Lens Limitations and Knowledge

[Hill Country Hack]

This is a small rant/kudos to myself. I have realized I have outgrown the 75-300 f4-5.6 the wife purchased with the camera. At the time neither of us were that much into photograpy. Just got the camera because the point and shoot just not cutting it anymore.

I have reached the limitations of the glass. It is very soft at full focal length. At first I thought the lack of sharpness was the idiot pushing the little black button that makes the camera go click. Now that I have improved my skills and know how, I have upgraded myself to buffoon, and consequently I have figured out it is the lens. It takes pretty decent captures at mid range and even the near end, but at the far end, forget it. I like doing landscapes/wildlife and this is not the lens for clean, sharp shots from a distance. I am mulling the possibility of obtaining an extender in the attempt to get the added reach at the better mid range focal point.

Getting glass good at 300mm is more scratch than I can jusify. I do not plan on doing this for a living or even an income supplement. It is just an front end expensive hobby. I have even looked at used glass, and still a bit too rich for my blood.

Any suggestions/tricks/skills I can use (besides getting closer to the subject) to get any improvement on the far end softness?

[Niresangwa]

Not really sure what to tell you, except that putting a teleconverter on there, well, you're just putting another piece of glass between the sensor and the shot, so you may end up with no improvement at all, and perhaps a decrease in performance as well as being out of pocket.

Maybe if you give a rough budget, and information on your platform, people can give you a more accurate solution?

[Hill Country Hack]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

Not really sure what to tell you, except that putting a teleconverter on there, well, you're just putting another piece of glass between the sensor and the shot, so you may end up with no improvement at all, and perhaps a decrease in performance as well as being out of pocket.

Maybe if you give a rough budget, and information on your platform, people can give you a more accurate solution?

Duh! See I told you I am a buffon. I am currently shooting with a Canon Rebel XS with the primary lens being the standard kit lens (17-35 4.0 I think) and the Canon 75-300 4.5 without IS, but with AF. As for budget, I'm willing to spend up to $700 or so, not the $1200+ for what I should get to get the shots I want to take.

I dare not attempt captures with the longer lens at full focal length without using a tripod and turning off the AF. I have a good handle on the shorter lens as far as image quality, focus, composition. I'm still working on exposure and have recently started bracketting my shots.

[jdepould]

Take a look at the 70-200/4 Amazon.com: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Hill Country Hack

... I have reached the limitations of the glass. It is very soft at full focal length. At first I thought the lack of sharpness was the idiot pushing the little black button that makes the camera go click. Now that I have improved my skills and know how, I have upgraded myself to buffoon, and consequently I have figured out it is the lens. It takes pretty decent captures at mid range and even the near end, but at the far end, forget it. ...

Really?


Canon XT/350D. EF 75-300 III (non-IS/non-USM version).
@300mm. iso 1600. f/11. 1/1000s. handheld. SOOC jpeg. 100% crop attached.

Are you absolutely sure that you've sussed out the lens?

The 75-300 III is soft at the long end. You need a lot of light. You need a fast enough shutter speed that you aren't blurring from camera shake (typically 1/300s or faster). You need good handholding technique. AND YOU NEED TO STOP DOWN. At least to f/8. The lens sharpens up considerably between f/5.6 and f/8.

That doesn't mean you might not need a better lens. But the 75-300 III might not be as bad as you think. I admit it sucks mightily for the fast action. That putting a 1.4x tc on it made the AF so slow that I could manually focus faster. And also made it even softer. And that I eventually upgraded to the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM for my birding shots. But that doesn't mean the 75-300 III a piece of junk for all things.

[gturner]

the 70-200 F4 non IS is BRILLIANT.
no really, it is the best $600 you can spend
I would take that over any of the 70-300 at the same price.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is the only other one I think you would consider
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens Review

[Hill Country Hack]

To Inkista-

Thanks for the encouragement and great shot of the bird! Maybe I do need to improve my techniques. I'll work with it some more. I have already been shooting at f8, but not that fast a shutter speed. I'll up the ISO to get to the 1/300 shutter speed and try some more at f5-f8. Out here in Texas this summer we have all the light you need.

[dvtldav]

In reply to what Inkista said you might want to upgrade your camera body to use the higher ISO which would let you shoot at a faster shutter speed, that is what was recommended to me at the local camera shop (I currently have the XSi). The other option is to look at refurbished glass from Canon as it has been gone over by qualified techs and factory tested.

Dave

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Hill Country Hack

Thanks for the encouragement and great shot of the bird! Maybe I do need to improve my techniques. I'll work with it some more. I have already been shooting at f8, but not that fast a shutter speed. I'll up the ISO to get to the 1/300 shutter speed and try some more at f5-f8.

Ok. this may be the problem.

Aperture settings are weird and non-intuitive. But a smaller aperture is set by using a LARGER f-number. Because f-numbers are ratios, in the way (kinda) that 1/8 is smaller than 1/2, f/8 is smaller than f/2.

The full-stop f-number scale from larger to smaller goes:

f/1.4-> f/2 -> f/2.8 -> f/4 -> f/5.6 -> f/8 -> f/11 -> f/16 -> f/22.

f/8 to me is the largest you want to go. I'd aim for something in the f/8-f/16 range. Going past f/22, diffraction effect might start to affect sharpness. When I shoot with a slower f/5.6 telephoto zoom, I'm nearly always at or above iso 400, and usually at 800 or 1600.

The rule of thumb for controlling camera shake blur (assuming good handholding technique) is to shoot at 1/focal_length or faster. Obviously, you may need something even faster to control subject motion blur, depending on how fast your subject is moving. But this is why I said 1/300s. 300mm lens -> 1/300s. At the 75mm end of the lens, you'd only need 1/75s, which is why you're probably doing better in the wide and middle range of the zoom. Longer the lens, faster the shutter speed you need. Now, don't get too hung up on the exact number. It's just a general experience thing. Some shooters need less, some need more. Some advocate throwing in your crop factor as well, some just double it. And, of course, there is a lower bound to this (mine is around 1/30s with a 50mm lens), and stabiliization (IS, tripod, monopod, resting the lens on a rail/wall) can change the game.

And it does assume you've got good steady handholding technique. Make sure that you're supporting the majority of the weight of the camera/lens combo on the palm of your left hand, with your thumb and forefinger away from you, and wrapped around the bottom of the lens. If your left hand is on top of your lens, all the weight is pretty awkwardly dangling off the fingers of your right hand/wrist, and it's much harder to hold things steady.

Out here in Texas this summer we have all the light you need.

Yup. And it's summer! I live in Southern California, so I know what you mean about having an excess of light, sometimes.

Good luck!

[Hill Country Hack]

Inkista-

Yes, I did have the apeture backwards. I'm still getting my head around it. I have to stop and think about it.

I do try my best with handholding technique, and I do use a tripod when shooting at the full 300mm. I've even gone to locking up the mirror and using the self timer to reduce the camera shake. It must be a lack of ability for now.

I'm attending my first photo club meeting tonight and hope to have some other questions answered. I do read all the tutorials offered here and have gained a lot of insight. I do have another resource. A brother in law was a big wheel Art Director in NYC from the 70's to the 90's and he is a master of composition. Not so much on the technical end since he did not shoot the images, but always gives outstanding feedback on the finished product.