I've got the 70-300 DO IS USM - first impressions

[Jesper]

I visited the USA last week and ofcourse I also went to the famous B&H store (http://www.bhphotovideo.com). I bought Canon's new DO zoom lens - the EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml). I wanted it because I wanted to have a good telezoom lens, but not a big, conspicuous, heavy white one like the various 70-200 L lenses. They only had one lens left at B&H when I bought it, and my brother also wanted to buy it, so he ordered it and got it sent home in 3 days - so it looks like it wasn't really out of stock...

Here is my current Canon lens collection.

http://home.hccnet.nl/jesper.de.jong/images/lenses.jpg

As you see the 70-300 is about the same size as the 17-40 and 28-135. My first impressions:

- For its size, it's heavy (720g, almost 1.5x the 17-40), but if you compare it with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM (1470g) it's light and small.

- The IS works even better than on the 28-135 and it's almost silent (the 28-135 makes a "whirring" noise with the IS on).

- The zoom lock is very nice, I wish the 28-135 had this! It would be nice if Canon would make an 28-135 mark II, with 2-mode IS and zoom lock.

- The lens works great on the 10D - I made a photo of the Empire State building from around 18th Street and you can even see the people standing on the Empire State building!

I like the lens a lot, it was expensive, but very nice. The only real minus for me is that it isn't a fast lens, f/4.5-5.6.

[roanjohn]

WOW, tiny.......for its range.

And can you fit a 58mm filter in that??

Ro1

[CoolToolGuy]

I'm curious - does it extend much when zoomed? If so, how much?

[Belmondo]

Just when I got used to lusting only for lenses with red rings on them, I now find I have to add green to the list.

It really does seem to offer an excellent compromise between size and performance, and optically it has to be considered exceptional. You get the sense that if would be exponentially more expensive if they tried to make it any faster. (the 400mm f/4.0 DO is about $5,000 US).

Looks like a winner to me although the proof will be in the images produced.

[cmM]

Quick question for you:
How much money did you have when you walked into B&H ?
How moch money did you have when you walked out of B&H ?
:P

Congrats on your purchase. I've heard good things about this lens so far.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am very interested in this lens.. on a 10D minus the battery grip. it would fit in my little case I got for my old Olympus 2100.. it would not scare people with that small lens.. and 300mm is pretty much exactly what I want on a "walk around lens" (the 28-300mm I currently have is collecting dust as it is CRAP)

Wish it wasn't so damn pricey :(

[nosquare2003]

So you've gone to DO!!!

[Jesper]

roanjohn: Yes, the filter size you need for this lens is 58mm. A lot smaller than the 77mm of the 17-40 and 72mm of the 28-135, so the filters are less expensive.

CoolToolGuy: It does extend a bit when zoomed - but it's still a lot shorter than the 75-300 (here is a comparison image (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/PMA/Canon/ef70300mmvs02.jpg) from dpreview.com) and ofcourse it's a lot smaller than a white L lens... :?

cmM: The price was US$ 1,299 and including tax and a 7-year Mack warranty it was US$ 1,449. A lot of money, but here in Europe it would have been even more expensive! Actually, I paid by credit card so technically the bank still owns it..... 8)

[Jesper]

I am very interested in this lens.. on a 10D minus the battery grip. it would fit in my little case I got for my old Olympus 2100.. it would not scare people with that small lens.. and 300mm is pretty much exactly what I want on a "walk around lens" (the 28-300mm I currently have is collecting dust as it is CRAP)

Wish it wasn't so damn pricey :(

Yes, you can easily "shoot people" 8) with this lens without them knowing it. First of all you're so far away that they won't notice you and second, the lens is so small and inconspicuous that they won't know you're zooming in on them. Ofcourse 70mm is a bit long sometimes, especially on the 10D (1.6x) - it's really a lens for photographing details.

[CoolToolGuy]

CoolToolGuy: It does extend a bit when zoomed - but it's still a lot shorter than the 75-300 (here is a comparison image (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/PMA/Canon/ef70300mmvs02.jpg) from dpreview.com) and ofcourse it's a lot smaller than a white L lens... :?


