# DXO - lens reviews - 300mm f/2.8 IS II - that bad ???



## lukemike (Oct 15, 2012)

There's a lot of talking recently about DxOMark sensor tests.
I am considering buying one of the Canon's telephoto lenses so I took a look at their tests (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon). 
I was utterly shocked when I saw the results. My question is are their resolution tests accurate? 
Canon 300mm 2.8IS II which is considered one of the sharpest canon lenses (in line with 135 f2.0) scored lower (49lp/mm) than 70-200 f2.8 IS II (52lp/mm), 50mm 1.4 (63lp/mm)etc. I used all of these lenses and I do realize that 50mm is super sharp at f/4, and I am comparing apples and oranges (short focal with telephoto) but for crying out loud If I spend 16 times more on 300mm I do expect it to be at least at sharp as 50mm f1.4 at f/4
I went on line and googled all there is to google about DxoMark tests and I am really lost. To judge for myself I went to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111 and compared ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crops and I have to say that 300mm seems to be sharper or at least as sharp as 50 1.4 at f/4 and a few other lenses.
Can somebody please tell me: are these DxOMark tests right or not. Thank.you.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 15, 2012)

I used to own the mk1 version and I haven't before or after seen anything that is as crazy sharp at 2,8. The 200f2 maybe.. corner to corner is insanely good wide open. I can't really see how the mk2 can be that much sharper, but certainly not LESS sharp. If you don't find the 300 2.8 sharp, then nothing will ever seem sharp.


----------



## expo01 (Oct 15, 2012)

I never had a 300 2.8 from canon, but until about a month ago I had (used it for about 3-4 years) a 400 2.8 IS. I was also shooting with is successor the 400 2.8 IS II and I found it to be equally sharp. They were both giving superb results.

From my experience, shooting alot of those tested lenses (including the 135 2.0), I wouldn't give a second thought about DxO...

I am sure the new 300 2.8 is as good (at least) as the old one and I haven't met a single sports photographer that was unhappy about the performence of the version 1 (IS).


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 15, 2012)

The Canon 300mm f/2.8 L is a superbly sharp lens. Even 'professional' testing websites can receive a 'dud' or 'softer' copy... eg SLRgear with their Canon 70-300mm L is definitely not nearly as sharp as the one I own.

I generally refer to photozone.de and the-digital-picture.com for lens reviews... I've found these to be the most thorough and consistent.

You shouldn't really compare a 300mm f2.8 prime with a 50mm f1.4 prime. While both (Canon) prime lenses, they are SO different. Comparing apples to oranges.. big time.

But if you get a decent copy of the Canon 300mm f2.8 - you should get great outcomes.

Happy photography!

Paul


----------



## M.ST (Oct 15, 2012)

DxOMark´s are useless.

I am very happy with the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. It´s a great lens which delivers an outstanding image quality.

The image quality from the EF 70-300 IS and EF 300 mm f/4.0 IS is a big step below the 300mm f/2.8 IS II.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Oct 15, 2012)

IMO the DxO lens tests are complete nonsense - their results are completely opposite to any real world experience. If you want to check the quality of the 300mm f2.8 MKII just look at some real pictures taken with this lens (native resolution) and compare the details to lenses like the both canon 70-300mm offerings ... There is simply no real comparison in the amount of details the 300 f2.8 MKII is capable of. When looking at the ISO charts at "the digital picture" it also seems like the 300mm MKII is superior to all other Canon supertelephoto lenses including the new 400mm, 500mm and 600mm in sharpness, even if this is only by a relatively small margin.


----------



## traveller (Oct 15, 2012)

Don't forget that longer focal length lenses need to be tested at greater distances from the chart than shorter focal length lenses. This can give unexpected results like when Photozone tested the well regarded EF 400mm L (on an 8MP, 1.6x crop EOS 350D): 

_"Some may be surprised that all these long tele lenses don't deliver a better performance than many wide-angle lenses. Please note that there's QUITE a bit more space between the test chart with super tele lenses so the longer the focal length the higher is the amount of air diffusion (the distance to the test chart is focal-length x 1.6 x ~40). "_ [http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/173-canon-ef-400mm-f56-usm-l-lab-test-report--review?start=1]

There are also a number of other factors that can come into play, these are well explained by Roger Cicala: 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/why-arent-the-damn-numbers-the-same#more-9362

On the other hand, DXO has a bit of a reputation for lens test results that go against the general consensus of other well know lens testers...


