Talk:Canon EF 70–300mm lens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Photography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What is "incident light"? What does it mean?

Incident light is light that directly hits the optical surface of the lens - an example would be anytime the unobstructed sun is visible in the frame. The lens is prone to lens flare and/or reduced contrast in these situations. decltype (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of easy-to-disprove facts[edit]

EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS USM: The optical performance of this lens is competitive to Canon's L series telephoto zoom lenses, such as the 70–200mm series of lenses.

This lens is also notable for having only a slight decrease in performance as the focal length goes beyond 200 mm.

Really? Checking the source I found this:

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens has good center sharpness wide open at the wide end. Center sharpness decreases slightly as the focal length is increased to its weakest at 300mm. The lens becomes soft beyond 200mm.

And this:

You can easily see that this lens can't keep up with a 70-200 - not even close - and that the image quality decreases significantly at 200mm or beyond.

EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6L IS USM: This lens has superb contrast that meets or exceeds other L-series telephoto zooms, but lacks in sharpness in the corners throughout most of its focal length range.

Browsing through the focal range on the page I linked above you'll see that the corners are sharp throughout the entire focal range even wide open.

Why all those misleading facts and give a link to that disproves those facts? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)