Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 28, 2006, 9:16 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Default

Re Canon 100-300

Went out to Pacific Grove and gave it another try, stopped down all the way to an f16. considerably better result. Pardon the crud on thepolarizer, that's a risk when you get near the ocean. Still not thrilled with the clarity. I think this image was at about 200mm.
Attached Images
 
MontereyJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2006, 2:32 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

I like it and find it interesting how a thread posted some time ago can be revived and get some newer looks / comments / posts.... so here I go answering them..

Hi Hercules!

Thanks for your kinds comments about the photos I posted from the 100-300mm lens... yeah we loved Greece, would gladly go back there someday (to have a holiday, I'm sure it will be just as fun as our honeymoon time there).

Interesting you met a guy with the Canon 30D and the 70-300 IS lens and how you say it is noticeably bigger. I knew (from reading dimensions) it IS bigger... but I didn't think it's that much bigger than the 100-300mm. Still sometimes even small changes in size make big differences in look / feel, etc. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm glad you're enjoying your 17-85mm lens so much! There are some good discussions about 70-300 DO IS vs 70-300 NON DO Is lens here on this forum... I think peripatetic has summed it up very well here... (check out his contribution in this thread) http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

Cheers,

Paul (PS Hercules, I love your new avatar, very )
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2006, 2:42 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quanvu wrote:
Quote:
Your 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 lens & pictures impressed me enough to make me re-think about whether I should get the 70-200mm f2.8 or this lens instead. Great shots PJ.
Hi Quanvu!

Nice to see you here on this forum too. I appreciate your kind comments about my pictures impressing you and you think they're great shots. Thanks so much. Though I have to admit that I think I'm just a basic photographer.

About re-thinking buying a 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 instead of a 70-200mm f2.8, there is a big difference between these lenses!! The 70-200 doesn't have as long reach, but it is a much higher quality lens (and more flexible with its 2.8 wide aperture! If you get a 1.4x converter, it gets to 280mm (which is close to the same reach of the 100- 300). But you could also but a 2x converter on it for more reach (with that f2.8 lens).

The 70-200 f2.8 lens (Canon version) usually costs about 4 to 5x as much as the 100-300mm Canon! So that's a HUGE difference (in my book!) And adding either (or both) 1.4x or 2x converters will bump that up even more. Sigma do a good 70-200 f2.8 lens too, which I've heard is very decent quality, cheaper than Canon.

As with all cases, it is often more a matter of practise and technique rather than having the "best lens". Unless you're very serious about photography and will invest time to really learn how to use the best lenses to their limit, or unless you're rich enough to afford the Canon 70-200 f2.8 lens I'd suggest you might think of getting one of the cheaper lens at least (I'm not rich enough to afford the lenses I might "lust after", as I'm an international charity worker in Romania!)

So maybe the 70-300mm IS lens is better for you (much cheaper than Canon's 70-200 f2.8. Or you can get the 70-200 f4 lens for a lot less money than the f2.8 version (and the f4 is very very good quality too!). A new 70-200 f4 IS (image stabilized) version is just coming out. It depends on the reach you want and your budget a lot.

Also about post processing! That's important with ALL results from a digital SLR (DSLR) camera. Hope my thoughts are useful, Quanvu.... Let me know!

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2006, 3:00 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

MontereyJohn wrote:
Quote:
Hi, new here. Anyway, I have a Canon 100-300 USM and am still trying to get it to function properly. I think I've learned that you really need to stop it down to get decent results. I am not getting anything like the images I see here. Color appears washed out, low contrast and "soft" (very soft) focus. I'm going to go out and try it again today.

I'll attach an example

BTW, if anyone is interested, my stuff can be found at MontereyJohn California Photography and sites linked there.
Quote:
Re Canon 100-300

Went out to Pacific Grove and gave it another try, stopped down all the way to an f16. considerably better result. Pardon the crud on thepolarizer, that's a risk when you get near the ocean. Still not thrilled with the clarity. I think this image was at about 200mm.
Hello John, and welcome here on the forums!

Well, thanks for what you wrote. Maybe there are still some tips / techniques about this100-300mmlens that could help you (check out this search link on pbase for many more peoples' samples) http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100-300_45

Certainly stopping down DOES increase the quality of the photo (especially at the 300mm setting). Wide open (f5.6) at 300mm is the most challenging setting (it's weakest performance). But even then I've got a number of good shots. From 100-240mm wide open my copy of this lens is quite sharp I think. Check out some more smaples of mine from this Steve's forum post: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65 (this post mainly talks about the 70-300mm IS lens... but my samples are from the 100-300mm lens).

Most importantly though,I think is to know how to use the lens and camera set up well, and according to their respectively limits. Also post processing, particularly with this lens a contrast boost and increasing saturation a bit and applying some sharpness (unsharp mask) will improve the photos a lot too. Learning all these techniques is important to better results!

By the way, your first photo (of the surfer) is at 300mm at f6.3 (according to the Exif information contained in the JPEG photo file). It DOES look rather soft. Unfortunately it is too small to do much with (or see very clearly). Perhaps try to post samples around the 600x800 or 600x900 pixel resolution here, that's quite a common setting / size.

The second photo does look clearer / better, but again it's too small to make much comment on. I do wish you all the best of practise and fun with this lens of yours. Remember also that at 300mm on a Canon "cropped sensor" lens (like the 20D or 30D or 350D or 400D, etc) it will be "effectively" a lens with a reach of 480mm, and that camera shake (or rather photographer shake) is very likely unless using a tripod, or having VERY steady hands OR having a fast enough shutter speed. Maybe shots at 300mm need to be at a shutter speed of 1/500th of a second (or even faster, e.g. 1/640th or 1/800th second) to be relatively safe any shake isn't shown in the photos...

