L series upgrade -- any thoughts?

[photog1107]

I have owned the old Canon 75-300 IS lens for many years and lately began to feel that the performance was less than stellar beyond 200 mm. So about 6 months ago I purchased the new version, 70-300 IS USM thinking that I'd see a remarkable difference. After many months of use, my assessment is that I am not seeing much difference in cloudiness, aberration, and overall crispness at the longer focal lengths. It's great up to about 200 mm, but not beyond.

SO.... my question is, does anyone have any experience with comparing the 75-300 IS USM with its new L-series twin? I am giving serious thought as to whether the additional $1000 will be what it takes to get clear crisp images all the way to 300mm. (And yes, I am really just talking about lens performance here rather than factors that have more to do with user skill/technique.) Thanks!

[OsmosisStudios]

If you didn't see a difference between the older 75-300 and the 70-300 IS, you definitely wont see a difference between the 70-300 IS and the 70-300 L. There's a MASSIVE difference between the first two, and if you cant see it...

[photog1107]

So there is a MASSIVE difference between an older and newer version of basically the same midrange lens but no difference when you upgrade to the L series? That just doesn't make sense.

And yes, with the two lenses I own, there were STILL some abberrations at the longest focal lengths of both of the mid-range lenses, even in the newer one, especially between 250 and 300 mm.

[photog1107]

Just to be sure I am making myself clear: i currently own the older 75-300 AND the newer 70-300 mm--both 4-5.6 with IS. (I think i mispoke earlier as to which one was the older model). And I am looking for quality comparisons for anyone who has upgraded from the mid-range model to the 70-300 4-5.6 IS L series.

Thanks.

[OsmosisStudios]

75-300.

70-300 IS.

There is no 75-300 IS.

There is a HUGE difference between the two lenses listed. The difference between the second linked here and the 70-300 L IS is substantial, but not as great of a shift than between the first two linked.

If you dont see a difference between the two first, you definitely wont see a difference between the second two.

It's like if you had a difference of "10" between the 75-300 non IS and the 70-300 IS and an "8" between the 70-300 IS and the 70-300 L IS

[photog1107]

Not to be stubborn here, but I need to make one point clear.

The 75-300 lens I own, purchased about 5-6 years ago, most certainly DOES have image stabilization and was a $600 lens at the time. It is a 75-300 USM 4-5.6 IS. Canon does not make this lens anymore and has replaced it with the 70-300 USM 4-5.6 IS, priced comparably between $500-$600. I own both these comparable lenses--both of which have shown quality limitations near 300 mm.

In either case, and not to get hung up on that earlier point, I am still perplexed why you would not think that the L series for the same range would not have superior optics to the midrange. Isn't that what you get for the money when you move up to the pro series?

[ceremus]

When comparing the 75-300 IS to the 70-300 IS USM, were the shots at long lengths with wide open apertures? (f/5.6 for those). Most consumer tele's like this benefit quite a bit in sharpness from narrowing down a full stop from wide open, especially at the longer lengths.

That said, I'm not sure about the quality of the discontinued 75-300 IS as it's harder to find review samples for it that compare directly to the new stock. Although it's reportedly about the same optical quality as the current Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, which is a poor lens indeed.

If I'm carrying over this link correctly... Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens Image Quality
That should be an image from the 75-300 III @300mm f/8, and if you hover over the image it should switch to the test sample from the 70-300mm IS USM at the same aperture and focal length. Neither lens is particularly great on their longest end, but while the center sharpness on the 70-300 is fairly OK to mediocre, the 75-300 is just truly terrible. Soft and with an excessive amount of CA (color fringing) at all focal lengths. Again, not sure how equally the discontinued model compares to the current stock, but if it's similar the 70-300 IS USM should give at least some improvement.

Now, if you run that same comparison applet to the 70-300 IS USM vs the 70-300 L lens you should see another marked and noticeable improvement. Especially when you pull up to 300mm, there's just no comparison. Even wide open @f/5.6 the L lens has very nice center sharpness, and the borders/corners are quite respectable. And still, even when stopped down to f/8 and f/11, the USM lens can't compete with the L's wide-open aperture results.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens Image Quality

[photog1107]

Wow, thanks for that very helpful link. It gives me exactly the info I was looking for.

If anyone else has hands on experience with both the non-L and the L version of the 70-300, I'd still appreciate the input, but it looks like an obvious upgrade in terms of quality.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by photog1107

Not to be stubborn here, but I need to make one point clear.

The 75-300 lens I own, purchased about 5-6 years ago, most certainly DOES have image stabilization and was a $600 lens at the time. It is a 75-300 USM 4-5.6 IS. Canon does not make this lens anymore and has replaced it with the 70-300 USM 4-5.6 IS, priced comparably between $500-$600. I own both these comparable lenses--both of which have shown quality limitations near 300 mm.

In either case, and not to get hung up on that earlier point, I am still perplexed why you would not think that the L series for the same range would not have superior optics to the midrange. Isn't that what you get for the money when you move up to the pro series?

You'll forgive me: The 75-300 IS isn't something that's seen often. I assumed wrong, and I apologize. That being said:

There are 3 MAIN lenses that Canon currently have in that range. The 75-300 non-IS, the 70-300 IS, and the 70-300 L IS. The 75-300 non-IS isn't a very good lens, and there are seriously drastic differences between it and the midrange 70-300 IS. There are also some differences between the 70-300 IS and the 70-300 L IS. However, the differences between the 70-300 L and the 70-300 IS are NOT AS DRASTIC as the differences between the 70-300 IS and 75-300 non-IS. That was my point. There are still differences, just not as big.

I dont know where the 75-300 IS fits in there, but from what I've been able to tell, its similar to the 70-300 IS optically, which would explain why there are few/no differences in image quality, as you've experienced. You *will* see differences between your current lens(es) and the 70-300 L IS, but they wont be as drastic as you're expecting.

What focal length are you using the most? The 70-200? 200-300+? Are you looking for better 300mm performance, or better 300+mm performance? If so, you might be better off with different lenses (yes, plural) altogether.

[photog1107]

No problem--I figured we were talking about two different things.

I am using this zoom mainly for daytime sports, so the 70-300 range is perfect, but I constantly have to pull back from shooting beyond 200-250 because I know the results won't be as good as at 200mm or below. I can live with this if need be, and just shoot mid-range distances, but if I felt the L series offered superior optics and clarity at the 250-300 distance, I might be tempted to invest in it. I currently own the 70-200 2.8L IS, so I have experienced firsthand the difference ... I was simply wondering if anyone else on DPS had made a similar upgrade and if so, whether they felt the difference was worth the outlay.

Thanks.