Jesper,

Thanks for the link. All the images of it that I had seen until now showed it retracted. It looks like it can be a very compact setup for those that need it.

[ron chappel]

(the 28-300mm I currently have is collecting dust as it is CRAP)

I'm curious-which brand/model do you have?
I just finnished some thorough testing of a late model sigma and was quite impressed.It was actually about equal to the best cheap kit zooms

[CyberDyneSystems]

... I've got the Sigma.. it's not the latest version but who knows what actual imporvements they did.

It focuses.. sometimes.. thats the biggest issue.. and manual focus seems out of the question due to the fact that moving the ring a fration of a mm causes it to alter focus dramticlly.. you just can't fine tune it :(

[LazyPhotographer]

Could you post some links to pics taken with this lens? We can't torment ourselves very much without the visual aid. :wink:

[ron chappel]

Had a look at your website jesper but couldn't tell for sure which ones were from this lens

Can you give an example of a direct comparison with the 28-135? :)

[Jesper]

The photos in the last two collections on my Fotopic site ( http://jesper.fotopic.net - the "New York" and "Lancaster County" collections) were all made with the 17-40 and the 70-300. Unfortunately the EXIF info wasn't preserved in the JPEGs so you can't see which of the lenses I used when you click the "Image Info" button... but I guess that with most of the images you can guess which lens I used... also, many of the images there have been cropped or color and contrast edited in Photoshop, so they don't really show the detail, color and contrast that the lens captured.

I didn't make any direct comparison shots between the 70-300 and the 28-135 yet, and I don't have time right now (and the sun is already low on the horizon here) but when I have the time I could make some comparisons with the camera on a tripod etc. - I will post examples later.

[ron chappel]

Thanks that would be awsome :D
I guessed that the latest new york ones might have the lens pics'
Alot of them have that low contrast look that seems to be a characteristic of this lens

[Jesper]

Thanks that would be awsome :D
I guessed that the latest new york ones might have the lens pics'
Alot of them have that low contrast look that seems to be a characteristic of this lens

I don't think you can draw that conclusion from the photos on my website, the colors and contrast of almost all of those photos is tweaked with Photoshop. I will post some straight-out-of-the-camera photos later.

[Jesper]

I found this review, in which the 70-300 DO is compared to a number of other lenses: Tamron XR 28-300, Canon 28-135 IS, Canon 75-300 IS, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

I only took a quick look at the 100% crops, but it looks like the 70-300 DO is definitely sharper than the Tamron, the 28-135 and the 75-300 (especially the Tamron shots look really bad...). Ofcourse the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS wins, but that's no surprise.

[Cadwell]

I only took a quick look at the 100% crops, but it looks like the 70-300 DO is definitely sharper than the Tamron, the 28-135 and the 75-300 (especially the Tamron shots look really bad...). Ofcourse the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS wins, but that's no surprise.

True, but they are not comparing apples with apples. From my perspective given the "DO" lens's price point the sensible comparison is against an "L" series lens. Comparing it against a Tamron which cost a quarter of the price isn't really fair. Of course it's going to be better.

[ron chappel]

No,including the tamron is a good thing,it's interesting to see where the supersooms fit into the grand scheme of things.

Of course testing it against the 75-300 is and 70-200 is L with TC is an obvious comparison-it fits inbetween these two in capabilities and price so it's normal to want to see where it fits optically as well!

A seriously usefull review!! One i've been waiting for as i can't decide if i want to buy the normal 75-300 IS or go for the DO for better optics.

Added later:Of course there are other good options for a 300mm zoom with good optics.The sigma 100-300/4 is a seriously tempting option :D
But i've found that most of my failed tele images are allmost entirely due to camera movement so i'm definitely getting a stabilized lens next :wink:


Jesper-allthough that link is really all i NEED,i'd still love to see how it does against the 28-135 still...if you want :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

That review is really top notch!

