Whoops I did it again 70-300 DO IS USM

[Dante King]

Well I did it again. Got the 70-300 DO IS USM. Here are a few shots to demo. This thing is great in low level light with the IS. Love the lightweight and small profile.

http://www.danteking.com/pic/DO1.jpghttp://www.danteking.com/pics/DO1.jpg

http://www.danteking.com/pics/DO2.jpg
http://www.danteking.com/pic/DO2.jpg

[Skip Souza]

Cute subjects. Nice photos. That is the lens that I want to replace my 28-300 Tamron.

[pcasciola]

That is a great lens, and it's so compact for it's range. Congrats. Hard to believe it's about the same size and weight as the Tamron 28-75mm. I gotta get me one of those someday.

[J Rabin]

Dante: Please continue sharing experiences with this lens. I have considered it because I can't lug my 70-200 IS BEAST for personal use. Please let us know how it performs in various situations. Thanks. Jack

[nharper]

This was the first proper lens I got for my new 20D.. the excuse was a weekend at the Malay GP.

I'm quite pleased with my efforts and am convinced that the lens can do better than me. The IS "pan" mode was very impressive. And for general shots it really does offer hand held stability... worth a good couple of stops.

Even walking arounf Hong Kong on a raind day at the flower show I was pleased snap several shots whilst others "managed" their tripods.

Depth of field is an issue but I actually quite like the bouquet the lens gives.

Nigel

[Dante King]

Dante: Please continue sharing experiences with this lens. I have considered it because I can't lug my 70-200 IS BEAST for personal use. Please let us know how it performs in various situations. Thanks. Jack

Jack, these were shot in a tree covered playground. mostly dark areas and a few areas of bright light leaking through the trees canopies. I am quite pleased already with the IS and how it perfromed in this situation. I am quite pleased with the top end of this lens as it appears to be about as sharp as thru the full range.

[Dante King]

Jack, here is a low contrast shot of a fan in my diner with all the lights off. Hand held shot @ 1/25, 400 ISO, 300mm to me this says it all!

[steibeldj]

Dante,

I love this lens. The cost scares away a few people, but is is so light and small and the IS is excellent. Canon really has a hole in the 70-300 L range. I would have paid $1500 for a similar 'small, black, high otical quality' lens. After having the lens now for a month, it might as well be 'L' glass.

Enjoy.

[JaertX]

This was the first proper lens I got for my new 20D.. the excuse was a weekend at the Malay GP.

I'm quite pleased with my efforts and am convinced that the lens can do better than me. The IS "pan" mode was very impressive. And for general shots it really does offer hand held stability... worth a good couple of stops.

Even walking arounf Hong Kong on a raind day at the flower show I was pleased snap several shots whilst others "managed" their tripods.

Depth of field is an issue but I actually quite like the bouquet the lens gives.

Nigel

heh heh "bouquet"

I like it!

[flyfishnj]

Has a good smooth finish with a hint of oak

[CyberDyneSystems]

Has a good smooth finish with a hint of oak

It's a modest lens,. not too outspoken,. and yet bold in a subtle way...

[J Rabin]

Dante.
All your pics have nice smooth neutral (natural) color, good resolution, and sharp detail. And heldheld? How do you drink coffee in the diner and do that? I read mixed things about this lens, but ALL the pictures I see, taken by people who learn the lens, have beautiful potential. I think people buy gear, post problems on forum, and then never come back after they figured out the learning curve. Many people panned this len's flare, by shooting into bright sunlight..... Duh.
Thanks again. I will ask my shop to stock this so I can compare and possibly get it. I need a non-white travel zoom, and IS on my 70-200 has addicted me to this feature.
Jack

[mr.photoguy]

Try shooting without the IS.

[JaertX]

It's a modest lens,. not too outspoken,. and yet bold in a subtle way...

too funny.

Is bouquet the french version of the japaneese word?

[Dante King]

Dante,

I love this lens. The cost scares away a few people, but is is so light and small and the IS is excellent. Canon really has a hole in the 70-300 L range. I would have paid $1500 for a similar 'small, black, high otical quality' lens. After having the lens now for a month, it might as well be 'L' glass.

Enjoy.

First whole day with it and I am impressed. the green band is cool to! Maybe we need to start a green band DO club to compete with all the "L" coholics around here...


