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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 29, 2004, 9:25 AM   #11
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

Originally Posted by fporch
NHL - Could repeat that in the King's English??
Their MTF is derived from 48 measurements made 3mm apart starting from the center and spreading in all directions. The center of the image is more important than the edges, so they weighted it higher. They also weighted f/4 higher than f/8 and so on... Let's illustrate the effect of weighting on two hypothetical lenses and let's keep it simple by using just 3 digits denoting the grades recorded for each lens at the center, side, and edge only:
Lens A (4, 3, 2)
Lens B (2, 3, 4)

With straight average, both lenses come out even:
Lens A (4 + 3 + 2) / 3 = 3
Lens B (2 + 3 + 4) / 3 = 3

However with weighted average favoring the center, lens A is now ahead because of its sharper center:
Lens A (3x4 + 2x3 + 1x2) / 6 = 3.33
Lens B (3x2 + 2x3 + 1x4) / 6 = 2.66

Is lens A better than lens B? Not necessary if you are shooting landscape which can benefit from a sharper edge... Also bear in mind that this is just one parameter out of many in a selection process. If it's this simple then everyone should also buy their car based strictly on the 0 to 60 acceleration time, or the mileage right?

Like I've noted before, take two lenses and peek through them side by side with a white paper... you might be surprised by their optical difference in color sometime! :P
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2004, 2:48 PM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 332

.......I thought histograms were hard to understand.....but I get it now, NHL! THX for taking the time to make me a little more informed, I appreciate your postings, as usual.
fporch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 1:13 PM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748


Excellent, interesting, and informative post

Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2004, 8:47 AM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239

It is my understanding that this lens is a 2-touch. For that reason I would stay away form it. Plus the price. I would say to buy the lens it is about to replace - the 35-350mm L -no IS, but with a Lens that Big, I would DEFINATELY want to use a tripod! Also saw the 2 New Canon lenses on www.luminous-landscape.com & Mr. Reichman said that they are too slow. Of course, he owns all of these Big Fast, 'L' lenses.
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2004, 7:00 AM   #15
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 32

I am going to be a bit less accurate than NHL, but in (subjective) testing of the 28-200 USM and the Tamron XR, even the non-L 28-200 was considerably sharper when shot with the same camera, same exposure, same subject than the XR was.

That is why I went for the Canon version of the 28-200. I imagine because the 28-300 is an L that it will be an even bigger difference.

I personally found the Tamron 28-300 to really lack in sharpness after 200mm. I hope the Canon fairs better.

BTW according to the picture here at Canon's site, it definitely looks like a push-pull.
Polaris20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27, 2004, 9:40 PM   #16
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2

Interesting to read the discussion and all the guess work... I had today the chance to test Canon 28-300 IS, and unfortunately it was a dissapointment. It's not a bad lens, but definitely not worth its price (in my opinion). I had waited it since it was published, but based on a short test decided immediately that I will not buy it. The quality does not match with Canon 100-400 IS (~$1500) and not even with Canon 28-135 IS, which is not L series lens, but a reltively cheap "basic" zoom. Both the contrast and sharpness are visiblybetterin those lenses than in the28-300. Too bad - in some situations I would have preferred a 3.7 lb lens instead of my current 30 pound backback...
Arto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2004, 9:03 AM   #17
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1


what camera did you test the 28-300 IS lense with and can you post some shots what you took.

i have and been using 35-350 for long time shooting Motorsports (http://www.photosbyjuha.com) and when i heard about 28-300 IS, i put my name on list to get and/or replace my 35-350 with this new lense. now camera store has it and i am ready to get it. BUT now you say as you have actually tested you do not like quality of shots.

appreciate show why you did not like quality, what lense did you compare the 28-300 IS shots to?

Juha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2004, 1:27 AM   #18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 239

There is a review on the 28-300mm L IS Zoom at:


I just found it earlier tonite & from what I read, I would NOT own it (If I had the $$$$)
Railfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2004, 9:20 PM   #19
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4

I bought the 28-300 L IS to replace a 35-300 I just sold. When I carry two cameras I use a 24-70 L and 100-400 L IS on each. Each is better than the 28-300 but not by much.

I have used the lens all day on a 1Ds and really don't notice the weight. After all we are supposed to exercise using arm weights. A tripod is not necessary at all even in low light, the IS does work.

I have some comparison shots at


You can see the lens compared to the 24-70L, Tamron 28-200 and 100-400 L. You can look at the EXIF data to see exact fstop but in general they are low and comparable. The lenses were on a tripod.

To compare the Canon to a Tamron or Sigma 28-300 is doing each a disservice. The Tamron and Sigma are both good multi-purpose zooms for making snapshots of 4x6 size and with the right fstop they can go to 8x10 reasonablely well. But they are not in the Canon's league.

Until the prints get above 11x17 there will be little or no difference in prints between the 100-400 L and the 28-300 L IS. Is the price high, probably yes, but, the conveinence factor is totally high. I hate changing lenses in the field because of the dirt getting in. It is one lens that can handle a large variety of shooting to negate the lens changing. One lens for all day is nice regardless of the weight.

The push pull design is totally natural, a bit like working a pump shotgun. Let the tripod mount rest in your palm and use your fingers to push or pull, it is very smooth.

Usually those that don't like the lens don't have one. LL aside it is a worthy lens that can do a lot and the IS works just as advertised.

If you want total sharpness - go with primes. If you want total conveinence with very little compromise - go with a zoom. The 28-300 L IS is a very good zoom lens.

Ben Lanterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2004, 3:03 PM   #20
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2


Sorry about the delay. I was unfortunately too busy for a while to read the forum, and for some reason the email notification of your question did not come to my email box. Just in case, you can send me alsoa direct email to [email protected](myƶs suomeksi :-)

I used Canon 10D for testing, and compared the results to my Canon EOS 28-135 IS (about $500 in USA) and 100-400 IS (about $1500). Canon 28-300 costs here about $2500. As said, Canon's 28-300 is definetily not a bad lens; it is an excellent zoom if you look at the zoom range. But for me it is simply not worth its price. I was expecting that it should be better or at least on the same level with 28-135, but unfortunately it is not (based on my brief test). Both sharpness and contrast were better in my 28-135, and even more so with 100-400.

I was really looking for the 28-300, and I was queuing for it from Canon's announcement in January; I would have loved to have a lens which covers so wide zoom range. In many situations you simply don't have the time to change the lens and hiking with a little less weight would also be nice on Californian mountains. But I am not willing to invest that much to a lens which is not perfect, and really not adding anything else than the wide range compared to my current lenses. If I had unlimited budget or if the price tag would have been under $1500 probably I wouldhave bought the lens :-)

I have attached an image where I collected some of my tests. Unfortunately I had to crop and compress it a lot to fit in the site limitations, but I think that you can still see the difference. It is small, but enough for me to decide not to buy the lens.
Attached Images
Arto is offline   Reply With Quote

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 3:24 AM.