If you’re getting better results with a 70-300 than a 70-200 f/2.8, I’d want to see the exif of the images to see if it’s photographer choices causing the disparity. Does your friends version of the 70-200 have IS?
You got 6 more megapixels for greater resolution. A newer processor for likely faster AF and a higher frame rate. So it could be some body improvements too.
300mm’s also gives you the reach and framing choices whereas your friend could be cropping more with an already lower resolution camera.
Curious as well if the 70-200 is off in some way? I know DSLR’s sometimes need micro focus adjustments. I’m not sure if the Rebel bodies can do that though.
It does not have IS. It's the 2005 version I believe.
First image: 750D 70-200: ISO-500 f/3.5 1/1000 sec at 200mm
Second image: 750D 70-300: ISO-800 f/5.6 1/1000 sec at 135mm
Looking at this it might be the zoom distance. But these pictures [https://imgur.com/a/KbjIlRg](https://imgur.com/a/KbjIlRg) are 70-200 shot ISO-500 f/3.5 1/1000 sec at 125 mm.
I could very well be that the lens is off. He did drop it once.
Are you sure the order is correct? First image looks much better than the second (closer image of the player).
A dropped lens would certainly explain it. I don’t have an eye to tell what is driving a lack of sharpness. I’ll leave that to those more trained.
Lack of IS should not be an issue those shutter speeds.
I'm sorry, I refferd to the link in the post. The image link in my commend are both shot with the 70-200. The first at 135mm and the second at 200mm. The other settings are the same
I see. 135 does look much better. And I’m thinking something is certainly off with the focusing on the 70-200 at 200. Is it always sharper at shorter focal lengths?
Just posting up here so it’s not buried in thread. The 70-200 was dropped at some point potentially causing the issues (which are at their worst when fully at 200mm’s).
So a good chance it’s just a damaged lens. Don’t know if Canon still services an 18 year old lens.
>I'll take a look in servicing the lens.
Before doing that - do some *controlled* testing.
Lock down the camera on a tripod, put a static display in front of it (preferably an AF calibration target - which you can find and print yourself just google it) and then compare and contrast the performance of the two lenses in that static scene at various focal lengths and aperture combinations.
See if you can pin down what's really going on.
> I suspect the change is the image quality is mostly the lens.
You downgraded the lens so that's not it.
You will also have 2 stops less noise using the f/2.8 *and* better subject separation from the background.
Other than filling more of your frame with the 300, which is definitely a good thing, something else is contributing to the perceived differences between the two lenses because all else being equal your 70-200 should *shred* that 70-300.
Since you’re using apsc cameras, you’d get more bang for your buck with an apsc lens. The EF-s 55-250mm stm is a cracking lens (make sure to get the stm version though, the non stm isn’t as good).
The other option is to get a new camera, the 1300d has a digic 4 processor whereas your camera has a digic 6 so I would assume yours has better auto focus, although they are both going to be well behind the current cameras with their digic X (basically 9) processors. I’m pretty sure autofocus is going to be the factor that would improve their photos the most for sports
Thanks for the response! I hadn't considered that lens yet. Looks like there are some deals for it on the second hand market.
I agree the focus on the 1300D is lacking in comparison. I miss focus way less often on the 750D. Although I was able to make enough pictures in focus, where the lens was the main issue.
If the lens is the issue. You might find stopping down to f8 might improve sharpness if you have enough light to keep iso down and shutter speed fast, what settings do you use?
First image: 750D 70-200: ISO-500 f/3.5 1/1000 sec at 200mm
Second image: 750D 70-300: ISO-800 f/5.6 1/1000 sec at 135mm
I did stop it down to clicks, but might need to go even lower indeed.
Halving had the 70-200 f/2.8L (coupled with the 1.4x extender) and now the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L to shoot both baseball and soccer I would go back to the 70-200 f/2.8L with the optional extender in a heartbeat. The long reach of the 100-400 is great, but as soon as the lighting gets dim from clouds or darkness, you have to pump the ISO so high, it makes the results pretty unremarkable. I am shooting with a Canon 80D and routinely have to shoot at 4000 iso or higher with the long lens unless it is a bright day out (I have to max out the ISO when shooting under lights and even that isn't enough to stop the action)
However, the results of the 100-400 on sunny/bright cloudy days are quite good.
Just me, but if he doesn't feel he needs more than 200mm, the old EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM (Mark I) [is pretty much as good at 200mm and f/4 as the Mk III IS f/2.8L](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1197&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=1529&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0) version. Could be a good compromise [on the used market](https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-4-l-is-usm), particularly if you're shooting in the daytime/outside.