Love the wine to Lenses anology! You guys are really funny. Not funny weird, well, ...Funny Ha ha.

[Dante King]

Dante.
All your pics have nice smooth neutral (natural) color, good resolution, and sharp detail. And heldheld? How do you drink coffee in the diner and do that? I read mixed things about this lens, but ALL the pictures I see, taken by people who learn the lens, have beautiful potential. I think people buy gear, post problems on forum, and then never come back after they figured out the learning curve. Many people panned this len's flare, by shooting into bright sunlight..... Duh.
Thanks again. I will ask my shop to stock this so I can compare and possibly get it. I need a non-white travel zoom, and IS on my 70-200 has addicted me to this feature.
Jack

Coffee runs thru my veins. W/o it I shake. With it I am calm and cool. I too read many mixed things a bout this lens. My camera store let me spend some intimate time with this lens and try it our for a while. All in all, the good reviews I have read outweigh the bad reviews. I am glad I waited, shopped around and fianlly went for this. This lens will serve as a general travel lens and for shoting the kids for time to come until I can save up and jump head first into the L pool. Think that will be when I get a pro body however.

Definately check this lens out. One of th emajor reasons I got it was due to the posts on this forum and PONT user comments regarding the 70-300 DO. I need to go finish processing 2 GB of images I shot with this lens today! :cool:

[picture-this]

I'm startying to think this is a really great lens for the guy who already has all the good heavy fast stuff but likes to have a small camera with him when goin out to enjoy and not think of camera bs.

[Dante King]

I'm startying to think this is a really great lens for the guy who already has all the good heavy fast stuff but likes to have a small camera with him when goin out to enjoy and not think of camera bs.

Exactly my reasoning. I dont need a really long lens right now as I do mostly portrait work and macro/landscape. This lens will fit in nicely in many areas, espcially Lazy-Incognito mode.

[ayotnoms]

I hope someone contacts me when it comes time for an intervention...
congrats on the new toy!!!

[Dante King]

I hope someone contacts me when it comes time for an intervention...
congrats on the new toy!!!

LOL, I got just about every thing I need, Except for that.....

[Andy_T]

Hehe ... nice new toy :D

What did you write on the box this time?

Best regards,
Andy

[roanjohn]

.........espcially Lazy-Incognito mode.......

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

Ro1

[Outdoor23]

I'm thinking about getting this lens as well. But one dumb question - is this lens is too heavy for the 350D/Rebel XT?

[Dante King]

Hehe ... nice new toy :D

What did you write on the box this time?

Best regards,
Andy

LOL,she has not seen this box. TTFL

[Dante King]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

Ro1
Thanks!

[Dante King]

I'm thinking about getting this lens as well. But one dumb question - is this lens is too heavy for the 350D/Rebel XT?

Actually it is surprisingly light. That is one of the benefits of the DO. Not as light as the tamron 28-300 i have in the market place. I am still amazed by it. This lens should DO your XT right.

[Citizensmith]

Thanks for the feedback on the lens. I've a 70-200 4 that I love but its as big a lens as I'd ever really want to carry. Consequently the 70-300 is high on my list and any feedback about it is good.

[Dante King]

Thanks for the feedback on the lens. I've a 70-200 4 that I love but its as big a lens as I'd ever really want to carry. Consequently the 70-300 is high on my list and any feedback about it is good.


So far and after importing 2 GB of pics from my first shoot with this lens, I would say its pretty darn nice. Another nice bonus for me is that it takes a 58mm filter, as does, my 85mm, 50 1.4 so I can get a real nice polorizers and share between the 3. Just sprang for a polorizer for my 10-22...Holy Cow! Ounce for ounce, they are way more expensive than lens..OUCH!

[karjar]

I had heard/read, that polarizers won't make much impact with the DO lens elements, truth?

[Dante King]

That I have not heard. I'll have to look into that.

[BillH2]

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but brand, kind, etc lense is the 70-300 DO IS USM ?? Where gotten and apx. cost?

[steibeldj]

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but brand, kind, etc lense is the 70-300 DO IS USM ?? Where gotten and apx. cost?

B&H Photo had them for $1149. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ Right now there is a $40 rebate.:eek: I always just miss the rebates!!

[steibeldj]

Actually it is surprisingly light. That is one of the benefits of the DO. Not as light as the tamron 28-300 i have in the market place. I am still amazed by it. This lens should DO your XT right.