Man I am "jonesing" for that lens now.. I REALLY want a solid portable performer !

[scottbergerphoto]

That review is really top notch!

Man I am "jonesing" for that lens now.. I REALLY want a solid portable performer !
CDS,
What do you make of all the bright circles in the out of focus background of the bottom pictures? Too much internal flare? Is it more then expected?
Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm looking at the way the light was bouncing off the water and thinking this would not be a regular occurance.. it may be a lens problem.. but would the same have happened to another lens under such conditions?

I don't know.. it just looks like the same sort of ring you could get around a street lamp in a night photo... ?

[scottbergerphoto]

I'm looking at the way the light was bouncing off the water and thinking this would not be a regular occurance.. it may be a lens problem.. but would the same have happened to another lens under such conditions?

I don't know.. it just looks like the same sort of ring you could get around a street lamp in a night photo... ?
Do you think it's a coincidence that the lens has circular grooves etched into the glass or is that possibly a factor in this phenomenon?
Scott

[2new]

Do you think it's a coincidence that the lens has circular grooves etched into the glass or is that possibly a factor in this phenomenon?

Scott - unfortunately I think we would need additional testing to answer this question. Has anyone seen additional sample photos with this lens with similar OOF circular highlights.

I am hoping that is is NOT the lens because this would make a great hiking/travel lens, but I too am skeptical because of the DO construction

Michael

[Jesper]

Here is another review, on photo.net: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

[Belmondo]

I got an email from B&H today saying that the 70-300 DO lens is now available. Mine is on the way as we speak (so to speak).

[Jamdiver]

I'm somewhat interested in this lens.

Does anyone have any relatively recent shots with it??

[Super-Nicko]

WOW talk about thread revival, did someone have to boot it up from a floppy disc?

3 years old - i was reading along wondering why everyone seemed so amazed that the DO was new - even Belmondo! hehe

[Jamdiver]

WOW talk about thread revival, did someone have to boot it up from a floppy disc?

3 years old - i was reading along wondering why everyone seemed so amazed that the DO was new - even Belmondo! hehe

True!!

But it struck me as somewhat odd, that no one has posted any pics taken with the lens in that time.

I'm wondering if there are any issues with the lens.
Too expensive, image quality is dodgy, unproven technology??

[oldradioman]

I have the 70-300 IS DO lens and have taken many very good shots with it. For me, it is a great travel lens.
Go to http://ourmnacres.us/sharpness.html for some evaluation shots I did with this lens plus a couple others.

[DC9]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_4556do_is/index.htm

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2081235&postcount=1

http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php

[GGordon]

I have the 70-300 DO. To be honest I like it but cannot say I love it. For me it is a good walk around lens and it can take some fairly good photos but they will just about always need some PP.
I suggest anybody who considers buying or has this lens to check out these two links:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224053

http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php

Gordon

[dfindr]

This lens is truly a steath zoom. Below are some pictures original and cropped.

[dfindr]

This lens is truly a steath zoom. Below are some pictures original and cropped.

2 more

[dfindr]

2 more

Yet again 2 more

[dfindr]

Yet again 2 more

Final 2


The 4 images above and the 2 below were cropped in Lightroom only. It was a very hazy day and I was just goofing around putting this lens through its paces.

BTW the following thread -- http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224053 -- Will give you some other insights into this lens. You can get great results if you understand its limitations. You can really have a lot of fun with this thing!

[ANGUS]

I got the 70-300mm IS USM, Whats the DO add??

[squiress]

I got the 70-300mm IS USM, Whats the DO add??

Diffractive Optics. Canon has buily a couple of these lenses. This zoom and a 400 f/4. Allows for more compactness. They are designated by a green stripe.

Stew

[ANGUS]

Mine has a Greenish Gold broken stripe, Is that DO?

[Relaxtech]

The camparision it is not balanced.

[hollis_f]

The camparision it is not balanced.

Er, you do realise that this thread is over four years old? I doubt any of the contributors care any more.