----------



## curtisnull (Oct 15, 2012)

I've been shooting professionally for 28 years now and the EF 300mm 2.8L IS II is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I think even better than some of the Carl Zeiss lenses I had with my Hasselblad years ago.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Oct 15, 2012)

My 300 f2.8L IS II is super sharp and produces great colours.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 15, 2012)

lukemike said:


> There's a lot of talking recently about DxOMark sensor tests.
> I am considering buying one of the Canon's telephoto lenses so I took a look at their tests (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon).
> I was utterly shocked when I saw the results. My question is are their resolution tests accurate?
> Canon 300mm 2.8IS II which is considered one of the sharpest canon lenses (in line with 135 f2.0) scored lower (49lp/mm) than 70-200 f2.8 IS II (52lp/mm), 50mm 1.4 (63lp/mm)etc. I used all of these lenses and I do realize that 50mm is super sharp at f/4, and I am comparing apples and oranges (short focal with telephoto) but for crying out loud If I spend 16 times more on 300mm I do expect it to be at least at sharp as 50mm f1.4 at f/4
> ...



The lenses you mentioned aren't even the same class as the 300mm f/2.8.
With comparisons like this it isn't hard to see why DxO scores have no credibility.


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 15, 2012)

Yeah, well they ALSO say that the 70-200 f/2.8 Mk II is worse than the Mk I !!! 

They are entirely alone in that view, as far as I can see from all the other sources I have ever seen.


----------



## DB (Oct 15, 2012)

If you rely solely on reviews like DxO, then you wouldn't buy any lenses at all (or you'd have just 2 Canon lenses in your bag - the 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200mm f4L). As Neuro is fond of saying, their individual tests may indeed be quite accurate and rigorous, but how they aggregate test scores to produce an overall score may only be described as a '*Black Box*' technique (only they know the answer and they will not make public how they add up the test scores).


----------



## tron (Oct 15, 2012)

I never bothered with DxO and not because I am a Canon user. I simply believed that they just made interesting software products for lens correction (bundled with specific cameras). I have no opinion on their camera ratings (I learned a lot though in this forum by reading various debates). As far as lenses are concerned, I find this score silly at least. We do not get information about performance at specific f-stops, center, edges or corners, flare, vignetting, CA etc. When I need a lens review I check photozone.de and the-digital-picture. I will continue ignoring DxO for ratings (and I have all cameras I need for the moment). Isolated feature tests and comparisons could be interesting though.


----------



## tron (Oct 15, 2012)

DB said:


> If you rely solely on reviews like DxO, then you wouldn't buy any lenses at all (or you'd have just 2 Canon lenses in your bag - the 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200mm f4L). As Neuro is fond of saying, their individual tests may indeed be quite accurate and rigorous, but how they aggregate test scores to produce an overall score may only be described as a '*Black Box*' technique (only they know the answer and they will not make public how they add up the test scores).


+1


----------



## risc32 (Oct 15, 2012)

have no fear, the canon 300mm2.8, any version, is awesome. 

This is really starting to annoy me, as i use DXO software, almost exclusively, and i'm very pleased with it. but after a while of hearing and reading some of the silly things DXO says it makes me question what it is they are doing.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 15, 2012)

Just more confirmation that DxO is a total joke

Best comparison I can make, is DxOMark is to camera gear what The Food Reviewer is to Nutrition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VveunopMJXU


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2012)

tron said:


> We do not get information about performance at specific f-stops, center, edges or corners, flare, vignetting, CA etc.



Actually, you do get most of that information (not flare, but resolution, vignetting, CA across the frame and aperture range). But it's in the Measurements, not the Scores. 

In the case of lenses, their scores are another example of DxOMark ≠ Reality.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 15, 2012)

lukemike said:


> There's a lot of talking recently about DxOMark sensor tests.
> I was utterly shocked when I saw the results. My question is are their resolution tests accurate?
> Can somebody please tell me: are these DxOMark tests right or not. Thank.you.



I have seen so many crazy results at DxO regarding lens tests that I never even bother to look there now, ever. They have weird results after weird result. 70-300 non-L being much sharper at 300mm f/5.6 than the 70-300L. It might have even been called sharper thanb the 300 f/4 prime. I think they had the 70-200 2.8 IS, at 200mm, sharper than the 70-200 2.8 non-IS, sharper than the f/4 IS, sharper than the f/2.8 IS II or something crazy like that.


That said, their sensor tests, something totally different, DO seem to be very good and definitely something to pay attention to. I go there first, when it comes to sensor data.


----------

