New 300mm lens for the cannon – mixed feelings

I know this cannon lens wasn’t the best quality (compared to my hasselblads), but wished it was a bit sharper than it is. Debating about returning it and trying out another one

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_3595.jpg
   

2. 

   IMG_3588.jpg
   

3. 

   IMG_3580.jpg
   

4. 

   IMG_36151.jpg
   

Randy Wieland wrote:

I know this cannon lens wasn’t the best quality (compared to my hasselblads), but wished it was a bit sharper than it is. Debating about returning it and trying out another one

Hasselblads?…what do you do for a real job?

My first company I started my freshman year of school was photography. Learned quickly that luxury businesses are boom/bust. Traded that off by my senior year for building homes and tournaments.

Photography still has a place with me. I enjoy seeing the work of others encompassing good composition and techniques. I don’t have the time I want to for doing a lot of photo work, but if I take a hike or run the dogs I pack the cameras.

Hey Randy

Have you checked to see if the lens is showing back focus or front focus issues that might necessitate calibration?

I just started to play with it today. For snap shots it’s fine, but if you want to crop any pics you can really tell how soft the image is. I shot about 400 images this afternoon and decided it’s a flawed lens. Switched over and shot c operable images with a 105mm and they are super clear for a small format camera. Time to revisit the camera shop and swap it out

We’ve been lucky so far, out of all the lenses we own, mostly Lumix and Canon L series with a To kina thrown in the mix, we’ve never run into a lens with a noticeable front focus or back focus issue in need of correction. I understand that you can have a lens calibrated to correct for the error but given your lens is new exchanging it is the way to go.

I don’t know if you’re set on the 300 mm but I’ve got nothing but rave reviews for the Canon 70-200 F2.8 we use for both still and video. If you need the extra long lens a Canon 2x extender ($500) would take you to 140-400mm with no appreciable light loss and all your connections/communications with your camera body are retained. Just a thought…that 70 – 200 is a very good lens, to my eye anyway.

I’ve been using canon lenses since about 1982 and the EOS lenses since about 1987ish. Only had one other bad lens in all these years. A 28mm was much worse. Swapped it out for another and all was . I’m sure it will be the same with this one.

What body do you shoot?

I use this same L glass as Jim mentioned ( Canon 70-200 F2.8 and a Canon 2x extender ($500)) and love it. While I am shooting action for motorcycle races most of the time… the items have taken a beating, and never failed. Had a buddy with a bad lens, this same 70-200, he sent it in three times and it was never rectified, so eventually replaced by Canon. I’ve been beating on this lens for many years.

James, for film 620 and 650’s. For digital just a EOS XS.

You get some great looking shots. I particularly like some of your big game stuff from out west.

Randy,

Not sure which exact Canon lens you have but i suspect it’s the 70-300 f/4-5.6?

I knew I read a review on it awhile back on a blog and I went back and found it. As James suggested, the 70-200 will blow your mind, especially with a 2x teleconverter for some longer range shooting. Tack Sharp and beautiful buttery soft, creamy, supple, silky bokeh. I could go on but you get the point.

Here is the review I saw, which is what I have experienced with pretty much the same lens for Nikon. Unfortunately with lenses sporting a longer focal length, they are really expensive for a reason…..

“The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens has good center sharpness wide open at the wide end. Center sharpness decreases slightly as the focal length is increased to its weakest at 300mm. The lens becomes soft beyond 200mm. Stopping down improves sharpness somewhat but it is still weakest at 300mm.

Corners are soft at the ends of the focal length range and sharpen up noticeably as the aperture is stopped down. The long end of the focal length range continues to be the weakest performing over the range – especially in the vertical orientation. I don’t make it a habit to formally test lenses in both vertical and horizontal orientations, but after hearing some reports of an anomaly I did some testing. Shots taken at the longer focal lengths are indeed sharper in horizontal orientation than in vertical orientation. I’ll let Canon explain that one. Update: Canon has addressed the vertical sharpness issue through a service notice. Canon has performed this work (no charge) on my lens and I am pleased with the results.”

Whatever lens/camera body you’re using…those shots look good to me!

Ben, yes it is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. Now that I’ve shot about 1000 images, it is definitely the lens and as the article you found describes. Very disappointing that spending the extra $$$ for the L series to have this. my goal was to use my 2X to cover the rare times I want to be in the 500+mm range. I called and they (store not manufacture) is very willing to replace it with another. I’m more incline to see if a refund is a possibility knowing the L series is about equivalent to the $300 POS. Buddy of mine shoots sports events and has a few older series fixed 300mm f2.8. They don’t have the image stabilizer and don’t have a $7K price tag. I think they were about 2500-3K back in the early 90’s, so hopefully I get get a fair deal worked out with him.

Here is the level of detail i am expecting to capture – look close at the individual feathers

Here is one with the Cannon 70-200L. Not much touch up. If you’re ever up near Hastings you can borrow mine for a weekend if you wish to try one out. I have a 1.4x extender I’d let got for cheap also, if your interested. The extra speed you get from the 2.8 is nice…

Attachments:

1. 

   good.jpg
   

Randy,
The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is a fantastic lens! I love mine.
You should look at the Tamron SP 70-200 F/2.8 Di VC, I seem to use/carry it more than my canon L lens. The reviews are top notch and much cheaper.
Now some may wonder why I have both, my wife bought me the Tamron for my birthday and then she won the Canon L on Ebay.
I shoot a 7D for youth/high school sports; hockey, baseball, volleyball.

Ron

Ron, I appreciate the suggestion. I’m already covered in the 200mm. The goal is the 500-600mm with the use of my 2X adaper. That was the reasoning behind a 300mm lens