Canon's new 70-300 USM IS DO lens

jmc wrote:
Does anyone have this lens and can comment on it?

http://buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CN70300DOIS

Seriously considering it, a little concerned that there seems to be
significant flaring with backlit subjects. Also, some reviews say
it
is pretty soft out at 300mm.

Also, it's not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverter I was thinking
about. Is the 70-300 USM IS?

Wondering about folks' real world results with this lens.


These are all on a Canon 20D when the camera and lenses were new to
me. The longer-than-70mm shots are 70-300mm DO IS. Others per labels.
May be some useful comparisons available.

http://www.fototime.com/inv/D7204C88407C9F5

--
Frank ess

jmc wrote:
Does anyone have this lens and can comment on it?

http://buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CN70300DOIS

Seriously considering it, a little concerned that there seems to be
significant flaring with backlit subjects. Also, some reviews say it is
pretty soft out at 300mm.

Also, it's not compatible with the 1.4x teleconverter I was thinking
about. Is the 70-300 USM IS?

Wondering about folks' real world results with this lens.

Thanks!

jmc

I have it and occasionally use it when I feel I need to use it. I also
have the 70-200 L lens which I use perhaps more often than I do the
other. However, for action shots while having to hand hold the camera, I
prefer to use the 70-300 DO lens because of its extended range and it
balances well on the camera. Have I ever considered getting rid of the
lens (you might ask)? Nope .... haven't yet. Am I satisfied using the
lens (you might also ask)? Yep. Did I consider getting the 75-300 IS
USM lens before buying the 70-300 DO lens (last question)? Yep sure did.
I didn't buy the 75-300 IS USM lens because IMO, it isn't as good as the
70-300 DO lens. I always use the DO lens with a hood, which greatly
reduces encountering flare problems.

As for being a tad soft fully extended. Many long lenses and even medium
long lenses may be found to be a tad soft fully extended. AFAIC, the DO
lens is a good lens and I haven't yet been dissatisfied with it. I
recall reading the 70-300 DO lens has a slightly different diffractive
optics (as in being better) than the 400mm DO lens.

Aside: I don't have nor use teleconverters. (shrug) No reason other than
I dislike using them.

"nick c" wrote:

I have it and occasionally use it when I feel I need to use it. I also
have the 70-200 L lens which I use perhaps more often than I do the other.
However, for action shots while having to hand hold the camera, I prefer
to use the 70-300 DO lens because of its extended range and it balances
well on the camera. Have I ever considered getting rid of the lens (you
might ask)? Nope .... haven't yet. Am I satisfied using the lens (you
might also ask)? Yep. Did I consider getting the 75-300 IS USM lens
before buying the 70-300 DO lens (last question)? Yep sure did. I didn't
buy the 75-300 IS USM lens because IMO, it isn't as good as the 70-300 DO
lens.

Exactly. But since then, Canon came out with a new version of the 75-300
(the 70-300/4-5.6 IS) which gets a lot closer to the DO lens.

While the English language reviews are equivocal on whether or not the DO
lens is optically superior to the non-DO, interestingly, the Japanese
reviews at hand rate the DO lens higher optically, but mark it down for the
price.

FWIW, here are Canon's MTF charts. It looks as though both are a tad funky
at f/5.6 but clean up nicely at f/8.0.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...ode lid=11922

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=9996

Interesting that the DO lens is funky at the wide end. (Not that a lot of
people are using these lenses at 70mmg.)

Note, however, that at f/4.0, the 300/4.0 is a lot better than the zooms at
f/5.6.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7316

Aside: I don't have nor use teleconverters. (shrug) No reason other than I
dislike using them.

You lose AF (unless you tape the contacts) on anything that the TC takes to
slower than f/5.6. So they're not all that useful on f/5.6 zooms, even if
they'd fit.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Suddenly, without warning, John Ortt exclaimed (17-Jan-07 8:47 PM):
The amount of flare is a concern - if I'm doing a landscape shot of the
desert hereabouts, for example, with the sun just out of frame, will I
have bad flare? How controllable is it for the occasional experiments
with backlit subjects (usually various flora)?

Would this be helped with a lens hood?



One of the photos showing flare that I looked like was *with* the lens
hood...

which is why it's a concern.

jmc

jmc wrote:
Suddenly, without warning, John Ortt exclaimed (17-Jan-07 8:47 PM):
The amount of flare is a concern - if I'm doing a landscape shot of the
desert hereabouts, for example, with the sun just out of frame, will
I have bad flare? How controllable is it for the occasional
experiments with backlit subjects (usually various flora)?

Would this be helped with a lens hood?


One of the photos showing flare that I looked like was *with* the lens
hood...

which is why it's a concern.


I never use hoods with any lens. Usually I am
able to avoid flare by using my free hand as a
shade (with the 70-300 DO IS one-handed shooting
works fine).

