Painful experience with my 70-300 DO IS USM

I have been trying to use this lens for a while, and what I found out

is truly painful.

The lens is simply TOO SLOW. Even the IS is not going to help you

when your max Av is down to f5.6. It just defeats the purpose. Pair

it with the 1Ds is better becos 300mm is 300mm, but if you pair it

with a 10D, the 300mm becomes 480mm. Well, 480mm and f5.6 simply

don't match - every little handshake is magnified several times,

making the image pretty useless. Crank up the ISO and you have

incredible noise. So the only viable way to use this IS lens is to

use a tripod. Is this a joke? Tripod for an IS lens?

 

This is definitely not an "indoor without flash" lens.

 

Seems like the only time I can hapharzardly use it is when the day is

really bright, but then the contrast would make the image like an

abstract composition.

 

My personal recommandation for this one is : PASS! Pay a few hundred

dollars more for the 70-200mm 2.8 IS and you are a much happier

person.

 

MY $.02!

Dear Bob,

 

Don't know why, but this is supposed to be for the Cannon EOS forum. I don't know why it ends up in the "Digital Darkroom" forum. Can you kindly rearrange this for me/us and put it in the EOS users' forum, Please?

 

Much thanks,

Sandy

Unless you're trying to handhold really short times like 1/2 or 1/10 the IS should work just fine.

 

Otherwise I suppose you're unique since I haven't heard of anyone else having trouble handholding it.

Uh? I've had no problems hand-holding my 400/5.6 and getting sharp pictures out of it, especialy if I bump the sensitivity of my 10D to ISO 400. With a 25% shorter focal length and a latest-generation image stabilizer, the 70-300 must be a dream to hand-hold.

I dunno. Even with IS, 1/2 or 1/10 just sounds too slow for 300mm -> even with IS.

 

70-300 sounds a bit long to me for indoor work anyway -> unless you are talking sporting events.

 

I am more interested in Sandy's comments about contrast in bright light. .. .are you refering to the "white dots" in the bokeh that others have talked about?

I can't see your problem either. While on vacation earlier this year I was shooting an EOS 10D hand held with an 300/4L - NOT the IS version - with a 1.4x multipler on it, standing up in a small boat on the ocean, in fog!!

<p>

The images were sharp as long as I was at 1/500 or more, and with the 10D it's a breeze to crank up the ISO until you get there. Noise, even at ISO 800 isn't that bad, plus there are many noise reduction programs like "Neat Image" that do an excellent job if noise is objectionable.

<p>

At 300mm and with the ability to handhold at around 1/30, the DO lens at 300mm should be a dream. I have the old 75-300IS lens and I have no problem at all hand holding it at 1/90 or so at 300mm.

<p>

As for being an "indoor without flash" lens, of course it isn't, but who is shooting indoors at 480mm focal length? The 70-200/2.8 IS won't be a HUGE amount better either, since if you want 300mm you'll have to stick a 1.4x on it, making it f4 so you only gain one stop. Add to that the possibility that the IS on that lens may not be quite as good as that on the DO (which is supposed to stabilize better) and the difference may be wiped out completely.

<p>

So I think your technique must be faulty, or you're expecting the lens to do something it was never designed to do, i.e. shoot handheld, indoors, in dim light without a flash at full telephoto settings. I'd agree it's not ideal for that, but nobody ever suggested it was!

<p>

Certainly the 70-200/2.8L IS may be a better lens for some applications if you don't mind a large, heavy, conspicuously white lens. If you don't care how large, heavy and conspicuous a lens is, maybe the DO lens isn't the best choice, since being small, light and inconspicuous are three of the selling points.

<p>

You might want to take a look at an article on my website - <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/70-300do.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/70-300do.html</a>

<p>I have the 300/4L IS USM. It's only a stop faster than your DO lens, and your lens has a newer version of IS which is supposed to compensate for an extra stop's worth of motion - so we should be pretty much tied in that regard. I don't have problems handholding it in a variety of lighting conditions.</p>

 

<p>If you want another couple of stops, get a monopod. IS + monopod is an excellent combination - the monopod takes care of the larger motions, and IS takes care of the smaller ones.</p>

 

<p>I don't doubt that the 70-200/2.8L IS USM is a better lens; its reputation is superb, and if I had the money sitting around and didn't need to make mortgage payments or feed myself, I'd definitely get one! But the main point of the 70-300 DO lens is that it's relatively small and light. The 70-200/2.8 is neither.</p>

If you want an indoor without flash lens, of course this, and others, are slow lenses! You need faster ones, obviously.

