Reply #8 - January 07, 2008, 10:48:54 PM
Yes, you all have validity in your comments. My point wasn't that the hood couldn't have been the primary issue, but that it wasn't a super example because there are a couple other factors that could influence it. I stand by what I have said. The hood (or lack thereof) can certainly cause this issue. The focal length being 300MM on a cheaper lens and 200MM on a better lens could be an influence, and yes there is a loss of contrast and saturation whenever your exposure isn't spot on (even if it's slight). We tend to fix this on our own when PP and/or printing. Also, although the metering is through-the-lens; because the lens is not as high of quality as its comparison, there is a chance that the mechanism used to close the aperture is inaccurate; f/4.5 at 300MM and f/4.5 at 200MM is not the same size opening (regardless of the camera's reading), which means that the lens mechanism could have flaws in its calibration throughout the zoom range and therefore be less accurate at any given length along its zoom. This may also not be a big factor because I can't imagine Canon selling products this poor in today's market, but the point still exists.
Do I think a hood could have helped? Of course I do. I only wanted to point out that this may not be the best example because of the other factors. If this were a scientific comparison, it wouldn't hold up at all. If we were to get camera or lens reviews based on this many variants, we wouldn't have any idea what we were really comparing, and therefore couldn't make informed purchasing decisions.
I just like to complicate things. Can you tell?
Travis
Logged
). For the two attached shots we were pretty much right next to each other. Same light, same sun coming directly at us. The only difference is that I was using a 70-200 Sigma EX with a hood and she was using a cheaper Canon 75-300 without a hood. Mine is the first shot and hers is the second. Other than cropping I didn't do anything else to either image.
