.
Wow! Very impressive! Canon really did a good job with this lens! Seeing the optical quality makes the high price (for a 'consumer' lens) justifiable. How's the build quality? I assume it isn't to L standards, or they could have just slapped the L moniker on it and no one would have balked....but is it one of Canon's better built consumer lenses?
Overall test is pretty decent. Conclusions are ok, except for a few things:
This 70-200 f/4L is obviously better than this 70-300
Your 100-400L is not a particularly sharp copy (mine was not either, but sitll sharper than this one is)
The 28-300L is a 11x zoom...did you expect it to beat a 4x? I didn't.
I think the 70-200 f4 is certainly better....from 70-200, from 200-300 it starts to lag a bit.
Factoring in a $300 Canon 1.4x teleconverter to give it a similar range, might have been interesting, but you would have been comparing a much larger and more expensive (combo) lens that lacks IS.
Still, that's a reasonable alternative purchase.
What I'd love to see is the new 70-300 up against the DO version.
Overall, thanks for the nice comparison. It does add confidence for those thinking of the new lense.
dazedgonebye wrote:
What I'd love to see is the new 70-300 up against the DO version.
I will do this test some day. For now though, I did test the 70-200F4 and it beat the DO. Personally I much prefer the 70-300 IS.
.