 

I can successfully hand hold this lens at 1/20-1/30 sec., at 300mm, with 100 ISO slide film. What does not work for you, may work for others, it all depends on objectives and technique holding the lens. I bought this lens for outdoors use, and in that regard it performs admirably. For low light situations, I have my fast primes.

<p> <i>So I think your technique must be faulty, or you're expecting the lens to do something it was never designed to do, i.e. shoot handheld, indoors, in dim light without a flash at full telephoto settings. I'd agree it's not ideal for that, but nobody ever suggested it was! </i> </p>

<p> Can't agree more. It seems you expect the lens to perform more than it can do. </p>

<p> <i>I have the 300/4L IS USM. It's only a stop faster than your DO lens, and your lens has a newer version of IS which is supposed to compensate for an extra stop's worth of motion - so we should be pretty much tied in that regard. I don't have problems handholding it in a variety of lighting conditions. </i> </p>

<p> Again I agree. I have the same lens which is also much heavier and much longer than yours, making it much less balanced. Nevertheless I regularly shoot it at 1/60 and when I brace myself against something and hold my breath I am able to achieve 1/15 !!! sharp pictures. </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

Let's see -- the last time I was shooting candid family 'headshots' I was using an old 70-210 f4, handheld, at ISO 400, on my Digital Rebel. The EXIFs show 'no flash', 1/50 sec, 210 mm. Decently sharp, for no IS, if I must say so myself 8-).

 

In any event, with my 70-300 DO, I would be fearless to handhold down to 1/30 at f5.6 with IS at 200mm in that light. Less tight shots would be even better.

 

Actually, used to shoot candids like that with a film body at ISO 100, 135mm, f2.0.

 

The ability to shoot cleaner images at ISO 400 than I could get with old C-41 film at 100 or 200 gives me the edge to go around with a zoom like that, unless it's really pretty dim.

 

If that happens, I can pull out my trusty EF 85mm f1.8 (which gives me an effective 135mm on the Digital Rebel with its 1.6 crop factor) and I end up with the same/similar setup as my old film body with its 135mm, giving me a range of ISO's to choose from.

 

Nothing like having a prime or two in your bag, to fill in those inevitable gaps. Life is good.

I am not that fearless.

 

I find if I violate the 1/shutter rule on a cropped camera, my images *will* have motion blur. Now, I don't have the 70-300, but I would be hesitant (unless I tested it) to blindly say I could get away with under 1/300th without IS. With IS, and three stops improvment. . .what. . .1/60th or so?

You might be interested in this article on my website which discusses how well IS works (for the 75-300IS anyway).

<p>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is.html"><b>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is.html</b></a>

Yep, I remember that article, Bob. Nice one, that. One thing that I appreciate, although there have been some postings to the contrary, I find the 70-300 DO IS to be sharper than the 75-300 IS images I've seen posted. I can't do a direct comparison myself, though, as I never owned the 75-300 IS. I had an older 70-210 f4 (non IS, non L), but I traded it in when I got the 70-300 DO IS, so although I have samples from each lens, they are not of the same subject under identical conditions. No one beside myself would be interested in a comparison with that old 70-210 anyway, although it did yeoman's service for me for ten months, and only cost me $35 ($135 used minus $100 tradein -- hard to beat).

 

Was the $1300 worth it? Well, I had the dough at the time and the will to 'go small' and felt the addition of 3rd generation IS and the extra 90mm ( * 1.6x crop factor) was worth it to me.

 

In particular, I'm really pleased at how good the IS is on this lens. I was shooting (photographically 8-) a groundhog in my backyard last night under waning light, and handholding the 70-300 DO IS at 300mm, and 1/80 shutter speed. I don't have the pics with me to post, but I thought they were pretty good for handheld at that speed.