EF 70-300 DO IS Test

On Luminous Landscape, there is a test posted on EF 70-300 DO IS

lens. Overall good results. I am wondering when will Bob Atkinson

post his review, which would be more trusted. Thanks.

So far I still haven't got my hands on a lens. The few images I have (which were sent to me) aren't enough to base a review on. They look good, but they are at only one focal length and aperture.

I'm sure Bob's testing will be quite good, but I see no reason to denigrate Michael Reichmann's. Looks like the tradeoffs offered by this lens are quite attractive after all.

 

I would really like to see what the lens does with specular highlights (like sunshine sparkling on water, for example) before I fork over my 1200 bucks.

Bob -- I'm also hoping the Gods of Canon will lend you a lens -- they should -- there are an awful lot of people that follow your reviews.<P>A request: If you do get your mitts on one could you run some tests with it mounted on a film body? It would be interesting to see how the results differ between full frame film and crop factor digital (10D for example).<P>Tkx & my fingers are crossed.

LLs review is quite good. But what I like to see is test shots at 100% of different focal lenghts and at different apetures.

 

The one thing which I'm waiting to see more about is the dodgy looking bokeh I have seen on the odd photo from the lens. It would be great if this matter is looked into properly.

 

I am very tempted by the 70-300, but I am also very happy with my 70-200/4L + 1.4x. Its going to take a very positive review to get me to swap, and LLs doesn't show enough to convince me.

The 70-300 DO IS isnt an L lens, is it?

 

So why pay L prices for it?

"Bottom Line" Final paragraph of the LL test is worth scrutising a bit more closely -

 

He is reporting image softness as opposed to lens resolution ability not identified by lab results requiring a fair bit of sharpening to compensate for, (he seems to be inferring this is a characteristic of the DO optics and not to counteract digital body effects,) .... and ..... without sharpening work many people will be disappointed with the results of the lens.......

 

Err if you shoot film how do you sharpen the image!!!

 

So the challange for BA is to test both with digital and film bodies to make any true subjective test of the lens??

 

Regards

 

Mike Smith

Based on the LL results, the lens is quite good. It is about twice as sharp (less blur by a factor of 2) as the 28-300L at 300 mm, and the lens is quite compact. Seems to be the first lens in the DO line which has potential to be a hit.

<i>Seems to be the first lens in the DO line which has potential to be a hit</i><p>

 

With price like that? I doubt. I can't imagine someone paying that much for 75-300 lens when for same money you can get 70-200/2.8. I think time of DO lenses will come (if it will at all), but not with this lens yet.

Byron, the EF 70-300 DO IS lens is not an L lens becuse it does not use the same materials that would make it an L lens i.e. Fluorite or UD glass.<br>The DO elements remove the need for these materials.<br>L does NOT mean 'Luxury' (as incorrectly assumed by many), it is just an indicator that the lens uses specific materials, which just happen to be more expensive.<br><br>

The following is from <a href="http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Image_Stabilization_Lenses/EF_70-300mm_f_f4.5-5.6_DO_IS_USM/index.asp?ComponentID=152993&SourcePageID=26369#1" target="_blank">Canon's own seb site:</a><br>

"The EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is the world's only zoom lens to incorporate a DO element. Introduction of a new triple-layered DO element not only makes the lens more nimble, it delivers unrivalled imaging performance. The DO element is combined with normal refraction elements to compensate for colour aberration. This achieves levels of colour aberration correction that could previously only be achieved with the use of fluorite elements or Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) lenses. The result: superb image quality in an exceptionally small package."

I want to see it tested against the 70-200 IS at the same magnification.....and the normal 75-300 IS lens!

 

<BR>Interesting the comment of it 'needing more sharpening' than comparable lenses....

<BR>The pics i've seen so far from this lens certainly do look that way-and it does seem to cope with more sharpening without artifacts showing up

.Interesting

I found the LL review highly entertaining.All those charts were really spiffy, I mean there were more then a dozen charts to go along with the two photo's -- what does that tell you?<P>Plus a request and a question before you reply -- first the request: Read the last section titled "The Bottom Line".<P>The review states that the lens has a "<i>...softening of accutance as compared to non-DO lenses...</i>. It goes on to add that those "<i>...who do not take the time and effort to apply appropriate sharpening to files produced by this lens may find the results disappointing...</i>"<P>And so the question: I shoot film -- where on my camera or on my enlarger is the sharpening button that I will use to apply a "<I>...moderate amount of additional sharpening in post-processing.</I>"<P>Bottom line? Sham review.

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

<i>Byron, the EF 70-300 DO IS lens is not an L lens becuse it does not use the same materials that would make it an L lens i.e. Fluorite or UD glass.</i>

<p>

Actually it does have 2 UD elements.

<p>

The other DO lens in the lineup has a fluorite element. Canon has apparently decided that DO lenses are a separate line regardless.

Sham review? I don't think so. Michael Reichmann shoots with digital gear. His review isn't intended to be a universalist statement but is tailored to his gear and his processing methods. If you have no way to control acutance with your film shots--that is, you don't scan your film and you don't use traditional unsharp masking techniques--then you may indeed be unhappy with the lens. The review gives you this information...so what exactly is "sham" about it?

 

-Dave-

I'm with Richard Thompson: I don't see anything here that would make me prefer the 70-300 DO over the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x TC, even if I didn't already own the latter. I sometimes wish the 70-200 was shorter, but I do prefer fixed-length lenses.

I don't think the DO lenses are competing on image quality. They are competing on

convenience. The DO lenses are quite light and compact. The appropriate

comparison is probably:

 

70-300/4.5-5.6: 3.2" x 3.9", 25.4 oz. / 82.4 x 99.9mm, 720g

 

28-300/3.5 -5.6: 3.6" x 7.2", 3.7 lb. / 92 x 184mm, 1670g

What do the out of focus highlights on water look like? They look like targets.<div></div>

There's another review at

 

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

More examples of onion rings or targets in OOF hghlights. Not attractive!

 

With respect to the price - to those who think folks are stupid to pay this much for

this lens, you just have different (not better or smarter) priorities than those who find

the convenience worth it! If I suddenly managed to halve the weight of the 70-

200 2.8 IS but left it with 90% of the quality and kept the 2.8 and IS, how much of a

premium would you be prepared to pay? If you work exclusively in a studio or on a

tripod, not much; if you are on a wilderness trip packing gear, food and water,

probably quite a bit!

 

Andy

Thanks, David. That's what I was afraid of. Ouch.

 

I'm sure you could blur out that OOF stuff in Photoshop, but then you're paying for convenience of the lens by all the extra work you'd incur in PS, at least for shots of this kind.

The example is a full-res crop. But I don't sit around ogling my photos at 100% on my PC screen. I print 'em. So what do those specular highlights look like printed at a reasonable size? Say 8x12".

 

-Dave-

"If I suddenly managed to halve the weight of the 70- 200 2.8 IS but left it with 90% of the quality and kept the 2.8 and IS, how much of a premium would you [sic] be prepared to pay?"

 

Possibly quite a bit, but what does that have to do with THIS lens? Maximum ISO is 4.5, and I doubt anyone would claim that its quality is anywhere near 90% of that of the 70-200 IS...

Maximum ISO ==>> Maximum aperture. (OOPS!)

Oh...Oh...I started some interesting discussion here...We definitely need to wait for a few more reviews.

Why compare to the 70-200/2.8L-IS? A more interesting comparison would be the cheaper 70-200/4L.