Lighter than the 24-70 or 16-35 'L':)

[Dante King]

You know, it definately fells lighter than the 24-70L , site stats say that the 24-70 is 2.2 pounds and the 70-300 is 1.6 pounds. hands confirmed this in my local cam shop. ITs definately one of the perks to the DO.

[Dante King]

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but brand, kind, etc lense is the 70-300 DO IS USM ?? Where gotten and apx. cost?

Bill its a Canon. DO = defractive optics. Means lighter lenses with less elements. i paid 1200 at my local cam store. Yeah I know I couold have gotten cheaper on line, but I support my local guys as they let me play with all their cool canon stuff before I buy.

[Citizensmith]

I had heard/read, that polarizers won't make much impact with the DO lens elements, truth?

The polarizing happens way before the DO elements and isn't dependant on them. Why would anyone think it would have an affect. Can you lets us know where you heard/read this so we can see if there is more to it?

[karjar]

Let me look around. I know I read it while reading reviews on this lens, since I am seriously thinking about buying it. I'll check and get back with the post. It was probably on FM or dpreview or somewhere I was reading:p

[karjar]

Well did a quick speed reading search, and I can't find the site where I read it ( I do know I read it..getting old but not that old!). If I come across it will post here. I just remember that due to the concentric circles within the DO lens (when viewed from the backk of the lens) it was indicated that the light patterns would see know benefit from a polarizer. Of course best way is for someone to try it. :)
jeff

[John57]

I just sold my copy of the70-300 DO...... it was just too soft! It went back to Canon and they said they had adjusted it as it was outside of their tolerances but now OK. Well it still looked soft so it got sold.

Its a shame as the size and the fact it's not white made it very useful. I would like to think I got a poor copy but alot of people seem to think this lens can be soft. Alot are very happy and I wanted to be one of those... but it was not to be.

If you get a good copy keep it! If you are thinking of buying then just check that pictures at 100% look sharp and OK.

I have got 8 Canon lenses and only this lens and one 24-70 have been bad. For lenses this expensive I don't think thats good enough so be sure to try before you buy!

[mr.photoguy]

I couldn't see myself paying 1149 for the DO lens.. I just don't think the image quality justifies the price.

[steibeldj]

SOLD all my lenses, I only have a 8mm f1.1.

This is an interesting statement. Could you elaborate as to why?

[Dante King]

I just sold my copy of the70-300 DO...... it was just too soft! It went back to Canon and they said they had adjusted it as it was outside of their tolerances but now OK. Well it still looked soft so it got sold.

Its a shame as the size and the fact it's not white made it very useful. I would like to think I got a poor copy but alot of people seem to think this lens can be soft. Alot are very happy and I wanted to be one of those... but it was not to be.

If you get a good copy keep it! If you are thinking of buying then just check that pictures at 100% look sharp and OK.

I have got 8 Canon lenses and only this lens and one 24-70 have been bad. For lenses this expensive I don't think thats good enough so be sure to try before you buy!

Thats a shame! I find this lens to be as sharp or sharper than any other zoom I have had or personally seen in the price range.

[getg3]

Dante,
Beautiful pics. I love this lens too. After reading some bad comments about this lens I set my expectation a bit low before getting it. I was surprise with the results once I took the first few shots. This lens is sharp. Here are some shots I took with my "Petite sexy black beauty" lens:

http://www.pbase.com/getg3/image/41640386.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/getg3/image/41640413.jpg

[Skip Souza]

I can hardly wait for mine to arrive. Of course it would probably get here sooner if I actually ordered it. ;-) I want it for exactly the same reasons that you stated you bought it Dante. Some day. Christmas is coming. :-)

[Skip Souza]

Oh yeah. Very nice work Richard with such a "soft" lens.

[Dante King]

I can hardly wait for mine to arrive. Of course it would probably get here sooner if I actually ordered it. ;-) I want it for exactly the same reasons that you stated you bought it Dante. Some day. Christmas is coming. :-)

You slay me skip!

