Canon's new 70-300 USM IS DO lens

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

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

Lets see...
-Flare
-Soft
-Incompatible


It seems you've come up with some key adjectives...

This lens has one main thing going for it: It's SMALL.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
jmc wrote:

Wondering about folks' real world results with this lens.

Lets see...
-Flare
-Soft
-Incompatible


It seems you've come up with some key adjectives...

Y'all missed one: expensive. At least here, it's twice the price of the
70-300 4-5.6 IS.

By the way, it looks as though the only 75-xxx or 70-xxx lens the 1.4x II TC
works with is the 70-200/2.8.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Suddenly, without warning, David J. Littleboy exclaimed (17-Jan-07 6:36 PM):
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
jmc wrote:
Wondering about folks' real world results with this lens.
Lets see...
-Flare
-Soft
-Incompatible


It seems you've come up with some key adjectives...

Y'all missed one: expensive. At least here, it's twice the price of the
70-300 4-5.6 IS.

By the way, it looks as though the only 75-xxx or 70-xxx lens the 1.4x II TC
works with is the 70-200/2.8.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Yea, I noticed the "twice as expensive" too, but that sort of balances
out with "almost L class", I think. If it's truly L class, then it's
not so expensive.

As for "soft", I saw example images where closeups of the DO lens image
looked sharper than the 75-300mm shot, but another reviewer (without
pictures) complained that it was soft. So, that's one of the things I'd
love to clear up, from actual owners.

The TC isn't a requirement though, it would be a nice-to-have. Will it
work with non-Canon lenses? I have the 17-50mm Tamron.

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)?

jmc

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?

If you'd like a comparator, I took this the other day with
the 70-300 USM IS f4-5.6 ( Warning. 4MB file ).....

http://www.whirleygig.co.uk/~cgilbert/Hangglider.jpg

Late afternoon, windy, handheld, 200mm, AP, AE, 1/320sec
at f20, ISO 500, spot metered.

Overall the lens OK. Perhaps 3/5. The AF is very good. The
problem is I also own an 'L' lens and it knocks this one into a
cocked hat, to be honest. They're both made of plastic, metal
and glass but that's just about where the similarity ends. I'll make
do with it for now but I'll get the 'L' as soon as I can afford it.

HTH

Chris

"John Ortt" wrote in message
...

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?

Almost by definition yes, as long as the hood is deep enough and the sun is
out of the frame.

In article , David J. Littleboy
writes

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
jmc wrote:

Wondering about folks' real world results with this lens.

Lets see...
-Flare
-Soft
-Incompatible


It seems you've come up with some key adjectives...

Y'all missed one: expensive. At least here, it's twice the price of the
70-300 4-5.6 IS.

By the way, it looks as though the only 75-xxx or 70-xxx lens the 1.4x II TC
works with is the 70-200/2.8.

The Canon extenders also work with the 70-200 f/4L (and presumably the
newer IS version of this lens).

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , jmc
writes
Suddenly, without warning, David J. Littleboy exclaimed (17-Jan-07 6:36 PM):
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
jmc wrote:
Wondering about folks' real world results with this lens.
Lets see...
-Flare
-Soft
-Incompatible


[snip]

The TC isn't a requirement though, it would be a nice-to-have. Will it
work with non-Canon lenses? I have the 17-50mm Tamron.

Rather, why not consider using a non-Canon extender with the Canon lens.
The problem with the Canon extenders (both 1.4x and 2x) is that they
have an optical element which protrudes significantly at the front. Only
those lenses with an appropriate amount of space at the rear end (i.e.
no optics too close to the mount) will physically accommodate the
extenders. Most third-party extenders do not have this protruding
element. The Kenco pro range seem to get good write-ups, but I cannot
speak from personal experience here

Another advantage of most third party extenders is that they fail to
tell the camera that the lens aperture is effectively reduced by 1 or 2
stops. Consequently, the camera will still try to auto-focus even if the
effective aperture is not below f/8 (top level bodies) or f/5.6 (the
rest). The AF will however be slower and may be less accurate.

David
--
David Littlewood

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?


Not all that new: I've been using a 70-300 DO IS
for over two years.

I like it a lot .. and do use it occasionally with
a Kenko TC, 1.4x I think

There is a review of it he

http://luminous-landscape.com/review...70-300mm.shtml

It's the most portable long zoom I own and travels
very well for trekking and such.

Phil