Why you should buy quality glass.

[koffiejunkie]

Context, bwana, context. Being much better (in one aspect) than I expected from a £160 lens doesn't mean it's anything more than adequate.

 

[HJF]

The 28-300 was never the sharpest lens around - it made some extreme compromises for the extreme zoom range. That said I'm actually blown away by the difference between those two shots. It shouldn't be *that* bad. Try making another comparison shot - but be sure to have your camera on a tripod or lying on a table to eliminate motion blur, and manually focus too to eliminate focal blur.

Camera shake and focal blur are still the #1 cause of unsharp images! I've never seen someone comment on a photo saying, great photo, pity your lens wasn't sharp enough!

No real need since they were both shot in the same way.(IS off on the 24-105) I shot multiple shots with each lens and that's the best the 28-300 could manage.

If I remember I'll do another comparison next week when I have the lens again. Might compare it to a 24-70, 70-200, 50 F1.2, 85 F1.2 and 400 F2.8 just for poops and giggles.

 

[Moklet Kcuf]

Not so nice hey, what was your shutter speed?

Naturally sharpness between both lenses could never come close to equal comparison, and you've hit a telling example. The nature of extreme zoom lenses inherently makes them soft, I ditched any such lenses years ago, including a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM which left me very unimpressed after only 2 weeks.
They can be handy for a travel lens, but sharp hi res results will always be a challenge...

 

[HJF]

Not so nice hey, what was your shutter speed?

Naturally sharpness between both lenses could never come close to equal comparison, and you've hit a telling example. The nature of extreme zoom lenses inherently makes them soft, I ditched any such lenses years ago, including a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM which left me very unimpressed after only 2 weeks.
They can be handy for a travel lens, but sharp hi res results will always be a challenge...

Shutterspeed was 1/100sec.

I have actually always been curious about the 100-400 L. The range is awesome and if the image quality is decent I would probably try adn get one.... then again it is a dust pump

I wonder if I can get my hands on a Canon 28-300L to compare to the Sigma. That would be the perfect comparison.

 

[froot]

Shutterspeed was 1/100sec.

I have actually always been curious about the 100-400 L. The range is awesome and if the image quality is decent I would probably try adn get one.... then again it is a dust pump

I wonder if I can get my hands on a Canon 28-300L to compare to the Sigma. That would be the perfect comparison.

I have a 100-400L (yes, the pump action is really annoying, would be nice if it could be like the 70-200L's twist action) and it's simply an awesome lens. I don't find it all that soft. Using it with a 1.4x too, btw.

 

[Moklet Kcuf]

I have a 100-400L (yes, the pump action is really annoying, would be nice if it could be like the 70-200L's twist action) and it's simply an awesome lens. I don't find it all that soft. Using it with a 1.4x too, btw.

Sure, i should reneg somewhat, its by no means a BAD lens, and there are certainly more extreme zooms I should have referred to. Plus has it's real advantages for certain sports and wildlife situations. But compared to my fixed focal lenses, esp my 300mm 2.8, it's limitations do creep in.
Bang for the buck, I can't dispute that either.

 

[bwana]

I have a 100-400L (yes, the pump action is really annoying, would be nice if it could be like the 70-200L's twist action) and it's simply an awesome lens. I don't find it all that soft. Using it with a 1.4x too, btw.

The 100-400 is one lens I have no desire to own - give me a new 70-200 f/2.8 II and I'll make up for the range with a set of TCs.

 

[froot]

Sure, i should reneg somewhat, its by no means a BAD lens, and there are certainly more extreme zooms I should have referred to. Plus has it's real advantages for certain sports and wildlife situations. But compared to my fixed focal lenses, esp my 300mm 2.8, it's limitations do creep in.
Bang for the buck, I can't dispute that either.

Okay yeah, the 300mm f/2.8 fixed is a real sweet one. But then again those two lenses are worlds apart in probably every aspect.
If you want to throw away that 300mm let me know

 

[froot]

The 100-400 is one lens I have no desire to own - give me a new 70-200 f/2.8 II and I'll make up for the range with a set of TCs.

It does have it's downsides, but for the purpose of wildlife it is probably quite a perfect lens. One could probably also just take the 28-300m f/2.8 and throw on the 2x TeleConverter and (possibly) end up with a better lens... one without the pump action. I do though mostly leave the zoom locked to 400mm.

On a side note, I think anyone would be silly not to want the 70-200 f/2.8

 

[bwana]

On a side note, I think anyone would be silly not to want the 70-200 f/2.8

I know I want one. I've got my sights set on a 400 f/2.8 next for the cricket, after that comes the new 70-200.

 

[froot]

I know I want one. I've got my sights set on a 400 f/2.8 next for the cricket, after that comes the new 70-200.

Hmm yeah. I'm also keen on trying out the lens at the cricket. Just as long as the grass isn't wet (we had 100mm in under 12h so I'm suprised they even played today).

Back on topic, well almost..... I bought the 430 Speedlite EX today. Wanted the 580 but can't justify the cash for that (decided to maybe save up for a short L-lens maybe). Wow, it's simply amazing.

 

[Moklet Kcuf]

It does have it's downsides, but for the purpose of wildlife it is probably quite a perfect lens. One could probably also just take the 28-300m f/2.8 and throw on the 2x TeleConverter and (possibly) end up with a better lens... one without the pump action. I do though mostly leave the zoom locked to 400mm.

On a side note, I think anyone would be silly not to want the 70-200 f/2.8

Yes it's possible and it may pull you out of a tight spot but your compromising double-fold

 

[froot]

Yes it's possible and it may pull you out of a tight spot but your compromising double-fold

But then again just get close enough to the lion and you can just use the 16-35mm f/2.8

 

[koffiejunkie]

On a side note, I think anyone would be silly not to want the 70-200 f/2.8

You can say that again.

 

[bwana]

It does have it's downsides, but for the purpose of wildlife it is probably quite a perfect lens. One could probably also just take the 28-300m f/2.8 and throw on the 2x TeleConverter and (possibly) end up with a better lens... one without the pump action. I do though mostly leave the zoom locked to 400mm.

On a side note, I think anyone would be silly not to want the 70-200 f/2.8

That's sure to be an impressive lens . . . too bad it doesnt exist.

For an idea of just how good the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II is with the 2xTC have a look at these http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2010/11/13/canon-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-ii-2x-ii-teleconverter-report/

 

[froot]

That's sure to be an impressive lens . . . too bad it doesnt exist.

For an idea of just how good the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II is with the 2xTC have a look at these http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2010/11/13/canon-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-ii-2x-ii-teleconverter-report/

One word. Or actually a few.
I want one!


Oops @ the f/2.8......

f/3.5 -5.6 L

 

[bwana]

One word. Or actually a few.
I want one!


Oops @ the f/2.8......

People like to dismiss the 2xTC out of hand but as far as I'm concerned it's well worth the price.

EDIT: speaking of the 2x TC here's a shot I took the other day. Shot in jpg (hey, I was working ok ) with just a bit of cropping but nothing else.

 

[BigAl-sa]

Nice action crop there Bwana!

 

[bwana]

Nice action crop there Bwana!

Thanks - it wasn't a particularly tight crop. 600mm is a nice focal length me thinks.

 

[Yogotta B. Kidding]

bwana, is that a 300 + 2TC to make the 600mm?