I think we need to start a DO green ring club! I must say, with the hood and the lens set to 300mm, I still get long stares from people wondering if it is a camera or howitzer! :lol: :lol: :oops: :rolleyes: :lol: :cool:

[karjar]

I have been wavering back and forth on this lens for a couple of weeks now. The store where I would get mine, has it and he is holding it until tomorrow (not to say it won't be there longer). I've seen the negative comments, and seen some great pics. Would you guys buy it again? I know the 70-200L etc are great lens, but I wanted this for it's size, and IS. I don't want to carry around 8" or bigger lenses and tripods. But I don't want a lens I will regret either, especially at this price point.

[johnnybfan]

[QUOTE=ayotnoms]I hope someone contacts me when it comes time for an intervention...
congrats on the new toy!!![/QUOTE

Sounds like you just had a baby ;);). lol
Enjoy your new lens.]

[Dante King]

I have been wavering back and forth on this lens for a couple of weeks now. The store where I would get mine, has it and he is holding it until tomorrow (not to say it won't be there longer). I've seen the negative comments, and seen some great pics. Would you guys buy it again? I know the 70-200L etc are great lens, but I wanted this for it's size, and IS. I don't want to carry around 8" or bigger lenses and tripods. But I don't want a lens I will regret either, especially at this price point.

Most definately would buy it again. Hope I dont have to..LOL, would in a NY second.

[Dante King]

[QUOTE=ayotnoms]I hope someone contacts me when it comes time for an intervention...
congrats on the new toy!!![/QUOTE

Sounds like you just had a baby ;);). lol
Enjoy your new lens.]

They are my babies...digital babies!

[karjar]

Thanks Dante, sounds like you are very happy with it. I know I am certainly happy with the form, small, IS, 300 reach. decent glass, so in concept it is what I want. just alot of bucks comparatively speaking.
jeff

[Tom W]

this lens looks like it will be very useful. I'm considering selling the 16-35 (since I have a nice 20 mm, and rarely go past 24 anyway) and buying one of these instead.

[Dante King]

it is pricy! But I too love the compactness. Hey look on the bright side, canon throws in a pouch and a hood! YEAH! wish they did with all their lenses. I would pay more upfront. Still waiting for my hoods for my 50mm 1.4 and 10-22 SHEESH.

[karjar]

Hoods!...ordered a hood for my 28-135 IS...$50cdn with tax, for a round piece of plastic cut in a wavy pattern!!!.

Anyways, took the plunge, ordered the 70-300 IS DO. Now to go get the couch comfortable :) Joy of being married 27 years, you know what is coming!! :)
jeff

[schmoelzel]

I don't want to play devil's advocate but I find most shots that I have seen here too soft for a $1200 lens. I guess the attraction is weight and compactness over pure optics. I am one of those sharpness addicts and I know that this lens would end up sitting in my bag because if I have a L in there, it will get used! The contrast and saturation also seem a little off to me........could be my eyes (I do suffer from L fever!!) :D

[Dante King]

I think that there must be some kinda film over your monitor. I know compression does not do justice for these photos. I am getting shots that are as sharp as any I have seen on some 1200$$ lens pics that have been posted here. Quite frankyl I am amazed at the 100% crops I have been seeing on my shots. they have exceeded my expectations with this lens.

[karjar]

Well got the lens in last week. Took this on a windy day, standing on a suspended boardwalk that bounced eveytime someon walked by. Not as sharp as some above, but I am new to the camera, and digital, so patience:)

[karjar]

Hmm, can't figure out how to post a pic. Tips?

[karjar]

does this work?

[Skip Souza]

Karjar, that's nice!

[adnil]

I highly recommend the DO with the Tokina EF 1.4 extender.

[Dante King]

SWEET. Hey I was serious about starting the DO Club. Like a rival gang we could take on the L's. LOL

[mrclark321]

What about the non "L's" and the non "DO'S"
I feel so left out....just a wanna be.....lol

[Dante King]

We have a spot for you clarky! Dont sweat it.

[karjar]

The green arm bands against the red arm bands. Who will capture who's flag?! :)
Adnil, when using an extender does IS still work? I thought I read somewhere that I couldn't use an extender with this lens. sure looks like it with that excellent pic youtook.

[karjar]

Think Nike would get mad if we said Just DO it!.....hey, maybe they will give us sponsorship money. Green DO lenses taking Tigers piture (but not in his backswing:) )

[Tom W]

What about the non "L's" and the non "DO'S"
I feel so left out....just a wanna be.....lol

My ultimate intention is to be a member of all 3 - USM, DO, and L. Gold, Green, and Red - the three stripes of... well, of..... something!!?

