Tele lens question for the experts

[surfmonkey89]

I'm probably an intermediate level photographer; to be honest I have more money than talent right now :). I'm always trying to get better though.

I find myself gravitating to shorter focal lengths. Right now I have a 16-35, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 for my 10D.

I still need somethign longer from time to time though.

I also own a 70-200 2.8 IS that I kinda bought on impulse after reading all the great reviews, thinking that I could deal with the issues listed by everyone, namely that it's big, heavy, white, and doesn't fit in my bag. It takes great pictures, but not when it's sitting at home :)

What I'm finding is that I usually make excuses to not take it, so when I'd like something longer I'm s.o.l. I'm not into nature photography, and I don't think 200 is long enough for that anyway. I'm finding that when I want to take a longer shot it's still a candid, or maybe the occasional youth soccer match.

What I'm taking a long time getting around to is that I'm wondering if, based on my needs and experience, selling the 70-200 and replacing it with the 70-300 DO might be the better choice.

So what do you folks think?

FWIW, I find that trying to find the "right" lens by asking on a forum is often futile, because how are people supposed to know what to recommend if you don't tell them how you're going to use the lens? I've tried to explain everything here hoping to have better luck; if I'm missing something let me know and I'll try to give you an answer.

thanks,
paul

[metsuyan]

Me and you sound alot alike my friend.

I'm shooting with a 1Ds MkII as I went nuts on the whole photography thing recently and blew close to 20k on alot of glass and goodies.

Just so happens that I also bought the 70-300 DO IS as part of my arsenal.

I'm an extremely fast learner in general and have recently started to compare my lenses and their pro's con's. Like you I knew that if my lenses were not comfortable or practical to shoot with I wouldnt be using them much so the 70-300 DO IS sounded good with respect to practicality.

In a nutshell.... from one itermediate to another (told you I'm a quick learner ;)
If you have plently of light (any average to bright day on the planet) the lens is great. I just found myself kicking up the ISO a bit to compensate for a somewhat slower lens but still overall a great lens when you take all factors into consideration.

PS. Even though the 70-200 will perhaps be faster and a tad bit sharper, if it's at home because you don't want to lug it you wont have any pics! If you read up on this forum quite a few people have talked down the DO lenses cause they're slower but that makes it sound alot worse than it is. It really is a very good lens. All that having been said it's 100mm shorter too. Sounds pretty clear to me but you're the best judge on that one.

[surfmonkey89]

I'm a little confused by your last paragraph; you're saying people talk down the DO, but then say it's 100mm shorter, when it's actually 100mm longer. Am I misinterpreting something?

I agree that people are talking down the DO, but I'm starting to wonder if many of them (outside the true pros; I'm talking about non-pros specifically) are doing so because they "know" that the L lenses are better and let that taint their opinion.

I've seen amazing pictures taken by people using the kit lenses like the 17-55, so there's a lot to be said for good post-processing, not to mention good technique!

It sounds like the 70-300 would be a great travel lens, and a good lens to walk around town inconspicuously. That's what I'm looking for in a tele these days, so I wanted to make sure the 70-300 was the right "fit" for my needs. It sounds like it is, though I might hold out a while longer in hopes that the price goes down.

If anyone else has an opinion, feel free to speak up :)

[metsuyan]

It's late here in NY, sorry if I wasn't perfectly clear. I meant to point out that in addition to it being better to have a really nice pic as opposed to no pic at all, the DO lens also packs an addt'l 100mm in comparison to the 70-200mm.

I've seen some people talking it down and have concluded that in a good many of the cases they were probably impractical purists (please note the delineation that it was many cases, not all). L Lenses seem to get all the glory for good reason but that doesn't discount the fact that this is a great overall lense when you take eveything into consideration.

And if you take post processing into consideration then it's a no brainer.

Great walkaround lens. About 2/3 the size of the 24-70mm L

Wait for the price to come down? Think you'll be waiting a while.
What happened to "more money than talent" ;) ?

Check out this thread I started not too long ago about that exact lens.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57768&highlight=70-300

Best of luck!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[jonniewalton]

I have the 35-350 which is very good, its an L lens and whilst it is true that it is not the sharpest L lens, it is very versatile. The new L IS 28-300 is obvioulsy longer than your current lens and will give you greater range and flexibility. I havent used that lens personally but understand its a step ahead of the older 35-350L

[Bruce Watson]

What I'm taking a long time getting around to is that I'm wondering if, based on my needs and experience, selling the 70-200 and replacing it with the 70-300 DO might be the better choice.
thanks,
paul

Michael Reichmann speaks highly of the 70-300 DO, using it extensively on a recent trip to Bangladesh.

www.luminous-landscape.com

[mdr]

Yeah right :D ! Follow the link, and the first picture you see is taken with a 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens. We all know why ;) .

[Jon]

If you want to replace the 70-200 IS L, go for the 100-400 IS L unless size and weight are your primary criteria. It's about the same size and weight as the 70-200, and has a good range. If the lenses you have don't fit your bag, you need a new bag. Come to think of it, even if they do fit, you need a new bag. There's no such thing as too many gadget bags (although my wife may disagree)!

[ron chappel]

i read a comment on the DO lens by a pro recently -I wish i could find it now because he was VERY specific about it's weaknesses ....and there weren't many!
Basically he was praising it strongly but for some rare weird habits it showed.

Here's are some pics from both lenses.
Be abit carefull though-i think he compares both lenses at the DO's widest aperture-i.e none of the 70-200/2.8 IS lens' shots are at it's softest (wide open) setting
http://www.pbase.com/jptrunck/samples

And here is an excellent writeup on the DO lens odd characteristics-
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

It also goes into a part two section but i don't think much of that.He compares it to some other lenses but not in a proper controlled way as i recall

[surfmonkey89]

Yea, I forgot about the "more money than talent" part :)

Plus, if I sell the 70-200 I can get the 70-300 and have money left over.

I guess it's time to Just Do It.

[zipart]

the 28-300 L lens is huge.:rolleyes: went to my local camera store and had that, the DO, and the 75-300 IS in front of me. i handled them all. and put them on my camera. i am going with the DO lens for size and convience. it is interesting to note that i can not find a retailer that seems to know anything about the DO lens. i even called B&H and got a sales person who nothing about either the DO lens or the 70-300 USM IS. the only place i seem to find any good info is on boards like this. by the way, that is where the guy from B&H told me to go for information. and for that i thank you all for your imput. you help me a lot.