I do agree with the general thumb advising that every lens performs at its best starting from two stops darker than its maximum aperture, which means f/2.8 lenses get their best at f/5.6 whilst f/4 lenses have to go down to f/8 to reach their top. But with the latest lens technology the difference is hardly visible especially with top quality lenses like Canon’s L series. Therefore to fill up the mostly needed range spanning between ultra-wide to telephoto I chose f/4 zooms of Canon L series.

With arrival of the brilliant 24-105mm f/4 L IS which offer general purpose range with Canon’s proven image stabilizing technology into my drybox, I have completely cover the favorite range between 17mm to 200mm all in Canon f/4 L series. The new comer accompanies 17-40mm f/4 L ultra-wide zoom and 70-200mm f/4 L medium telephoto I bought before. In my opinion, in term of focal range, all the three fits each other perfectly, with a bit overlap among them giving extra comfort especially as I only own one camera body. As the numbers shows, the ultra-wide goes to 40mm whilst the general purpose starts from 24mm, the general purpose ends at 105mm whilst the medium telephoto starts from 70mm.

Unfortunately the more capable my setup is, the less chance I have to spen my time using it. But that’s the way life goes, I think. Just like the most of us, it takes more time to make more money to spend on hobbies. However, with better set on hand I believe that I can make the less chances I have more enjoyable ones.

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.

1. Nikon. I preferred Nikon sub-class than pro-class of other brands like Sigma. I own an ultra-wide from Sigma, 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM, which whilst without thinking of throwing it away, I preferred not to get another Sigma in my bag, especially at the long range. Inferior optical performance and slow focusing were among the reasons.

2. Focal length. The focal length was perfect for close-up portraiture, with dead locking focus and pleasant bokeh. The theory was that you need lens below the eye’s focal length, which is 50mm, to get perfect shape. 80mm up was rather just perfect. Whilst I understood that 85mm, either at with f/1.4 or f/1.8 were better at its focal length, being able to zoom up gave better flexibility whilst allowing better bokeh, from increasing focal length instead of wider aperture.

3. Bokeh - combination between wide aperture and long focal length resulted in more pleasant rendering of out of focus area, popular as bokeh.

4. Aperture - wide aperture allowed to take picture in lower light. In low-light, one or two steps larger definitely worths. In theory, people could get perfect shot hand-held at the speed of 1/focal length, which means you need to shoot at a minimum speed of 1/200 second when using 200mm lens. If the light requires exactly 1/200 second in f/2.8, how much opportunities you would loose by using a lens with max. f/5.6, considering that to get the same light you have to drag down the speed by to stops, which was 1/50 sec.

5. Aperture (again) – f/2.8 allowed the lens to be used with tele-converter. At this aperture, usage of tele-converter was still allowing AF to perfectly work. Combined with 2x tele-converter the lens gave a doubled focal length of 160-400mm. TC dragged 2 stops of the maximum aperture, so here we were talking about f/5.6. 400mm f/5.6 was not bad at all. Compare to those with f/5.6 as the maximum aperture at 200mm, where usage of tele-converter disables AF and aperture 2 stops drags the maximum aperture down to f/11.

As most of Nikonians, I dream of the new Nikon AF-S VR 70-200 f/2.8G IF-ED, but priced at about 19 millions Rp. , it was definitely not at the same league as my pocket. So I had to look around, with similar optical performance – minus VR – and the fact that it was by far lighter, I decided to get Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED N, which was sold brand new at slightly less that a half of the new AF-S version. To save even more, I got mine used.

A few photographers tried to compensate wide aperture with VR, which allowed users to shoot at about 2-3 stops below normal shutter speed requirement by eliminating hand-shake. I personally did not but this theory as VR was all about eliminating hand-shake, (1.) you would not get the same bokeh rendering of f/2.8 by using lens with narrower aperture, (2.) combination with tele-converter would not allow you to get AF work. It also would not give you sufficient aperture when used in combination with tele-converter, (3) so good of VR lens with narrower aperture, imagine if you are getting wide f/2.8 plus VR.