New (to me anyway) Lens...

Picked up 2 lens yesterday used.

Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EFS 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM

I have a week to decide whether to keep or not. My complaint about my Sigma 70-300 was that it was a bit soft at the 300 end. What do you think of these on the softness end?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2052/2355028214_524b2f5a10_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2040/2355028334_a0d1cc0778_o.jpg

Most 70-300 lenses are a bit soft on the long end, wide-open at f/5.6. For best sharpness you'll usually need to stop down a bit. My Nikon 70-300VR is about the same - decent at f/5.6 but better by f/8 at 300mm. It's good enough for me at f/5.6 though. The first one looks about typical but looks like it would liven right up with some sharpening added. The second one is soft only because it was shot at f/22. Most lenses on DSLRs start to get diffraction limited past about f/11, so I wouldn't stop down past that except if you're trying to do something very specific.

I was just curious if a tripod was used for either or these pictures? And, if not, would it add to the sharpness?

I think both are good and had to look real close to see what you were talking about, but I see it could be sharper. I am new at this so I am trying to pick up on what more experienced people see.

Crosby

I didn't use a tripod. I am trying to get a little bit less dependent on my tripod for clear photos. I am a relative noob myself, but I do think that a tripod gives you more flexibility for static shots with what you can set you shutter speed to, etc. I think these are fairly crisp for the circumstances (the more I look at them) and are definitely better than I was ever getting out of my old telephoto. I think that this lens (and the other) are keepers.

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#

Search

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll