Tell me about your 70-300 DO IS USM please!

[Adam Hicks]

I know it's new, but it's out there, the reviews look very good, and the lens appears to be as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) from the image tests I've seen. If it'll do that well, be compact, light and reach out to 300mm, then I've gotta have one.

Wish they would have just put the red ring on it instead of green for this price!

Thanks in advance,
Adam

[CyberDyneSystems]

I love it's portability... I love that it's small and black...

But it is not in the same league as the 70-200mm f/2.8,.. nor the 100-400mm IS as far as sharpness, contrast and overall image quality I'm afraid.

Well o-kay .. compared to say the old 75-300mm IS it is close the the "L" lenses.. but for the price.. you could get much better images with one of those big white lenses.

So it is definately a trade off.. When I'm feeling "serious" about my shooting I have the 100-400 or 70-200 f/2.8 mounted.... when I am out "plinking" or just traveling light I mount the 70-300mm DO.

Hope this helps.

[Belmondo]

I concur with everything CDS says based on my limited exposure to it thus far. It's a lot of lens in a small package, but it is not the optical equivalent of the 70-200. I've had mine a couple weeks already, but still haven't really taken little time to work with it yet. Any proclamations as to its weak/strong points would be way too preliminary.

I expect I will come to like it a lot, but for the time being remain a bit reticent about actually encouraging anyone else to pay that kind of money for this lens. Hopefully I’ll be able to do that fairly soon, but not yet.

[Jesper]

I also have the 70-300 DO and I like it. I can't tell you from my own experience how it compares to the big white 70-200 L lenses, because I've never used those myself. I got the 70-300 DO because I wanted a high quality telezoom lens (better than the 75-300 IS), but not a big, heavy, conspicuous white one. The 70-300 DO is expensive, but from the example photos I've seen it's much better than the 75-300 IS - probably it's not as good as a 70-200 L, but it looks like it's closer to the L's than to the 75-300 and it has 100mm extra reach beyond the 70-200 L.

[reneebsen]

Hi
I have this lens, and I think it works just perfect. Very sharp and good contrast. Nice colors.

[samdring]

I get mine tomorrow - I'm bored with red rings :wink:

[New Shooter]

The thing that impresses is compactness. Some newbies are like a bit reticent to put a bit white lens on the end of the 300D and look like an amateur, trying to look like a pro, if you know what I mean. The thing that I thought was cool about the DO was that it didn't look enormous (though I loved the recent "how big is yours?" post with the 400mm + lenses stress testing the tripods) yet covered a massive range. Luminous landscape and some of the other sites that have tested it seemed keen. So the questions comes down to...if you already have a good "mid-range" price quality lens like the 28-135 IS, have a FANTASTIC 17-40 L [which I really do think is terrific], is the new DO the way to go, to stay black, stay inconspicous, but to get almost pro-quality, without paying £2,500 for the white 28-300 mega amazing IS L white lens. Anybody else have a view, other than my obession with aesthetics?

Lets keep this going because I am sure Canon see a "near L" niche that people like me will just go for any sunny day.

JD

[timmyquest]

trying to look like a pro,

I dont give a ** Timmy's language edited AGAIN by MODERATOR ** what i look like, only my photos.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Timmy, you have PM

MODERATOR

[CyberDyneSystems]

New Shoter,

I agree with your assesment about the "Look" of the big white lenses on ANY camera .. This is the primary reason I got the "DO"

It really boils down to application.. trekking through the woods looking for birds.. I'll use whatever lens regardless of size, burden or visual impact.. but showing up at a park with the dogs and 100-00mm L does attrack tooo much attention IMHO..

So yes there are definately times that a mid-sized black lens is an advantage.

[theoldmoose]

I just got mine this past weekend, so to early to tell. I'll be shooting street photography at the Ann Arbor Art Fairs this week, and hopefully it will figure prominently in my lens arsenal.

If nothing else, the extreme lighting situations typical of the Art Fairs, when it is high noon above, and dark canyons below (downtown Ann Arbor), should show if there will be any problems with flare, etc.

[Jesper]

So the questions comes down to...if you already have a good "mid-range" price quality lens like the 28-135 IS, have a FANTASTIC 17-40 L [which I really do think is terrific], is the new DO the way to go, to stay black, stay inconspicous, but to get almost pro-quality, without paying £2,500 for the white 28-300 mega amazing IS L white lens. Anybody else have a view, other than my obession with aesthetics?

Those are exactly my lenses: 17-40 L, 28-135 and 70-300 DO (and also the 50 f/1.8 ). Actually, I don't use the 28-135 so much anymore since I got the 70-300 DO.

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

[Jesper]

trying to look like a pro,

I dont give a ** Timmy's language edited AGAIN by MODERATOR ** what i look like, only my photos.

Actually, a big heavy white lens *will* make your photos look different. You'll have more photos with people looking at your big, fat, conspicuous white lens .....

[Steveo31]

So the questions comes down to...if you already have a good "mid-range" price quality lens like the 28-135 IS, have a FANTASTIC 17-40 L [which I really do think is terrific], is the new DO the way to go, to stay black, stay inconspicous, but to get almost pro-quality, without paying £2,500 for the white 28-300 mega amazing IS L white lens. Anybody else have a view, other than my obession with aesthetics?

Those are exactly my lenses: 17-40 L, 28-135 and 70-300 DO (and also the 50 f/1.8 ). Actually, I don't use the 28-135 so much anymore since I got the 70-300 DO.


Wow... that thing is small!!!

[Belmondo]

It was a little hard getting used to a 58mm lens after so many 77mm monsters. At least the filters are a lot cheaper. :lol:

[theoldmoose]

I certainly appreciate not having to get 77mm filters for the thing. Also, it may look small in the photos, but it is a larger diameter than either the 17-40 or 28-135, and has some heft to it, although it is much lighter than the big, white lenses it replaces.

Also, it extends to at least twice its length when zoomed. You normally don't see that in any of the photos. I find the twist zoom control a bit heavy. It has a high gear ratio so you can zoom from 70-300 with one partial twist. On the other hand the manual focus ring is geared less than 1:1 ratio, so it's a bit funky if you are looking at the distance scale while trying to set focus.

Like all lenses it will take some getting used to, but the IS is really super. It continues to amaze me how rock solid it is, after putting up with all the jumping around in the viewfinder I got with my old 70-210 f4.

[samdring]

New Shooter and Jesper - scary - identical line-up here also.
What are we going for next? My age puts twins out of the question but the 100 macro looks tasty!

[John57]

I have had this lens a couple of weeks and I am really pleased with it. The size is amazing for the quality it produces. That said, however, it is nowhere near as good as my 70-200L 2.8 or for that matter my 35-350L, both of which produce noticeably better images; better in sharpness and contrast/colour. The difference is that it is good enough for me and will get used when I don't wish to carry a big white lens around. With a 24-70 it makes a good combination in black! I bought it for exactly this reason and I don't regret it.

[samdring]

Had mine couple of days now. Hard to judge at this stage - certainly better than 28-135 @ 100 and 2nd Generation (is that right?) IS is superb - hand held @ 1/10 no probs

[Jesper]

New Shooter and Jesper - scary - identical line-up here also.
What are we going for next? My age puts twins out of the question but the 100 macro looks tasty!

In addition to those three, I have the EF 50 f/1.8 II (which is what I made that photo above with.... :) ).

And yes, I'm thinking about the EF 100 f/2.8 macro too! My brother has it, I've tried his one and it looks very nice. It's just a little bit longer than the above three lenses and has an 58mm filter thread, just like the 70-300 DO.

One more thing on my wish list is a polarizer for my 17-40. I do have a 72mm polarizer for the 28-135, but the 17-40 ofcourse needs 77mm and a good quality polarizer of that size is expensive.... :(

[CyberDyneSystems]

Jesper.. with the 10D's 1.6 crop fator you "might" be able to use that 72mm polarizer on the 17-40mm with a step down ring?

I know people do this often enough but with that wide lens I don't know if you can step down quite that far.

[karusel]

trying to look like a pro,

I dont give a #!#$& what i look like, only my photos.

Fixed! Also, seconded.

[Aylwin]

Jesper, nice comparison photo! I too have the 17-40 and 28-135IS but with the 75-300IS. I'd love to get the 70-300 DO and was just about to buy it last week. I still find it a bit expensive though so I'll wait another month or so. I know the price won't change but I'll know by then how desperate I am to buy it.