John, I checked out your website and blogs, you have some really nice photos there, well done!! I hope to hear / see more from you!

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2006, 10:42 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Default

RE: Canon 100-300mm

Thanks for the feedback. It kept me from giving up on this lens, and I'm glad I didn't.

OK, I think we are making progress. Here is an image I took yesterday at ISO 200 300mm f18 1/160. I did do a little post processing using Lightroom beta, mostly on the contrast and saturation. Definitely moving in the right direction.

Thanks for the pointers and encouragement.


Attached Images
 
MontereyJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2006, 1:58 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

pj1974 wrote:
Quote:
I like it and find it interesting how a thread posted some time ago can be revived and get some newer looks / comments / posts.... so here I go answering them..

Hi Hercules!

Thanks for your kinds comments about the photos I posted from the 100-300mm lens... yeah we loved Greece, would gladly go back there someday (to have a holiday, I'm sure it will be just as fun as our honeymoon time there).

Interesting you met a guy with the Canon 30D and the 70-300 IS lens and how you say it is noticeably bigger. I knew (from reading dimensions) it IS bigger... but I didn't think it's that much bigger than the 100-300mm. Still sometimes even small changes in size make big differences in look / feel, etc. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm glad you're enjoying your 17-85mm lens so much! There are some good discussions about 70-300 DO IS vs 70-300 NON DO Is lens here on this forum... I think peripatetic has summed it up very well here... (check out his contribution in this thread) http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

Cheers,

Paul (PS Hercules, I love your new avatar, very )
Hi Pj, gees i don't know which way to go, the DO lens costs twice as much as the non DO, so maybe i will get the non DO, just thought it would be a little to big for the 350D. Oh glad you liked the avatar, i do too.
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2006, 3:02 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5
Default

Speaking of avatars, when I tried to put one up I saw it was limited to 15k. What the heck is that small? Smallest I can get one down to and still see it is about 30k. 200x200 at 72 pixels is over 100k.:?
MontereyJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2006, 5:19 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

MontereyJohn wrote:
Quote:
Speaking of avatars, when I tried to put one up I saw it was limited to 15k. What the heck is that small? Smallest I can get one down to and still see it is about 30k. 200x200 at 72 pixels is over 100k.:?
Just take it below 200x200 i had to do that as well.
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2006, 2:34 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

MontereyJohn wrote:
Quote:
RE: Canon 100-300mm

Thanks for the feedback. It kept me from giving up on this lens, and I'm glad I didn't.

OK, I think we are making progress. Here is an image I took yesterday at ISO 200 300mm f18 1/160. I did do a little post processing using Lightroom beta, mostly on the contrast and saturation. Definitely moving in the right direction.

Thanks for the pointers and encouragement.
Hello John,

I'm glad some of my words have been of encouragement / help. From what I see of your postings here, I probably more has to do with other techniques than just stopping down the lens (using a high f-value aperture).

I personally do not go using more than f11 very often at all. Actually whenever I can I try to avoid going about f11 as by then often many lenses (especially the type of zooms I have) start getting into their defraction, which result in softer images. Only when I REALLY need it (mainly for depth of field issues) I might push it to f14. But usually I use composition rather than high f-values to try to get the depth of field (DOF) I want / need.

Usually (at least with my copy of the Canon 100-300mm lens) I have found the best results between f8 and f11 or f13 / f14 with this lens. The shot you posted of the bird is a little larger (don't be afraid to post slightly larger dimensions, you can keep the size of the file below 245 kb by usinga JPEG compression of around 80% - 85% (I usually use this for web posting) and still have an image around 600x800 or 600x900 pixels.

The photo you posted of the bird on the water is ALWAYS going to bea hard one, because it involves a lot of reflective (and by the looks of it brown!) water with a darker subject (bird). Even with a $2000 lens it probably wouldn't be easy to make a fantastic shot of a bird in this position / light angle / composition.

If you post some other photos (tests) with your lens, please try some other shots, e.g. of an animal (or plant) in better light (not too much bright backlight) and you'll probably find more pleasing results.

StillI ran your posted photo through a typical combination of post processing that I usually do for my Canon 100-300mm lens photos (boost in contrast, saturation and sharpness) and here is the result...

Paul
Attached Images
 
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2006, 3:03 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

hercules wrote:
Quote:
MontereyJohn wrote:
Quote:
Speaking of avatars, when I tried to put one up I saw it was limited to 15k. What the heck is that small? Smallest I can get one down to and still see it is about 30k. 200x200 at 72 pixels is over 100k.:?
Just take it below 200x200 i had to do that as well.
John: yes, Hercules is right. Maybe you'll need to make your avatar smaller than 200x200 pixels. But maybe more important, you probably need to save that as a compressed JPEG file (around 70-80% compression level will do fine) and then you'll get close(r) to 15kb.

My avatar is 183x150 pixels, but it depends on colour, saturation, sharpness and other factors what size the file will be. I saved it around 75% JPEG compression to get a 15kb size file (perfect for the avatar).

Maybe Hercules, you can give other advice / techniques, details of your avatar(s).

Paul PS John, I just sent you a private message, see "new messages" at top right of this forum area.

and PPS here is a little edit (again 30 seconds worth) of one of your previous posted gull on the rocks photo / post...

Attached Images
 
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:53 AM.