Bali Photographer / Thoughts and Portfolio

When I decided to trade My Nikon D200 into Canon EOS 5D, I also reversed the strategy in lenses assortment. With Nikon, I had rather cheap wide-angle lens and top-of-the-line telephoto lens. As my experience shown that most of my professional works falls into wide angle category, I went the opposite way round, I chased for good wide-angle lens and accept mediocre telephoto lens. Hollow space in the mid-range was filled in by super-fast 50mm prime.

Main lenses in my Nikon day was as follow:

• AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D (last gen. w/tripod collar).
• AF Nikkor 50mm F/1.4
• AF Nikkor 35-70mm F/3.3-4.5
• Sigma EX 10-20mm F/4-5.6 HSM

Changed into my Canon days with the followings:

• Canon EF 17-40mm F/4 L
• Canon EF 50mm F1.8 Mark II (replaced later with Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F/1.4)
• Canon EF 35-80mm F/4-5.6 (sold later)
• Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (sold later)

Trusting a number of reviews on the net - which proven to be true - saying that even cheap crappy lenses result in better pictures in full frame cameras compared to top-of-the-line lenses on APS-C cameras, I comfortably decided to go for Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM to replace my brilliant AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D for portraiture and telephoto.

Definitely the feeling in my hand between the two was extremely different. About 1,300 grams in full metal barrel and inner zoom of Nikon super-fast tele-zoom felt a lot more sturdy in my hand compared to 400 grams or so small plastic tube of the mediocre Canon. But price was extremely different as well. I got the used Nikon for about $750 (brand new was priced at $1,000 at that time) whilst I spent only $110 (brand new was priced at $180 at that time) for the used Canon a year later.

Coming to the most critical issue which is result, Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM gave brilliant result with my Canon EOS 5D, regardless almost all friends and online reviews advised the opposite, especially when used with APS-C bodies. Sharpness, detail, and tone were brilliant. I would say that bokeh is nothing to worry too much in this range. Even bad lenses offers creamy bokeh in long focal.

However, performance is of a different issue. A am not a technical savvy who knows good technical presentation to show performance indicators, so it is purely a experience of an amateur user. Whilst focusing speed was sufficient to my need, and absence of IS was not felt as a problem as my previous Nikon did not have VR as well, I note a few problems:

• Vignet was clearly visible.
• Softening around the edge was visible, although in most telephoto shots with smooth bokeh it may even offer positive effect.
• Flare handling was mediocre, just don’t try to use it against the sun.
• Focusing performed bad in overcast background.

The picture below compares shots taken with different telephoto zooms. The left-hand side was taken by Nikon D200 with AF Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D, and the right-hand side was taken with Canon EOS 5D with Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, both at their own maximum focal length of 200mm and 300mm respectively.