n#

The worst lens on earth

December 17th, 2008

Smart people collect sensible prime lenses. The not so brainy get zoom lenses. Crazy people go for super-zoom’s

The budget super zoom is the worst of all. Cheaply constructed, with poor optics, it tries to be many different things, and fails usually.

Of all the budget superzooms, the worst is reputedly the Canon 75-300 zoom.

So, naturally, I decided to get one. Not the fancy one with USM and Image Stabilisation, I got the cheap non IS, non USM version. No longer available new, you can find them in dustbins, thrift stores and the like, usually for $100 or so.

In my case, I got one from a guy who had got it with his camera, considered it a joke, and moved on.

Basics

Visible optics - large clear front lens
Zoom action - kinda shakey, plasticky
Weight - heavy, but not as much as a ‘real’ lens
Autofocus - fast and quiet enough. With decent light it seems pretty decent. OK it’s no USM but for me its fine.

So how does this ‘horrible’ lens perform?

Aside from being ’slow’ (requiring a fast shutter, especially 200mm upwards), its surprisingly sharp. Simply put, my particular copy seems to deliver decent sharp images at f8, and useable closeups at f4.5 upwards.

Due to the lack of stabilisation, and small aperture, it works optimally in bright blazing sunlight. Anything less and you need crazy ISO’s, flash, a tripod, or you have to be Dominic Sansoni.

Well enough of that, onto the photos:

(Click each photo to view large size)

Note: I’ve resized photos somewhat, but believe me the originals are pretty decent!

Bokeh

Admittedly, this is an extreme example. Max telephoto, closest possible to lens, etc.. but dang.. for a tiny aperture, thats decent bokeh! [f8, iso100, 275mm, 1/400sec]

Distance (max is 300 but in reality its about 275mm)

To say this is far away is an understatement. It’s so far away I can barely see any of it (I guess 100 - 150 feet?? or more?)

Yet, as you can see, its sharp and decent, virtually every blade of grass is visible in the original [iso800, 275mm, f14, 1/500sec] (note, f14 wasn’t necessary, I just did it as an experiment, f8 would have given similar results. ISO 800 omg? Well that’s the DSLR difference)

Here’s a 100% crop of grass/vegetation.

Last but not least, here’s a photo of a monster

Yes I know, its overexposed, out of focus, etc etc.. but come on, it’s not every day you spot something left over from the age of the dinosaurs (at least.. it looks like it is) [ISO100, f5.6, 1/400, 300mm]

Actually, the slightly poor quality is probably due to the f5.6 - f8 and higher would have given better results..

So there you have it. The world’s worst lens.

Verdict

If you just need something for the occasional outdoors shot in bright sunlight, this is OK. If you need to use it anywhere else, get the version with IS (about $400 or so?) If you are into professional photography get the 70-200 f2.8 IS ($1200 upwards) but note, even if you have the money to spare, you need serious muscles to carry this!

Meh, here, go watch some porn

Entry Filed under: Photography