300mm zoom

[ManualFocus-G]

I've looking for a sharp zoom with a range up to 300mm that doesn't exhibit CA, anyone got any ideas?

I was thinking either a Zoom-Nikkor 100-300/5.6 or Yashica ML 100-300/5.6. I love the Tamron SP 60-300/3.8-5.4 but it has CA up to f7.1.

Needs to fit my Canon 60D, thanks

[Boomer Depp]

If you don't mind using a tripod,on a crop sensor body...the Zoom-Nikkor ED 50-300mm f4.5 AI-S final version with the larger tripod collar and mount.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#MF50-300ED



Shot through a large glass picture window...one of my first test shots with the lens last month...hand held,should have been tripod mounted.


Once again shot through a picture window...hand held,probably would have been sharper mounted on a tripod.

[Nelson]

[ManualFocus-G]

Excellent, thanks Boomer

Nelson, I'm looking at something around the £100.00 mark I think. I already have the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS and I don't really rate it to be honest. It's quite soft wide open although the stabilisation is great and there's vwery little CA.

[Nelson]

[Boomer Depp]

I find it to be much sharper wide open then a zoom of this vintage should be...stopping down the lens it only gets incredibly sharper throughout the stops to about f11.

I looked for the past few years for a mint copy...found one in November...Bjørn Rørslett recommended the lens be shot at 50-285mm ...I've adhered to this and can report the lens does quite well,exceeding my expectations...it also performs well at 300mm,but with an occasional trace of color fringing...at shorter focal lengths to about 150mm I use the standard Nikon HK-5 hood,above this the longer Sonia 95mm telephoto hood.

My intention is to use the lens more this coming year...my only problem was I acquired four long FL lenses since last fall,which I'm trying to get to know intimately as well(and work has kept me from testing these lenses or posting here on mflenses as much as I would like),including the Nikkkor 400mm f5.6 ED non-IF, a good copy of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 IF-ED N,an outstanding copy of the non-IS Canon EF 300mm f4 L (this lens is so sharp,I'm afraid of cutting myself every time I mount it),a second excellent copy of the Nikkor 200mm f2 IF-ED N and for Christmas the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar and a mint copy of the Canon EF 28-70mm f2.8 L.

Been waiting for David to do his masterful writing with a more in depth review...but what he does say in this short review,I'm sure you'll find intriguing....he found his copy for quite a bargain and in excellent condition,but he's quite the dedicated lens hunter.
http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-news.html

[ManualFocus-G]

Many thanks for the linky, I'll have a read! My Canon 300/4L non-IS is the sharpest 300mm lens I've ever used, in fact it's the sharpest lens I've used over 135mm I reckon Works really well with the 1.4x teleconverter too.

Really after something a bit more versatile for longer trips though. The Canon 70-300mm will probably travel OK, and is very sharp at f8, I was just a bit disappointed at f5.6 where the old Tamron SP trampled all over it for sharpness.

[Boomer Depp]

Perhaps the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS should be in your AF arsenal someday....

[martinsmith99]

How about the new Canon 70-300 L zoom?

[ManualFocus-G]

I think I've gotten to picky since that 300/4L arrived The new 70-300mm L sounds very good, as does the new Tamron SP version.

We'll see! I think for now I'll keep trying some manual lenses

[aoleg]

[keyser1884]

Ok, if you're willing to accept that 250mm cropped will often get you better results than 300mm and that modern AF zoom lenses are often better than their MF counterparts... try the cheapo EF-S 55-250mm IS... here's a 250mm pic to compare with the Tamron 300mm above:

[Nelson]

[fatdeeman]

[Nelson]

the nikkor is a little too much expensive (for me )
http://www.leboncoin.fr/image_son/132567611.htm?ca=12_s

http://www.leboncoin.fr/image_son/163578039.htm?ca=12_s

[ManualFocus-G]

Wow, that cheap Canon looks incredible! I might trade my 70-300 in for it

Just did a quick test in the hall with a test chart from 9 metres and my CZ Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4 + Kenko 1.4x DGX 300 Pro teleconverter is actually sharper than the Canon at f5.6 The Canon has better CA control, but the any CA from the CZ is fully correctable in Adobe Raw

[keyser1884]

Actually, the problem with most of the X-300 zoom lenses is that they are often sharpest around 250mm. I think if you compared the 55-250 and the 70-300 at 250mm, they'd be equally as sharp.

With zoom lenses, you have to find the sweet spot... Canon did a good job with the "nifty two-fifty" at making the sweet spot the very longest focal length, something that they did backwards with the 75-300 (which is remarkably good at 75mm).

[Boomer Depp]

[Olivier]

[cooltouch]

[ManualFocus-G]

The Tammie SP is brilliantly sharp, but I've had two copies and they've both performed identically with regards CA. It's purple fringing that I cannot remove in PP. I wonder if it's a digital only thing? I've found most Tamron SP lenses to behave the same on DSLRS...I was particularly disappointed with the 70-210/3.5 which had some much CA, the whole image had a purple cast!

Here's an old test I did before:

http://forum.mflenses.com/300mm-ca-test-t29124.html

I'd like to crop images at that focal length, and that sort of fringing ruins bird shots, for example.

[cooltouch]

Very interesting. Thanks for that link. If you look closely at the 100% crop I provided, showing the CA, you can see that a goodly amount of it is the bluish-purple fringing like what you were getting with yours over in your link. And as you can also see, the s/w got rid of virtually all of it. But like you mention, it is a bit annoying to have to do this with just about every image.

It's been overcast all day today, so I haven't been able to take my 60-300 out and find any reflections to produce CA from with my DSLR. Maybe tomorrow. I've looked through the photos I've taken with my mf lenses and my DSLR and it looks like I haven't used my 60-300 much yet with that camera. So nothing in my archives that I can use for comparison either. I have an EF 75-300 that I usually use, which incidentally, isn't as good as that 55-250IS lens. And also which shows a lot more CA than my Tamron does. So why do I use it? Mostly laziness, I suppose.

BTW, speaking of the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4 SD I mentioned above, I just ran across one on eBay in Nikon mount for a surprisingly low BIN. So I just bought it. Couldn't pass it up at that price.

Click here to see on Ebay

Just goes to show ya, there's still deals to be had on eBay.

[ManualFocus-G]

Wow, great deal on that Tokina!!

I have seen the 80-200/2.8 in OM mount for £100.00 and was thinking about it...but it appears that also has quite severe fringing wide open.

As for the SP 60-300mm, I struggled with the CA. I found the only way to get rid of it was to reduce the blue/purple channel in the affected areas, but when shooting birds by the sea, this left grey fringing

Seriously thinking about the Zoom-Nikkor 100-300mm now

[Joosep]

Ive played around with all the Canon long boys.
(Have introduced Canon lenses in exhibitions).

My favourite is the 100-400 by far. In terms of sharpness it blew away all other zooms and competed quite nicely with L fixes. The focal lenght movement is so silky smooth and so easy to use.
If I take in notice, price, quality and comfort, then 100-400 L wins in my eyes.

This place pulls it together pretty nicely.

[gaeger]

Those Canon shots are really nice -- that is sharp.

I've owned the Nikkor 100-300mm, and the problem I found is that it is so long (and without a tripod collar) that it is hard to stabilize. I would also put in a plug for the Nikkor 50-300mm, the ED version as Boomer notes. I find it a joy to use for sports, and I love the way if treats skin tones.