Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Which Canon long zoom for a D350?
Ok, found a review for the 90-300:

Basically sez under 200mm, sweet spot is f/5.6 and above that, you gotta go f/8. Cheap and fast focusing though.
Hey ST, I was gonna post that link! grrr.. Wink

It seems like a fairly good, balanced, impartial review of that lens. And it does seem like a good alternative to the 75-300, especially if you already have other lenses that cover most of the wide-angle end. Nobody fits a 75-300 lens on their camera to take photos at the 75 end do they?... the only reason they use the 75 end is because they can't be bothered switching to one of their wider lenses Wink
I don't think is was a suprise that Canon sacrificed a bit of the wide-end to make the tele-end sharper, as that seems to be the biggest gripe with the 75-300.

Incedently, here is a link to a bunch of sample photos taken with different Canon lenses for review purposes... might be handy for comparisons.

Just going back to the 70-400 L f/4 topic.. the sample pics in that gallery above from that lens are amazing. The sharpness in the eyes of that little girl with the white top is actually a little disturbing, as it looks like her gaze would cut right through me! (think "laser beam eyes!") Also that pink lily is breathtaking too. Shame they can't be viewed at 100%.

There is also a new 350D samples gallery on the Canon japan website (where the pics CAN be viewed at 100%).. and with each sample photo they tell you the lens they used and list all the exif data.
edit: I just noticed ST that you posted this link about a week ago! doh!

The 90-300 (or 70-200L) don't get a mention, but the 50mm f1.8 and the EF-S 18-55m kit lens both do, in images 5 and 2 respectively. I was particularly impressed with the kit lens effort.
But my favourite is that first photo of the bride leaning against the wall, taken with the 50mm f1.4. I was stunned (and the image isn't bad either! hahaha).. I was a bit disappointed in the amount of noise in the shadows though (taken at ISO 200), but it cleans up easily and wouldn't be visible on paper in 99% of circumstances.
I wonder why it wasn't shot at ISO 100? It could have had the aperture opened up a stop to compensate for the lower ISO and might have looked better with the shallower DOF as well (as long as there was enough DOF to get the bride in).

Adrian Broughton
My Website:
My Blog:
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Hey I found a list of lens recommendations here for Canon users:

Hm.. I don't see the 70-200, 80-200 's, or even the 75-300 's mentioned though. Maybe they're not telephoto enough. Big Grin
Hey that's interesting ST...

But he does say specifically at the start of the page "I'll define "telephoto" as a lens of over 300mm in focal length".

Bob Atkins has another article on general Lens recommendations for the 10D and 300D that specifically points out both the 70-200 and 75-300's as highly recommended, so he does appear to hold these lenses in high regard, for what that may be worth.

Adrian Broughton
My Website:
My Blog:
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Gaargh! Good point, should have read it more thoroughly. Big Grin

Hey great find with that 2nd article...
I like the lens combo recommendations down the bottom. I would have liked to see more alternative lenses as well though.
Hey guys,

Just following up on this thread.
My 70-200 f/4L USM arrived today and I went to a local lake to have a play around sunset. Right beside the lake is an old cement factory, so following on from my abandoned buildings theme of the weekend (see and also I decided to investigate and take a few shots.

My initial thoughts are quite positive. The lens itself seems absolutely fine and everything I'd expect. My only niggle is that perhaps the USM motor is just as noisy as the micro-motor on my kit lens, but I don't particularly care about that as I won't be using this lens to sneak up on anything where that amount of noise will bother it.
It wasn't as heavy as I was expecting which is good, and was about the same size as I'd imagined. It doesn't seem to dwarf the camera too much, but the white lens on the silver body isn't particularly appealing to me.

[Image: 350D_70-200.jpg]

It came with a soft case and a lens hood, but no tripod mount (optional). When mounted on my (cheap and nasty) tripod it didn't seem to unbalance it or want to tip forward or do anything that would make me think the tripod mount is an essential extra. But maybe time will tell.
With the lens hood attached, it starts to look big on the poor little 350D.

[Image: 350D_70-200_Hood.jpg]

I also have an Olympus 1.7x Teleconvertor that I bought for my C750, that screws onto the front of this lens with the help of a step-down ring. Although clearly not built to the same standards as the Canon L lens, this might come in handy occassionally when I *really* need the extra reach and am prepared to sacrifice some image quality to get it. My initial tests seem to show it holds up better than I expected.

[Image: 350D_70-200_Oly1.7TC.jpg]

ok, so how does it perform? Well, considering I'm using it on a camera I've only owned for a few days and have only the kit lens to compare it to, I think it is too early to tell beyond initial impressions.

The lens itself seems great. I have some amazingly sharp shots, there seems to be no CA, the bokeh is lovely, wonderful colours, no flare I could see, it focuses fast and decisively and is a joy to use. I can't comment on barrel distorion or anything as I didn't test that, and the only time I noticed any vignetting is when I had a step-down ring attached with some filters on it (which is to be expected putting 55mm filters in front of a 67mm lens).


When I looked at the images at 100%, it really seemed to highlight my poor technique! Sad
I got some *really* sharp shots which show just what the lens is capable of, but many others that I would normally "get away with" were not as sharp.
Admittedly I was shooting in failing light at sunset and was pushing the limits of hand-held stability when I had a polariser attached and wanted to stay at ISO 100 or 200... But still this lens is not at all forgiving when it comes to camera shake.
I guess I shouldn't blame the lens for this at all (thats why they invented IS), but rather my dodgy technique was probably previously masked by the poorer optics of my C750 and to a lesser extent the 350D kit lens. Now the lens is sharper than my hands, so it makes me look bad. It was a bit frustrating.

So it seems that I am now the "weakest link" in getting a nice sharp shot at sunset, which is a good thing I guess. I can no longer blame my gear (except my tripod!), and It will force me to improve my technique and think harder about getting the shot.

Here is a 100% crop of a photo I took today of a light plane flying overhead (400 ISO with a fast shutter speed so it was sharp).

[Image: LittleRush_0012_100percent.jpg]

Below are some other images I took around the cement factory and Little Rush lake. The last 2 shots were taken using the kit lens instead of the 70-200, but I thought I'd include them anyway. Of course at these resolutions they all look lovely and sharp (and these ones pretty much all were). Also I must confess to cheating - I photoshopped the moon into the photo with the silo and birds, and then had to photoshop it into the other silo photo to give it some consistency!

[Image: LittleRush_0002_640.jpg]

[Image: LittleRush_0010_640.jpg]

[Image: LittleRush_0009_640.jpg]

[Image: LittleRush_0003_640.jpg]

[Image: LittleRush_0004_640.jpg]
Adrian Broughton
My Website:
My Blog:
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Niiiiice! Big Grin

I love your shots!

Lens looks great too, though I think you need to get used to it. Big Grin
Thanks for the encouragement ST,

Yeah I think you're right about needing to get used to it.

Another thing I realised last night was that zoome to 200mm and focused close, f/4 gives hardly any depth of field. I took some photos of my cat and got knife-sharp focus on its nose, but its mouth and eyes (which were probably about 1cm "deeper") were beginning to get soft. I think it might have focused on the cat's whiskers which protrude slightly in front of its nose, but nonetheless I was amazed at such a shallow DOF at f/4. Its what I'd expect from f/2 or something. I'm so used to my Oly P&S where small sensors give big DOF and I can take shots at f/2.8 all day and still be annoyed at the background being too sharp.

So, that might be part of the cause of some of my soft images the other day. I was using f/4 a lot fully zoomed as the light was failing and I wanted to keep shutter speeds fast without cranking up the ISO. Its also inconvenient to accurately and quickly check the sharpness in-camera, so it wasn't until I got home that I could see that a number of images weren't what I was hoping for.

As you say, I think I just need to get used to it, and "un-learn" some of my P&S habits.

Adrian Broughton
My Website:
My Blog:
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Awesome shots, I am envious.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein
I went back down to the old South Fremantle Power Station this afternoon (see original photos here to give it another go. I felt like I couldn't get the most out of it on the weekend due to low light and only having the 17-55 with me, and I also wanted to have another play with the 70-200 to see if I could get my "hit rate" of sharp shots back to where it should be.

I was much happier this time. I think just being aware that a sharp lens requires a much tighter technique to get the most out of it accounts for most of the difference between today's effort and Monday's.... plus the fact there was a lot more light and I used a tripod for most shots also helped Wink
I won't bore you with more of the same images as last time (see link above to see what the building looks like from the outside), but here are two shots of the inside I really quite like. I deliberately blew the highlights in both shots to see how the lens would respond, in a hope to get that "drenched in light" feeling... and I was very pleased with how is came out. The first photo in particular seems to capture an atmosphere like a cathedral with light pouring through the windows, and the 2nd photo suffers basically no contrast loss or flare around the doorway which is clearly blown out and almost facing directly into the sun. The flare that is in both shots is deliberate (I exaggerated it quite a bit with RAW editing) and quite pleasing.
All shots were noticably sharper than Monday's effort, and the detai, contrast and colours are just gorgeous. I'm much happier with this lens now, and I'm finding that although it is ruthless when it comes to camera-shake, it does absolutely wonderful things with the light that comes through it.
I still need to hone my hand-held technique, but the rewards are there waiting for me Smile

[Image: 23_SthFreoPwr_0014_720.jpg]

[Image: SthFreoPwr_0013_720.jpg]
Adrian Broughton
My Website:
My Blog:
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Nice again.

Maybe you should consider investing in a monopod for your excursions, Kombi? Not quite as good as a tripod in terms of stability, but much better than handholding - especially in those dim conditions.
Kombisaurus Wrote:The lens itself seems great. I have some amazingly sharp shots, there seems to be no CA, the bokeh is lovely, wonderful colours, no flare I could see, it focuses fast and decisively and is a joy to use.

I agree!

Kombisaurus Wrote:it really seemed to highlight my poor technique! Sad

Ha ha - that was one of my first observations too - exacerbated by the fact that my only prior experience with a "long" lens was the 28-135 IS. That IS feature really covers up bad technique, but made transitioning to a non-IS lens more difficult.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Canon sx 50 autofocus RaulAlonso 0 30 Yesterday, 01:16
Last Post: RaulAlonso
  Which carry bag for Canon 400mm f2.8 Gandalf1953 11 5,099 Sep 8, 2018, 06:11
Last Post: Gleadly
  Canon 60d problem Wilf1954 20 9,150 Jun 25, 2017, 11:07
Last Post: EdMak

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Which Canon long zoom for a D350?00