28-135, 70-200 2.8 IS; Today 70-300 DO

[MDJAK]

Did I just buy a redundant lens today at B&H? I currently own the 28-135 IS, THE 17-40, the 100 mm 2.8 macro, and the 70-200 F2.8 IS. I wanted another walk-around lens to complement the 28-135, so I got the 70-300 DO. Was this a bad move? It cost 1100 or so today at B&H. I do a lot of indoor sports shooting. Would I have been better off with the 135 F2?

One of my motives was walk-around, unobtrusiveness.

[cactusclay]

You had the 70-200, you could have got a tele converter to get the 300mm and got the 135/2.

[shaun3000]

70-200 f/2.8L IS isn't exactly a walk-around lens.

[michael.luczkow]

doesn't really matter much now though... :-)

[RJSorensen]

The DO is not very fast . . . as best I remember when I looked at it.

[MDJAK]

I have the 1.4 teleconverter.

And I can always return it. I just placed it on the camera and its small size is quite appealing. With the lens hood, however, it's not exactly inconspicuous.

[Belmondo]

You did just fine. I have the 70-300DO, and it's an ideal lens for 'walking around.' I also have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and I rarely use it unless I'm very near a place to put it down when it gets too heavy. Using a 1.4X or 2.0X TC only compounds the problem. Optically, the 70-200 has few equals, but it is a handful.

[MDJAK]

Belmondo, I believe you are right. Seems to be an excellent lens. The zoom ring seems to be quite stiff, though. Is this normal?

[tim]

The 70-300DO interests me, except that it's a bit too slow. I'd love a 70-200 F4 IS, now I just have to convince Canon to make one.... either that or get the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 for not much more.

[Belmondo]

Belmondo, I believe you are right. Seems to be an excellent lens. The zoom ring seems to be quite stiff, though. Is this normal?

It is a little hard turning. I suspect there's a lot going on inside the lens that makes it so.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You can't have fast and small,. and a zoom, it just doesn't work.

If you want a great zoom that is small and light,. it's hard to beat the little DO.

[surfmonkey89]

I just sold my 70-200 2.8 because while I love the images it produces, it's too big, heavy and white.

I'm considering getting the DO, but to be honest the pictures I've seen people post are less than encouraging. They remind me a lot of the 28-135 I had and got rid of because all the pictures seemed kinda dull.

Here's a question to ponder: are pictures taken with non-L zooms really that much worse, or do they just appear that way because the people who own them are primarily hobbyists and are not as well versed at Photoshop so they don't do the post-processing needed to make the images "pop"?

I'm starting to wonder.

[Olegis]

I believe that it was the right thing to do (buying another lens is always the right thing to do, as long as you have the money ;) ). I myself wanted to buy this lens for a very long time because of its size and warm recommendations like this one (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml). The only thing that stops me is the price - it's just too high for me right now, besides there are other lenses in my wishlist well before this one (100-400 IS L for example) ...

[Cadwell]

I wanted another walk-around lens to complement the 28-135, so I got the 70-300 DO ... I do a lot of indoor sports shooting. Would I have been better off with the 135 F2?

The 70-300DO is a great walk around lens but is firmly in the "chocolate teapot" category as far as indoor sports shooting goes. I guess that means you need a 135mm f/2 as well :twisted: