ade_fishpool Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Hi, Has anyone used this new lens from Canon yet? The description states 'The lens boasts image quality approximating that of Canon's L series preofessional lenses.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_van_eynde Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Just do a search on this forum! also check out : http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/70-300do.html http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palfy Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Yes, I have one and I used it. What do you want to know about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Yes. The marketing does make this boast. This boast justifies the price. Need a review? http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm Need another opinion from someone who makes money from the lens? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml Hmmm. . .in looking at the later review, I think Reichman has warmed up to the lens over time. Basically. . I think he is in the camp of "better a small so-solens that you have in the bag, rather than the sharp-as-tacks big as a house lens you leave at home". My view: As a Homer, small size is nice, but this lens is flatly too expensive for the image quality it produces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbizarro Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I have one. I like it and the results it produces. It is the perect telezoom to go on hikes where you want lightness, flexibility, and good optical quality. Sure there are better lenses, so what? It makes nice A4-sized prints from Velvia 100F slides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I wish I had the funds where I could afford to say "so what" to a lens costing over $1,000US. If you do too, Ade, then it's probably the lens you want. The 70-300 DO lens was brand new when I was contemplating between it and the 100-400L. I took the 100-400 knowing if I decided I'd rather have the 70-300 I could sell the 100-400 for enough to buy a new 70-300 with no additional funds. After a little over 9 months, I think I'll keep my 100-400L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Approximating? Yes. Reaching? No. YGWYPF. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Lots of middle aged men can afford to buy the toys they've longed for all their lives. And, yes they do in spades. I have friends that don't blink at paying $10,000 or more on a luthier made guitar (I blink 'n save). So what if they can hardly play. And why not enjoy life while you can. If a $1200 zoom tickles your pickle, go for it. It's cheap if it makes you happy. I wouldn't hesitate if I wanted it. As far as approximating L series zooms, I bet it beats the crap outta the EF 100-300 5.6L. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now