[Outdoor23]

Is there a good teleconverter to go with this lens? Why can't Canon make TC for people whoe doesn't have a "L"????

[NYC2BGI]

I am thinking about getting this lens. I don't want to walk around NYC with a big white lens. I wish that Canon would make some "L" telephoto lenses with an option to be in black. Is there anyone else with some feedback on this 70-300mm DO lens?

[NYC2BGI]

I found this site that breaks down the EF 70-300 DO IS lens.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml

[adnil]

Is there a good teleconverter to go with this lens? Why can't Canon make TC for people whoe doesn't have a "L"????

Yep, the Tokina EF 1.4 extender.

[Jon]

Tamron's SP Pro TCs are pretty good too, and fit most lenses (excluding EF-S).

[karjar]

Does IS still work when a converter is used? I just keep thinking I read that the DO could not be used with a TC, or did not function the same? Maybe bad drugs?

[adnil]

Both IS and AF work with the Tokina.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

SWEET. Hey I was serious about starting the DO Club. Like a rival gang we could take on the L's. LOL

I had to order two POTN straps. I will colour one stripe red and one stripe green.:lol:

Seriously though, the Tokina extender will work? that nest picture is good, I may have to try this out. Putting some extra reach on this lens would be nice.

[cactusclay]

What about the non "L's" and the non "DO'S"
I feel so left out....just a wanna be.....lol
Looks like you are about to be in the L gang. I bet Dante will be a convert soon as well. :lol:

[Dante King]

NEVER...NOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo Evil Cactus! ;)

[cc10d]

karjar
Junior Member
posted this 1 Day Ago


Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 21 Re: Whoops I did it again 70-300 DO IS USM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does IS still work when a converter is used? I just keep thinking I read that the DO could not be used with a TC, or did not function the same? Maybe bad drugs?

I don't know the direct answer but the thing bugging your mind about not being able to use telexender is that, It is NOT compatible with the Canon extenders...

[cc10d]

70-300DO is not quite as sharp as the equiv. L lens. But is close and small and easy to handle, the IS is quick, and solid. When the pic is a bit "soft" a bit in Photoshop and it is right in there with the L s. The data is there! Soft may not be the resolution, a bit of contrast maybe? Don't know but I do know it gives a good picture that exceeds the less expensive lenses and can rival the Ls. I use it when I do not wish to pack the Ls around, but if absolutely best optic is required, I take the L. Even if it is glaring WHITE and BIG and HEAVY and sometimes comparitively HaRD to HANDLE. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm not sure about the resolution either...

But the DO's (both of them) definitely have less contrast than the L's... but contrast is easy to fix in PS.. resolution is not.

If this pocket rocket will AF with the Tokina ... I just may have to get one ;)

[Bob_A]

Did anyone consider getting a 70-200 f4L and a 1.4 teleconverter instead of the 70-300 DO? From the pics everone posted the DO looks really nice, but the optics of the f4L are better, and the price of the 70-200 f4L plus the 1.4x is $290 less than the 70-300 DO. I guess I'm wondering if optically the 70-200 with the tele is about the same as the DO.

For me the main attraction of the DO is decent optics in a small/light package (it's half a pound lighter and an inch shorter than my 24-70 2.8L) ... plus it has IS. Just wish it were a bit less expensive.


Bob

[Dante King]

I think its apple to oranges. The 70-200 f4 is a super lens. The 70-300DO is a different beast. For me its a compact lens that is more "covert" than a huge chunk of white L. A size and weight that can be a walkaround with out straining your back.

I eventually plan to get the 70-200 2.8 L IS. I wish that lens was less $$$ ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Bob.. I don't have the f/4.. but I do have the f/2.8 (70-200mm)

As Dante says.. it's apples and oranges..
The DO is soooooo much smaller and lighter.. it just serves a totally different purpose.. for me anyways.

[Bob_A]

I eventually plan to get the 70-200 2.8 L IS. I wish that lens was less $$$ ;)

Isn't that the truth :D. Would love that lens, but for the amount I would use it I don't think I could justify the cost.

The 70-200 f4L is actually just a smidge lighter than the 70-300 DO, but is a few inches longer. With the extender it's half a pound heavier (about the same weight as my 24-70) and longer yet. I thought I had my mind made up with the 1.4X and the 70-200 F4L ... now you guys got me thinking. The DO may be a great vacation lens.


Bob

[karjar]

Thanks, good to know. Would love to push that 300 (480) out even further at times, especially with IS

[karjar]

Yep, the Tokina EF 1.4 extender.

Ok, been searching for this with google, not finding anything, Is this now Kenko?

[Dante King]

........ The DO may be a great vacation lens.


Bob


That is just why I got it.

[Dante King]

Thanks, good to know. Would love to push that 300 (480) out even further at times, especially with IS

Please share your findings as I would like to now what turns up!

[adnil]

Ok, been searching for this with google, not finding anything, Is this now Kenko?

I'm so very sorry. It is the Kenko 1.4. Please forgive. This is the best $170 that I have spent since buying the DO. My friend has the 100-400L and my pictures are just as good. You can read more about this extender on Dpreview.

[Dante King]

I'm so very sorry. It is the Kenko 1.4. Please forgive. This is the best $170 that I have spent since buying the DO. My friend has the 100-400L and my pictures are just as good. You can read more about this extender on Dpreview.

So you dont lose auto focus or IS? I am going to have to get one of these FOR SURE!

[adnil]

So you dont lose auto focus or IS? I am going to have to get one of these FOR SURE!

You do not lose AF or IS.

[mrclark321]

Have you been digging in the broiler or did Visa send you another copy already...lol
If you get the Kenko I would love to here how it works!!!
By the way Dante what do you think of the Tamron 28-75 you have?

Dan
So you dont lose auto focus or IS? I am going to have to get one of these FOR SURE!

[mrclark321]

Sorry Dante ...I thaught you had a 28-75 Tamron....oops

[TWM]

After all the recent talk about the 70-300 DO IS, I ordered one from BuyDig this morning.
I know some people say it isn't sharp enough at 300mm but I generlly can't tell the difference between different lenses. I like the photos that have been posted here with that lens so I think I will be happy with it. I was going to buy the 70-200 F/4L, But I decided it was too long and too white. Now I suppose I should sell my 28-135 IS. I bought a 20D, 4 lens, tripod and 580ex about a month ago before I knew what I needed or wanted ( same thing I guess)
I'm glad that I pay the bills or my wife would know what these things cost. D I V O R C E.

Tom M:lol:

[Dante King]

Welcome to the fourms! More importantly, welcome to the CLUB! I live the wife story to the "T".

Actually mrClark, the credit card was left in my diner but a guest. LOL, just kidding.

[Maureen Souza]

I'm glad that I pay the bills or my wife would know what these things cost. D I V O R C E.
Tom M:lol:

Not at my house:D :D :D .... the more, the merrier.

[zipart]

i bought this lens last march. i love it. it is just right for me. i too did not want a big white. my only complaint, and it is a minor one, with the lens hood attached the lens is kind of hard to hide. it is much larger but still it is black and not as conspicuous. i rarely use the DO without the hood.

zip

[mdclaros]

hey guys,
I must say I love this lens.
I bought it recently after its release last year and most of the pics I took during 2004 were with this lens. some very sharp, some a little on the soft side.
it is great for vacations which is the reason why I bought it befor egoing to hawaii last summer.

[mdclaros]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66718

here is a thread I posted some pics from statue of liberty with this lens one is a 100% crop. no unsharp mask or any modifications done

[Dante King]

Not at my house:D :D :D .... the more, the merrier.

If you ever leave skip, let me know! LOL

[Dante King]

i bought this lens last march. i love it. it is just right for me. i too did not want a big white. my only complaint, and it is a minor one, with the lens hood attached the lens is kind of hard to hide. it is much larger but still it is black and not as conspicuous. i rarely use the DO without the hood.

zip

I have to agree with you. I use the hood at all times. Yes it sure does turn some heads. But not like a huge white drain pipe some people use here. Might be mistaken for a S.A.M.

[Dante King]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66718

here is a thread I posted some pics from statue of liberty with this lens one is a 100% crop. no unsharp mask or any modifications done

NICE! My experience as well is that this lens is tack sharp!

[Jon]

If you ever leave skip, let me know! LOL

He just got her a 16-35 L for her birthday. Does she look crazy? Rumour has it he's saving to give her the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L for Christmas. Oops. I didn't just say that . . .

