how "bad" really are Canon "consumer-grade" zoom tele lenses?

Many of Canon's non-L grade zoom tele lenses, sometimes called consumer
lenses, get poor ratings in most of the lens reviews I've looked at. They
are especially poorly rated at their longer focal length end (e.g. the 300mm
end of the 75-300mm zoom). Ratings include statements at the long end
include "soft", loss of contrast, & sometimes CA and flare are mentioned.
Negative ratings are also often ascribed to their build quality.

My questions a

1- how severe these factors "really" are for moderately serious amateur use
as opposed to professional use or cases of extreme enlargements (I plan to
print at 11x14 inches or so, and am shooting with a Canon D60), and to what
extent can these "flaws" be compensated for in Photoshop? FWIW, my
photographic domain is mostly nature photography, but not small distant
animals.

2-how concerned does an amateur need be about build quality?

Thanks for any perspectives here. Yes, I know I should probably just get L
lenses, but they can break the budget, even used.

Mike

less bad than Nikkor lens are. Go for Tamron or Sigma if you dont like your
Canon "consumer-grade" zoom.

Many of Canon's non-L grade zoom tele lenses, sometimes called consumer
lenses, get poor ratings in most of the lens reviews I've looked at. They
are especially poorly rated at their longer focal length end (e.g. the
300mm
end of the 75-300mm zoom). Ratings include statements at the long end
include "soft", loss of contrast, & sometimes CA and flare are mentioned.
Negative ratings are also often ascribed to their build quality.

It's very tough to find truly objective, non-biased lens reviews. I'd say
that at least 3/4 of the lens reviews that I read fall into one of a few
categories:

1. It costs less than a few thousand dollars, it can't be worth anything.
2. It's from brand (X), it can't be worth anything.
3. I found a shortcoming or two, it can't be worth anything.

What so many people fail to realize is that lens design is about
compromises - you simply cannot design and build a lens that is perfect in
every aspect. Whether you're talking about Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, or
any other lens manufacturer, you'll find that they've made lenses designed
with certain goals in mind that would disappoint someone with different
objectives.

Many reviewers also fail to take into account the fact that normal people
don't have 4-, 5-, or 6-figure budgets for lenses. I've seen a lot of
reviewers make the assertion that if you can't drop at least three grand on
a lens, you shouldn't bother with *any* lens, or trying to take the picture
at all. That's just rubbish. Between getting a modest picture with a $300
lens and getting no picture at all, I'd *usually* rather get the modest
picture. If you don't play the game, you can't win.

I'd strongly suggest "The Lens Book" from Hicks and Schultz, ISBN
0715301497. It doesn't appear to be in print, but you can either pick one
up used, or even get it from the library. It'll help you understand quite a
bit about different aspects of a lens, and picking a lens that meets your
needs. It covers all of the questions you've put forth in good detail, and
a whole lot more that haven't even occured to you yet. : )

steve

"mike nelson" wrote in message
m...
Many of Canon's non-L grade zoom tele lenses, sometimes called consumer
lenses, get poor ratings in most of the lens reviews I've looked at. They
are especially poorly rated at their longer focal length end (e.g. the
300mm end of the 75-300mm zoom). Ratings include statements at the long
end include "soft", loss of contrast, & sometimes CA and flare are
mentioned. Negative ratings are also often ascribed to their build
quality.

Here is a shot taken with a Canon 75-300 IS at full zoom.
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg

Tests are one thing; real photography is another. Beware of the lens snobs.

The build quality of this lens is fine; given its cost.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:03:22 -0500, "Charles Schuler"
wrote:


"mike nelson" wrote in message
om...
Many of Canon's non-L grade zoom tele lenses, sometimes called consumer
lenses, get poor ratings in most of the lens reviews I've looked at. They
are especially poorly rated at their longer focal length end (e.g. the
300mm end of the 75-300mm zoom). Ratings include statements at the long
end include "soft", loss of contrast, & sometimes CA and flare are
mentioned. Negative ratings are also often ascribed to their build
quality.

Here is a shot taken with a Canon 75-300 IS at full zoom.
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg

Tests are one thing; real photography is another. Beware of the lens snobs.

The build quality of this lens is fine; given its cost.


