I was looking through it and becoming ever more and more amazing as it took down the 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm! Even wide open! Noticeably so!
And then it took it down again at 135m!
And then it even took it down at 200mm!
The 70-200 f/4 IS has been fabled for being prime like at 135mm and above for sharpness and micrcontrast the new 70-300L beat it! (granted though it can\'t do 200mm at f/4 or 4.5 which is a bit of a big deal)
And I mean the micro-contrast/color actually looked better than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS over the entire 70-200 range wide open (where it could hit the same wide open) and at no aperture was it ever worse!
BUT....
oh noes!
at 300mm it seemed to relatively drop off the cliff!!
failing to even quite match the 70-200+TC!?! and even by f/8 only sorta tying it!
the bokeh is pretty shitty too as I had expected
Well OTOH it looks like there is no fear in having to give up even a trace of image quality over the 70-200 range! And, in fact, it actually seems to have even better contrast/color/pop and just about the same or better sharpness than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS!
OTOH you do end up giving up a big 2/3 stops 155-200mm or 1/3 stop worse than some earlier hopes based upon filter size and lens fatness.
OTOH you never have to fiddled with TC on and off which gets to be such a pain you often just don\'t bother or you leave it on and compromise wider end image quality.
OTOH to not even be able to match the 70-200+TC at 280mm is kinda awful for a $1600 (with no collar) lens. If not for this one thing this lens would really seem to be a stunning thing indeed.
One odd thing is that his 70-200+TC shots almost seemed better than his bare lens without the TC?! That just seems odd. Normally you can see a clear drop off with the TC on (even if it does pretty well still).
Still, if it comes down in price a bit you can get your 70-200 quality plus 200-280mm without pain in the neck constant swapping at the price of more weight and a trace loss of quality at 280mm and a heft 2/3 stops lost at 155-200mm and maybe a touch loss of bokeh quality. If not for the slight 280mm loss thing it might be a better overall option for quite a few, if certainly not everyone by any means. Even as is it is still tempting since you don\'t native bare lens IQ if you sell you 70-200. It is VERY disappointing to not have done better at 300mm though and to not even quite match the 70-200+TC combo.
Going by those results the quality should handily beat the tamron from 70-200mm and probably up to a good 250mm after which, sadly, it seems like it might merely only do about the same .
If the 300mm was a little better this lens would appear to be an utter stunner, as is, it\'s still impressive in many ways and yet the thing it adds (300mm reach) it doesn\'t do that amazingly well and comes at price of noticeably more weight and slower speed in the middle range and, for now at least, stunningly more $$$$.
The scary thing is the 1.4x TC MkIII may be much better than the MkII so might, oddly enough, you end up with the 70-300L doing better than the 70-200L over 70-200 and the 70-200L+TC doing noticeably better at 280mm!! That would be most bizarre! And suddenly is the 70-300L worth it anymore? If you can get a better 280mm from teh 70-200 and that lens still gives a 70-200 of a quality level nobody complained about before plus you use the TC with your super-tele or perhaps somethng else you might have. hmmmmmmm.......
Anyway this is just one test.
Also he didn\'t look at the edges at all.
EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!: I jsut realized he shot a bill, which means you may have shot somewhat close in where the 70-200 f/4 IS stinks! Maybe this is why it beats it at the short to mid end and loses at the longest end Maybe at normal landscape/wildlife distance the results would have nothing to do with these at all?
I was looking through it and becoming ever more and more amazing as it took down the 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm! Even wide open! Noticeably so!
And then it took it down again at 135m!
And then it even took it down at 200mm!
The 70-200 f/4 IS has been fabled for being prime like at 135mm and above for sharpness and micrcontrast the new 70-300L beat it! (granted though it can\'t do 200mm at f/4 or 4.5 which is a bit of a big deal)
And I mean the micro-contrast/color actually looked better than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS over the entire 70-200 range wide open (where it could hit the same wide open) and at no aperture was it ever worse!
BUT....
oh noes!
at 300mm it seemed to relatively drop off the cliff!!
failing to even quite match the 70-200+TC!?! and even by f/8 only sorta tying it!
the bokeh is pretty shitty too as I had expected
Well OTOH it looks like there is no fear in having to give up even a trace of image quality over the 70-200 range! And, in fact, it actually seems to have even better contrast/color/pop and just about the same or better sharpness than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS!
OTOH you do end up giving up a big 2/3 stops 155-200mm or 1/3 stop worse than some earlier hopes based upon filter size and lens fatness.
OTOH you never have to fiddled with TC on and off which gets to be such a pain you often just don\'t bother or you leave it on and compromise wider end image quality.
OTOH to not even be able to match the 70-200+TC at 280mm is kinda awful for a $1600 (with no collar) lens. If not for this one thing this lens would really seem to be a stunning thing indeed.
One odd thing is that his 70-200+TC shots almost seemed better than his bare lens without the TC?! That just seems odd. Normally you can see a clear drop off with the TC on (even if it does pretty well still).
Still, if it comes down in price a bit you can get your 70-200 quality plus 200-280mm without pain in the neck constant swapping at the price of more weight and a trace loss of quality at 280mm and a heft 2/3 stops lost at 155-200mm and maybe a touch loss of bokeh quality. If not for the slight 280mm loss thing it might be a better overall option for quite a few, if certainly not everyone by any means. Even as is it is still tempting since you don\'t native bare lens IQ if you sell you 70-200. It is VERY disappointing to not have done better at 300mm though and to not even quite match the 70-200+TC combo.
Going by those results the quality should handily beat the tamron from 70-200mm and probably up to a good 250mm after which, sadly, it seems like it might merely only do about the same .
If the 300mm was a little better this lens would appear to be an utter stunner, as is, it\'s still impressive in many ways and yet the thing it adds (300mm reach) it doesn\'t do that amazingly well and comes at price of noticeably more weight and slower speed in the middle range and, for now at least, stunningly more $$$$.
The scary thing is the 1.4x TC MkIII may be much better than the MkII so might, oddly enough, you end up with the 70-300L doing better than the 70-200L over 70-200 and the 70-200L+TC doing noticeably better at 280mm!! That would be most bizarre! And suddenly is the 70-300L worth it anymore? If you can get a better 280mm from teh 70-200 and that lens still gives a 70-200 of a quality level nobody complained about before plus you use the TC with your super-tele or perhaps somethng else you might have. hmmmmmmm.......
Anyway this is just one test.
Also he didn\'t look at the edges at all.
Nov 18, 2010 at 02:41 AM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #9048940 « 70-300 IS L came »
If not for this one thing this lens would really seem to be a stunning thing indeed. 
Maybe at normal landscape/wildlife distance the results would have nothing to do with these at all