EF 70-300 DO IS Test

[david_kieltyka1]

Some people are just predisposed to dislike this lens. "It's got an L price, therefore it should have L optical quality." This ignores the purpose of the lens' design: good performance in a *compact* package. For some uses portability is more important than ultimate quality. If you understand this you'll at least appreciate the intent of the 70ﾖ300 even if the look of its photos doesn't suit you.

 

I like the lens a lot...but I don't really need it so I've chosen (for now anyway) not to buy one.

 

-Dave-

[andy_jones1]

Jon Austin wrote

" "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]

[sic?] be prepared to pay?"

 

Possibly quite a bit, but what does that have to do with THIS lens? "

 

I simply used the 2.8 as an example of a great but heavy lens that some people (you

apparently included and count me in too!) would pay a premium for if it were

substantially lighter. ( There's nothing in my post suggesting I was comparing the 2.8

to the DO )

 

Jim,

Speaking of comparisons, I am seriously considering the 70-200/4 instead of the DO

once I satisfy myself I can live without the IS (I already have the 1.4x converter to get

to 280mm). I don't think the quality of the DO is quite high enough for the weight

savings/IS/extra 100mm to be worth $700ish TO ME

 

Andy

[digitmstr]

>>good performance in a *compact* package. For some uses portability is more important than ultimate quality.<<

 

I hope there are enough hickers with EOS willing to dish out $1,200 bucks, for Canon's sake :)

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Why compare to the 70-200/2.8 IS?

<BR>Mostly because of the image stabilization -a serious benefit to most people of tele lenses

<P>Thanks for the example pic david!

[jon_austin]

"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?" <p>

<p>

Sic: adverb; from the Latin: intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original (said he seed [sic] it all) [source: www.m-w.com]<p>

<p>

Andy: I inserted "[sic]" after "you" in my reprint of the text of your post, because you mixed pronouns: "If <i>I</i> suddenly managed ... how much of a premium would <i>you</i> be prepared to pay?"<p>

<p>

In other words, <i>I</i> wouldn't be prepared to pay anything, if <i>you</i> managed to halve the weight, etc., but maybe <i>you</i> would.<p>

<p>

Hope that clears it up!

[andy_jones1]

Jon, I know sic is Latin for "thus" and now is used to indicate intent as you describe.

However, I wasn't mixing pronouns - hence my confusion and second sic. The

context was in terms of someone making a decision to buy a lens and what value they

placed on the weight. I sorta figured it was implied in my question but a clearer (sic-

avoiding) question would have been : "If Canon made two versions of the 70-200 2.8

IS and one weighed half the other but retained 90% of its quality, how much of a

premium would you (to the general audience - or you specifically) be prepared to pay

for the weight savings?"

 

Hope that clears up the sic ;-)

 

Andy

[pbizarro]

This article describes the process of creating this lens. No wonder it is expensive.

 

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=90121

[dan barthel]

Comment from Michael R. in his forum: 70-300 is sharper than 100-400 @ 300, BUT 70-200F2.8IS and 1.4x extender wops the 70-300. So if size is not paramount, which is the motivator for this lens, keep your 70-200 and extender and be happy.

[paul_brown7]

David (Hay), thank's for the 100% crop of specular highlights.

Like David (Kieltyka), I would like to know what the full picture

looks like.

 

Could you post the full picture (at a lower resolution for

bandwidth) ?

Or simply the number of horizontal pixels of the full image ?

 

I agree with R N, this could be delt with under photoshop for the

occasional picture. I am more worried with sunsets though...

Has anybody tried ?

[bv photography]

Here are few photos from the web site (unfortunately not in English, but being from that area I could understand it well)

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_297.shtml

I apologize for using other person's photos without his/her permission, but this is just for illustrative purposes.

In my views, these are very sharp photos.

[bv photography]

And another one, probably a crop of the first one.

[bv photography]

DO on EOS I MK II

[davidhay]

To Paul Brown. I have attached the full frame photo from which the target-shaped highlights crop (800x600 pixel) was taken. Personally I don't find them a problem, just an interesting side-effect of the optics.

 

Today I sent Bob Atkins an illustrated test of the 70-330 DO so look out for it on Photo.net.

[bill_tuthill]

"BUT 70-200F2.8IS and 1.4x extender wops the 70-300"

<BR>

I find that hard to believe, because in Matja Intihar's comparison

images, the 70-300 DO is very close to the 70-200/2.8 IS without the

1.4x TC, which might degrade results a bit. It's ingenuous to say

that a 280 maximum can "wop" a 300 anyway. Giving credit where due,

the 70-200/2.8 IS seems just a bit sharper in the upper left corner.

So I'm pleasantly surprised by this new DO zoom.