Phil

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"nick c" wrote:
I have it and occasionally use it when I feel I need to use it. I also
have the 70-200 L lens which I use perhaps more often than I do the other.
However, for action shots while having to hand hold the camera, I prefer
to use the 70-300 DO lens because of its extended range and it balances
well on the camera. Have I ever considered getting rid of the lens (you
might ask)? Nope .... haven't yet. Am I satisfied using the lens (you
might also ask)? Yep. Did I consider getting the 75-300 IS USM lens
before buying the 70-300 DO lens (last question)? Yep sure did. I didn't
buy the 75-300 IS USM lens because IMO, it isn't as good as the 70-300 DO
lens.

Exactly. But since then, Canon came out with a new version of the 75-300
(the 70-300/4-5.6 IS) which gets a lot closer to the DO lens.

While the English language reviews are equivocal on whether or not the DO
lens is optically superior to the non-DO, interestingly, the Japanese
reviews at hand rate the DO lens higher optically, but mark it down for the
price.

FWIW, here are Canon's MTF charts. It looks as though both are a tad funky
at f/5.6 but clean up nicely at f/8.0.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...ode lid=11922

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=9996

Interesting that the DO lens is funky at the wide end. (Not that a lot of
people are using these lenses at 70mmg.)

Note, however, that at f/4.0, the 300/4.0 is a lot better than the zooms at
f/5.6.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7316

Aside: I don't have nor use teleconverters. (shrug) No reason other than I
dislike using them.

You lose AF (unless you tape the contacts) on anything that the TC takes to
slower than f/5.6. So they're not all that useful on f/5.6 zooms, even if
they'd fit.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



Thanks for the info David. I don't normally use the DO lens at its low
end and I know price is an issue with many buyers, but I would still
opt to select the DO lens. When using the DO lens, colors seem to appear
bright and just as crisp as when I use my "L" lenses.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:44:57 -0800, Phil Wheeler
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:06:29 -0800, Phil Wheeler
wrote:

jmc wrote:
Suddenly, without warning, Bill Funk exclaimed (18-Jan-07 1:38 AM):

That isn't a new lens by any means.
The (actually relatively) new 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens is a far
better bang-for-the-buck lens, IMO.

ah. Just new to *me* then Thanks for the info.
The lens above is clearly less expensive than the
DO version, but is far less portable.

Phil
True, but I don't use it as a walk-around lens.
The 28-135 IS lens I use as a walk-around is much better for me, as
the 70-300 is too long and not wide enough at the same time.
The 70-300 stays in the bag until needed.


I "walk around" (hike/tramp/trek) with a 20D,
17-85IS and 70-300 DO IS .. unless I get lazy and
use smaller equipment (S3 IS for example).

Phil

Which obviously works well for you (and, I imagine, many others).
I have an S2IS that my wife and I share, and a FX01 for my pocket. The
30D is just too big to carry all the time.
Just personal preferrences.

--
Miss New Jersey USA said
she's pregnant Monday, after
Miss Nevada USA resigned over
nude photos. Miss USA just
got out of coke rehab. Miss
Congeniality won her title
with her presentation on how
to tell undercover vice cops
from the real Johns.

Phil Wheeler wrote:

That isn't a new lens by any means.
The (actually relatively) new 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens is a far
better bang-for-the-buck lens, IMO.

The lens above is clearly less expensive than the DO version,
but is far less portable.

Actually the new 70-300/4-5.6 IS weighs less, it's just longer.
At half the price I don't see that it's a tough decision, although
the DO focuses slightly closer. DO is a losing technology.

Canon 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS 630g 143mm $550 150cm ø58
Canon 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS 720g 100mm $1130 140cm ø58

Bill Funk wrote:

I "walk around" (hike/tramp/trek) with a 20D,
17-85IS and 70-300 DO IS .. unless I get lazy and
use smaller equipment (S3 IS for example).

Phil

Which obviously works well for you (and, I imagine, many others).
I have an S2IS that my wife and I share, and a FX01 for my pocket. The
30D is just too big to carry all the time.
Just personal preferrences.


Oh, I do agree with that re "all the time". I
always travel with a Fuji F20 (great for low
light) and/or Canon SD700IS. Then it's a matter
of whether I lug the DSLR set up or the S3 IS
superzoom -- and the S3 often wins!

Phil

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote:
That isn't a new lens by any means.
The (actually relatively) new 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens is a far
better bang-for-the-buck lens, IMO.
The lens above is clearly less expensive than the DO version,
but is far less portable.

Actually the new 70-300/4-5.6 IS weighs less, it's just longer.
At half the price I don't see that it's a tough decision, although
the DO focuses slightly closer. DO is a losing technology.

Canon 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS 630g 143mm $550 150cm ø58
Canon 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS 720g 100mm $1130 140cm ø58



Not "losing" for me. I love the DO results,
handling and build quality (the reason it is
smaller but has more mass). Length also makes for
better balance and better fit in the side bags I use.

But if you prefer the budget alternative, go for
it ;-)

Phil