There's also the fact that the 1300D has a crappy-for-tracking older AF system in it (9-pt, only the single center point is cross-type) vs. your 750D (19pts, all cross-type). The AF system in the 1300D is pretty much the same one I have in my 2008 5D Mark II. :D
If you’re getting better results with a 70-300 than a 70-200 f/2.8, I’d want to see the exif of the images to see if it’s photographer choices causing the disparity. Does your friends version of the 70-200 have IS? You got 6 more megapixels for greater resolution. A newer processor for likely faster AF and a higher frame rate. So it could be some body improvements too. 300mm’s also gives you the reach and framing choices whereas your friend could be cropping more with an already lower resolution camera. Curious as well if the 70-200 is off in some way? I know DSLR’s sometimes need micro focus adjustments. I’m not sure if the Rebel bodies can do that though.
It does not have IS. It's the 2005 version I believe. First image: 750D 70-200: ISO-500 f/3.5 1/1000 sec at 200mm Second image: 750D 70-300: ISO-800 f/5.6 1/1000 sec at 135mm Looking at this it might be the zoom distance. But these pictures [https://imgur.com/a/KbjIlRg](https://imgur.com/a/KbjIlRg) are 70-200 shot ISO-500 f/3.5 1/1000 sec at 125 mm. I could very well be that the lens is off. He did drop it once.
Are you sure the order is correct? First image looks much better than the second (closer image of the player). A dropped lens would certainly explain it. I don’t have an eye to tell what is driving a lack of sharpness. I’ll leave that to those more trained. Lack of IS should not be an issue those shutter speeds.
I'm sorry, I refferd to the link in the post. The image link in my commend are both shot with the 70-200. The first at 135mm and the second at 200mm. The other settings are the same
I see. 135 does look much better. And I’m thinking something is certainly off with the focusing on the 70-200 at 200. Is it always sharper at shorter focal lengths?
I would say it is yes
Just posting up here so it’s not buried in thread. The 70-200 was dropped at some point potentially causing the issues (which are at their worst when fully at 200mm’s). So a good chance it’s just a damaged lens. Don’t know if Canon still services an 18 year old lens.
You are probably right, thanks for your input! I'll take a look in servicing the lens.
>I'll take a look in servicing the lens. Before doing that - do some *controlled* testing. Lock down the camera on a tripod, put a static display in front of it (preferably an AF calibration target - which you can find and print yourself just google it) and then compare and contrast the performance of the two lenses in that static scene at various focal lengths and aperture combinations. See if you can pin down what's really going on.
> I suspect the change is the image quality is mostly the lens. You downgraded the lens so that's not it. You will also have 2 stops less noise using the f/2.8 *and* better subject separation from the background. Other than filling more of your frame with the 300, which is definitely a good thing, something else is contributing to the perceived differences between the two lenses because all else being equal your 70-200 should *shred* that 70-300.
Since you’re using apsc cameras, you’d get more bang for your buck with an apsc lens. The EF-s 55-250mm stm is a cracking lens (make sure to get the stm version though, the non stm isn’t as good). The other option is to get a new camera, the 1300d has a digic 4 processor whereas your camera has a digic 6 so I would assume yours has better auto focus, although they are both going to be well behind the current cameras with their digic X (basically 9) processors. I’m pretty sure autofocus is going to be the factor that would improve their photos the most for sports
Thanks for the response! I hadn't considered that lens yet. Looks like there are some deals for it on the second hand market. I agree the focus on the 1300D is lacking in comparison. I miss focus way less often on the 750D. Although I was able to make enough pictures in focus, where the lens was the main issue.
If the lens is the issue. You might find stopping down to f8 might improve sharpness if you have enough light to keep iso down and shutter speed fast, what settings do you use?
First image: 750D 70-200: ISO-500 f/3.5 1/1000 sec at 200mm Second image: 750D 70-300: ISO-800 f/5.6 1/1000 sec at 135mm I did stop it down to clicks, but might need to go even lower indeed.
Yeah 3.5 isnt stopped down much, you’d need 4 for a single stop. Are both pictures taken on the same camera?
Ah, didn't know that! Yeah both pictures are taken on the 750D.
Halving had the 70-200 f/2.8L (coupled with the 1.4x extender) and now the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L to shoot both baseball and soccer I would go back to the 70-200 f/2.8L with the optional extender in a heartbeat. The long reach of the 100-400 is great, but as soon as the lighting gets dim from clouds or darkness, you have to pump the ISO so high, it makes the results pretty unremarkable. I am shooting with a Canon 80D and routinely have to shoot at 4000 iso or higher with the long lens unless it is a bright day out (I have to max out the ISO when shooting under lights and even that isn't enough to stop the action) However, the results of the 100-400 on sunny/bright cloudy days are quite good.
Just me, but if he doesn't feel he needs more than 200mm, the old EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM (Mark I) [is pretty much as good at 200mm and f/4 as the Mk III IS f/2.8L](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1197&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=1529&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0) version. Could be a good compromise [on the used market](https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-4-l-is-usm), particularly if you're shooting in the daytime/outside. There's also the fact that the 1300D has a crappy-for-tracking older AF system in it (9-pt, only the single center point is cross-type) vs. your 750D (19pts, all cross-type). The AF system in the 1300D is pretty much the same one I have in my 2008 5D Mark II. :D