[Maureen Souza]

He just got her a 16-35 L for her birthday. Does she look crazy? Rumour has it he's saving to give her the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L for Christmas. Oops. I didn't just say that . . .

Jon: I think I might get it sooner than that:D

You guys are funny... I bet your wive's don't really mind all that much your obsession with photography. Skip wasn't that interested either for a long time but I kept drawing him into it, asking questions and involving him in my passsion. Next thing you know, he's into it.... Maybe you better get your wive's more involved too!! Just think of all the goodies you can buy together!:D

[Dante King]

HA! She took a photog class in college and liked it very much. She picks up my 20D with grip and 10-22 and says, DAMN this is so BIG!. Well I hear that alot,... but seriously she just is not into it. Last week she had a friend over with her new baby and was all bent that her pics came out like crap. I took a look at her point and shoot. Well no wonder, honey, there is like an inch of mac and cheese on your lens!!! Think I would let her touch my stuff after that? HELL NO!

She made me sell my Canon GL2 because it was to large. So what if it has 3 CCDs and more resolution than almost anything out there. She said it was too heavy and had too many buttons! LOL! She can happily mess up her P&S, but if she ever want to get into it again, I'll gladly buy her her own cam, CUZ SHE AINT TOUCHING MINE! LOL Well unless she buys me a 1dsm2 and then she can use it when ever i am not.

[Skip Souza]

Okay guys, time to weigh in. I have been into photgraphy since I was a teenager. Agfa 35mm. You know, light meter, folding reflector flash with bulbs ect..
While in Vietnam I managed to get an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. Had to scratch off the name because Spotmatic was branded Honeywell at the time.
That was kool until the family came along & I got tired of lugging around all the equipment on family outings. Gave it to my dad and went for a Minolta 110. Neat pocket camera.
Finally wound up with Maureen (best decision I ever made) and then a Canon PowerShot 35mm P&S which Maureen took over. When that went down it was replaced by a Canon Photomatic which was also Maureens.
I had given up on photography. Maureen has the eye and artistic talent for it. I don't have the patience.
Along comes ditigal.
I started with a Kodak DC3200 then a Minolta S304. Now were cooking.
Maureen's Photomatic died and I talked her into a Canon A70. Once she got the hang of that she progressed to an A80 and a PowerShot Pro1.
I finally said; "What the hell and got her a 20D" and after a couple of months of "camera envy" I got my own 20D.
In our household I am the "expert" on most things technical. I know how DOF works and what affects it. I prety much grasp the relationship or aperture, shutter speed, focal length, lens capabilities, light etc. Maureen makes art.
I am the consumate technician while she is the artist.
We are a good team.

Now where is my 70-300 DO IS?

[mrclark321]

Cheers to that!!!!!time for a drink!!!!

Dan

[Maureen Souza]

Cheers to that!!!!!time for a drink!!!!

Dan

Wish I could join you but I am at work and have to settle for a Diet Coke.
Gotta earn the $$$$$$ to buy that lens my hubby wants.:p

[mrclark321]

Well you guys make a great couple!!!! what are you going to buy Skip
600mmL lol

Dan

[Skip Souza]

Well you guys make a great couple!!!! what are you goung to buy Skip
600mmL lol

Dan
Pay attention MrClark!
The 70-300 DO. The lens that started this thread. Don't confuse the wife! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mrclark321]

ATTENTION MAUREEN.........Check out new threads in lenses!!!! LOL

One very happy grand dad looking for a new light lense to take pictures of grandchildren. Must be 70-300DO,

[Skip Souza]

Thanks for the boost!!! :-) :-) :-)

[Jon]

Jon: I think I might get it sooner than that:D

You guys are funny... I bet your wive's don't really mind all that much your obsession with photography. Skip wasn't that interested either for a long time but I kept drawing him into it, asking questions and involving him in my passsion. Next thing you know, he's into it.... Maybe you better get your wive's more involved too!! Just think of all the goodies you can buy together!:D

She went all around Europe with a disc camera (and came home with two "rolls" of shots). If she wants pictures she either buys postcards or a disposable. What does that say?

OTOH, she liked the stuff I got at the steeplechase last weekend, so maybe she won't be quite so critical when I get that next lens(es) as she was when I got the 20D ("Well, you've already got a camera. What do you need another one for?").

