Where to buy? (Part III, the End)

<P>So finally I got my EF70-300mm DO IS USM. I bought it from

Calumet with very wonderful service. Maybe people in the Left Coast

have a bit more sun and are less grouchy...

<P>Well, how do I like the lens? After comparing it with my EF 70-

200mm f2.8 L IS USM, I would say the DO lens is a "much ado about

nothing" Had I known it, I would not bother and spent that silly

money on the DO lens. There is just no comparison between the two.

The L lens <B>IS</B> that much better.

<P>But please, please remember, this is only MVPHO (My Very

Personal Humble Opinion).

<P>The major saving grace for the DO lens is : It is more compact

BUT weight about the same in feel, don't know about the actual

weight difference. Auto-focus is a bit slower. The L lens is much

brighter, and the IS is also better. The final image, the 200mm from

the L with cropping to the same size as the 300mm DO at full zoom

and full crop, the L lens is better and sharper. So there is no gain!

<P>Well, now that I own it, maybe I can bring it as my travel lens...

<P>Cheers.<div></div>

>>> The L lens is much brighter

 

Now that's the statement of the decade :)

 

Anyhow, can you go deeper into explaining what you observed in comparisons at the same

focal lenght?

Well, as I said in my "review", the reason for the DO lens to exist is small size and relatively inconspicuous appearence. It's meant as a small travel lens which will be hand held. It's not intended as a substitute for the 70-200L or the 100-400L. DO gives you the ability to make a lens short and to pretty much eliminate chromatic aberration, but it adds to cost and (under some circumstances) flare.

 

So if you want a small travel lens for hand holding, the DO is perfect. If you want the sharpest possible images and don't care much about size or having a big white lens, go for the "L"s!

For Bob : But Bob, where is your review? I only read the one written by David Hay...

 

For The Macman : Give me a little time and I'll do one :-D

thank you for sharing Sandy.

 

I think we all apreciate it here.

 

the 70-200 IS are on my list for sure.

for the price you are better off buying a couple primes too.

surely you meant a DO about nothing ;-P

Sandy you must be into weight training. I sold my EF 70-200 2.8L USM (non-IS) years ago. It was just too heavy for my 135 lb frame to heft all day. The 70-300 DO looks inviting, but I have a 70-200 4L USM I'm not too pleased with optically and in terms of bulk. Maybe I'll ditch my EF 75-300 IS (really sucks) and 70-200 4L (kinda sucks) and go for the DO.

Hey Puppy Face - Not to hijack Sandy's thread but what kinda sucks about the 70-200mm, f4L? I've always heard that lens referred to as one of Canon's sleepers.

 

Later,

Johnny

To Puppy Face :

 

Yes, I agree. Weight is a great consideration every time I pick up the "L", but the results always put a silly grin on my face :-D.

 

Whereas the "DO", the variable f-stop simply drives me nuts to no end. Aaaaahhhh!!! f4.5- f5.6? Canon should at least make it f3.5 to be useful. I am just stupid enough not to recognize this earlier, but like I said in Part Deux, I am a born sucker! What else can I say?

 

It is definitely not Canon's fault, it is only me who have this impulsive buying urge that gets out of hand at times...Anybody knows a good psychiatrist?

Sandy, I am wondering how they compare in terms of flare?

 

--

Puppy how much do you want for the 70-200 f4?

Sandy, thanks for the info.

One small omission though....What are the prices for each lens.

I have a feeling that there is a HUGE difference.

Right?

Puppy face, what do you want for the 70-200F4L? I am in the market for one.

 

Thanks,

Gerry

<i>The final image, the 200mm from the L with cropping to the same size as the 300mm DO at full zoom and full crop, the L lens is better and sharper. So there is no gain</i><p>

 

I found the same thing with my 70-200/4L and my 75-300. I am actually not surprised by this.

 

Sandy is comparing the much heavier 70-200/2.8L-IS to the 70-300/DOyoubelievethIS. Those lenses are very price comparable (What, $1300 vs $1500?)

 

What would be really illuminating would be a comparison to the 70-200/4L to the 70-300/DOyoubelievethIS. . .Conventional wisdom would say the image quality should still go to the 70-200/4L but the 70-200/4L lacks IS (and is LESS than half the price).

 

To get 280mm, I still say (and I already have put my money where my mouth is) get a 70-200/4L, 1.4TC, Collar, and cheap tripod (portability). This rig is ($575, $275, $125, $40) about $1000 and is still 25% cheaper. . .

 

I think the DO has it's place because of size. . .but at the $1300 is way overpriced for what you get. . .$750 makes much more sense.

 

Now Puppy Face has a really interesting story (do a search!) regarding asymmetric sharpness on the 70-200/4L. . .wonder if that is a unique problem.

PuppyFace

With all do respect, I think you need to send your 70-200 4.0 into Canon. I've seen your thread regarding OOF on the left side, and I've also seen many many photos with the 10D and 70-200 4.0 that look great. I agree that your copy is not performing correctly, but it is quite possible that it simply needs to be repaired. Again I have a lot of respect for your work and your opinions, but I think you should send it in before coming to the conclusion that the lens 'kinda sucks'.

As an aside to Jim Larson, I started a thread around about a month ago asking for a comparison between what I thought were the logical pair to compare, i.e., the 100-400 L IS and the 70-300 DO IS. They are almost identical in price and the majority of their range is the same. One respondant (sorry, don't remember his name) said the L was sharper than the DO.