EF 70-300 DO

[samdring]

Bought one of these some 6 months ago and it was a shed! (exchanged it for a 100-400 [plus a wad] which I like - but don't use enough to warrant keeping)
Have always recognized that it was an early copy and that I got a bad example.
Seriously thinking about buying another 'cos the length, size and weight suits.

How many of you, who have owned for some time, are still happy with the results (sharpness, clarity etc)? Please.

[roanjohn]

Everything is a compromise............read this article, it might change your views about the 70-300 DO IS.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

Ro1

[samdring]

Thanks - useful

[Radtech1]

I EMailed Michael Reichmann to ask "Of the 75 keepers, how many of those were shot with the 70-300 DO?"

Granted he used it for 70% of his shooting, that means nothing if none of those shots became the keepers. He said that about 50% of the keepers were shot with the 70-300 DO, and 50% were shot with all other lenses.

I use mine a lot and I am very satisfied. The only time it let me down was brightly front lit actors on a dark stage. There was a bit of haloing. Now that I know the lens's weak areas, I use it whenever the situation allows.

FYI,

Rad

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm just satisfied enough with it to keep it despite the fact that I am far from 100% satisfied..

It's size and functionality are enough to keep me from selling...

If I'd gotten this lens right after a 28-300mm or 75-300mm bargain lens,. I would be THRILLED with the image quality,.. but really,.. I'm now spoiled by much better glass.

This lens should cost $700.00-$850.00 Max... and then it would be worth every penny. But at the price it is,, I really don't recomend it often.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Tomorrow this is the lens that will be main for a day of hunting owls.

We have had many sightings (owl tried to take a small terrier!) just west of Ottawa, so I'm heading out. For the walking I will be doing this will be the lens of choice.

I've been satisfied with what I've done with this lens so far. I've been able to determine the fault with the non-keepers has been the user, not the lens. The keepers are very good IMO.

I'll post when I'm done.

I will definitely be keeping this lens.

[karusel]

I've read the whole thread, and mr. Reichmanns Bangladesh story, and I'm now convinced that the lense is no good, it's evil, it will lure you with it's small stealth size, black finish, relatively acceptable sharpness and good versatility, and though I'm somewhat temped I won't opt for it, I'll rather start excercising, drinking 16 eggwhites for breakfast, doing pushups and and punching meat hanging at the local butcher's storage while listening to ever looping Eye Of The Tiger so one day I'll be able to handhold any lense for obscene periods of time rather than use this gymmick because of it's convenience. :D Also, it only has 6 aperture blades.

OK, joking aside, I have this thing for quality and I couldn't bear getting a relatively expensive lens to cover 50% of my shots and I'd be dissatisfied with them...

[Jesper]

Everything is a compromise............read this article, it might change your views about the 70-300 DO IS.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtmlThanks, interesting article!

I'm going to Northern India in two weeks. I will be taking the following photo gear: 10D, 17-40 L, 50 f/1.8 II, 28-135 IS, 70-300 DO IS, 420 EX flash, CF cards and 3 batteries, 40 GB FlashTrax drive.

I bought the 70-300 DO IS and not one of the 70-200 L's because it's small, black and inconspicuous. I don't see myself walking around in India with a big white lens. Also, I'll have to carry around the gear all the time, so I don't want it to be too big and too heavy.

In my experience, the 70-300 DO IS can produce really good quality images. It's main weak point is at the long end, wide open (300mm at f/5.6) - at that setting the sharpness is not spectacular. When stopped down, even just one stop to f/8, it's already a lot better.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Used this lens today to shot some owls and deer while hiking.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56878

Seemed pretty good to me.:D

[RJSorensen]

I have a secret lust for this lens . . .

[Tom W]

I have a secret lust for this lens . . .

Me too - and I don't know why. It won't do anything that the 100-400 can't already do, except that it will operate in stealth (and might get people to quite asking that stupid question, "how much zoom does it have?") :)

[John_T]

I've had mine about six months and used it a lot. All things considered, there is no other lens quite like it. It's main strength is "getting the shot". It's up to you to learn the artistry of getting the most out of it, both in making the shot and in post processing. If you manage these two you really have a winner. The most complaints about this lens are from people who don't want to take the trouble or don't want/need all of it's attributes.