Nice claws! However, only MTF or interferometer tests will truly show
how a lens compares to it's competitors.
-Rich

Steve Wolfe wrote:
Many of Canon's non-L grade zoom tele lenses, sometimes called
consumer lenses, get poor ratings in most of the lens reviews I've
looked at. They are especially poorly rated at their longer focal
length end (e.g. the 300mm end of the 75-300mm zoom). Ratings
include statements at the long end include "soft", loss of contrast,
& sometimes CA and flare are mentioned. Negative ratings are also
often ascribed to their build quality.

snip

Between
getting a modest picture with a $300 lens and getting no picture at
all, I'd *usually* rather get the modest picture. If you don't play
the game, you can't win.

I'd strongly suggest "The Lens Book" from Hicks and Schultz, ISBN
0715301497. It doesn't appear to be in print, but you can either
pick one up used, or even get it from the library. It'll help you
understand quite a bit about different aspects of a lens, and picking
a lens that meets your needs. It covers all of the questions you've
put forth in good detail, and a whole lot more that haven't even
occured to you yet. : )


Let's say the five-year-old 75-300 is actually soft when it reaches way
out there to 300mm; let's say technological advances have taught the
makers how to correct that deficit. Is it likely that the location of
the necessary fix is accessible so a practical "upgrade" could be
applied? If not to existing lenses, to those produced subsequent to the
discovery?

I suppose the scale of production, numbers and costs-wise won't justify
"slipstreaming" improvements. Or maybe this is going on all the time. If
it isn't, does that mean the manufacturers continue to foist their
mistakes on the consumer?

Can anyone think of instances of such behavior by the majors?

--
Frank ess

mike nelson wrote:

Many of Canon's non-L grade zoom tele lenses, sometimes called consumer
lenses, get poor ratings in most of the lens reviews I've looked at. They
are especially poorly rated at their longer focal length end (e.g. the 300mm
end of the 75-300mm zoom). Ratings include statements at the long end
include "soft", loss of contrast, & sometimes CA and flare are mentioned.
Negative ratings are also often ascribed to their build quality.

My questions a

1- how severe these factors "really" are for moderately serious amateur use
as opposed to professional use or cases of extreme enlargements (I plan to
print at 11x14 inches or so, and am shooting with a Canon D60), and to what
extent can these "flaws" be compensated for in Photoshop? FWIW, my
photographic domain is mostly nature photography, but not small distant
animals.

Speaking directly to the 75-300mm lens, regardless of manufacturer, these lenses
are all 'good to very good' from 75 to about 200mm (sharp, contrasty) and they
are pretty soft, not to mention slow, from about 200 to 300mm.

A good 'hint' about lens quality is the zoom ratio. Above 2.5:1 zoom ratio,
don't hold your breath on quality.

Given the crop factor of the Canon D60, I would consider both a long prime along
with a 1.4 TC to attain fairly good quality for nature shots rather than a
softish at the long end lens like a 75-300.

Think about, perhaps, the 200 f/2.8 and eventually add a 1.TC.

Or maybe the 100-300 in lieu of the 75-300.

You cannot correct for lack of lens sharpness (or poor focusing) in photoshop.
You can enhance the photo using USM, but it won't recover for the 'blur' created
by the lens.

More generally speaking, a careful bit of shopping with the right inputs will
lead you to the better priced gems. Avoid high ratio zooms. Avoid what sounds
to good to be true. One exception for Canon: the 28-135 IS lens gives very good
performance for the price, from what I hear and some images that I've seen.

2-how concerned does an amateur need be about build quality?

The build quality should be appopriate to the use. If you will banging around
trails in all kinds of weather, a poorly built lens will not last long.

I use to have lovely, cheap Minolta lens that was sharp a tack, if a mite slow.
(70-210 var-app). It was well, if cheaply built. I would never consider using
it on a long trip in the woods, or in dusty areas. Sold it for a good price too.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Charles Schuler wrote:

"mike nelson" wrote in message
m...

Many of Canon's non-L grade zoom tele lenses, sometimes called consumer
lenses, get poor ratings in most of the lens reviews I've looked at. They
are especially poorly rated at their longer focal length end (e.g. the
300mm end of the 75-300mm zoom). Ratings include statements at the long
end include "soft", loss of contrast, & sometimes CA and flare are
mentioned. Negative ratings are also often ascribed to their build
quality.


Here is a shot taken with a Canon 75-300 IS at full zoom.
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1046.jpg

Tests are one thing; real photography is another.

Look at the eye. Looks like a blob.

Beware of the lens snobs.

Yeah, we keep telling the truth, damn us!




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Look at the eye. Looks like a blob.

Show me your shot or be quiet.

Charles Schuler wrote:
Look at the eye. Looks like a blob.


Show me your shot or be quiet.

/Derision/
Snort
/Derision-off/


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.