[Dante King]

Hey I just ordered the Kenko 1.4 TC, will weigh in when I get it with some pics on Monday! WHOOOHOOOO!!!

Looking forward to the 672mm reach from the DO with TC attached.

[pcasciola]

Hmmmmm.... 70-300 DO w/Kenko 1.4x = 100-420 DO w/AF and IS? I want one!!!! Be sure and post some samples, Dante.

Anyone have a picture of this lens on an XT? That would be a really compact and powerful combo.

[Dante King]

will do Phil.

[Maureen Souza]

This thread is so much fun.... I don't think it will ever die.

Jon, time to give the wife a few photography lessons, I think.

Dante! Quit egging my husband on! :p

Dan, I'm going to get on that lens real soon :):)

[adnil]

Hmmmmm.... 70-300 DO w/Kenko 1.4x = 100-420 DO w/AF and IS? I want one!!!! Be sure and post some samples, Dante.

Anyone have a picture of this lens on an XT? That would be a really compact and powerful combo.

I do...

[Dante King]

almost looks like a lens cap for that lens! LOL, J/K.

[shiato storm]

hmmm..interesting combo. I have mixed thoughts on the 70-300 DO IS but having seen some of the results I am certainly impressed. with the extender add I would be interested further once the results roll in...

[adnil]

No Photoshop here. Just resizing and cropping for web. These are the best 2 out of 100. I'm trying to improve. Still a little confused about settings. So guys, as you post your pics, please imbed the EXIF. Thanks.

[Dante King]

SWEET! DO they look sweet!

[mrclark321]

Wow...nice shots...this lense has some possibilities!!!

Dan

[TWM]

I went to the Zoo with my new 70-300 DO and I'm really disapointed. I think I forgot how to take pictures. There are only a few out of about 80 that are even acceptable. Please look at these.
:)
Tom M
Raw, Little PS processing

[Dante King]

being on a mac I cant see imbedded exif. Can you post some on thes epics please. They look over sharpened or the compression is horrible.

[TWM]

Snow Leopard- 1/640 at f10
iso 400 FL 195 mm
Metering pattern

Turkey- 1/320 at f5.6
iso 400
FL 150mm

[TWM]

Here are I believe 2 of the better ones.

[Dante King]

how are you compressing these?

[adnil]

Since you shoot in raw, I must assume that you are an experienced photog. But, I'm just curious...Were you using the lens hood? Were you shooting into the sun? Did you have the stabilizer on? In mode 1? Do you have any of these problems with your other lenses?

[TWM]

I save them as JPG at about 8. Then I open up the JPG and resize it to 4x6 and lower the resolution to 200.
Yes I used the lens hood. I wasn't shooting into the sun. I had the stabilizer on mode 1. Yes I'm having some sort of problems with my 17-40 also. I'm thinking maybe I'd better shoot in P mode and see how that comes out.

[Tom W]

I save them as JPG at about 8. Then I open up the JPG and resize it to 4x6 and lower the resolution to 200.
Yes I used the lens hood. I wasn't shooting into the sun. I had the stabilizer on mode 1. Yes I'm having some sort of problems with my 17-40 also. I'm thinking maybe I'd better shoot in P mode and see how that comes out.

There looks to be some kind of haziness to the images, as though there's a flare issue. Do your 17-40 images look like this also?

Do you have a filter on the lens? Sometimes, that can cause problems. There's also the remote chance that there might be some type of film on the sensor if the same problem occurs with all lenses.

[TWM]

Here is another one I took at the Zoo at the same time. I think it's much better, but then I'm not always a good judge.:lol:

[DocFrankenstein]

Looks like a contrast issue...

[J Rabin]

TWM. Clearly something amiss with your images. The turkey shot simply has too high a contrast range to capture in one image, so you have over exposed and underexposed areas. The muddiness is likely also a combination of mis-exposure/mis-focus.

If you look at my 70-300 DO image posts about 20 lines down this forum:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=557392&page=2&pp=20
This lens' contrast is outstanding, and makes up for any other weakness. I've been getting some strong images. This lens does not handle background overexposure flare well.

Your lion photo looks like off white-balance. So, one idea-First, in the menu, purge the camera settings back to factory defaults. May be some setting is funky. Rebuild your settings. Take care how you meter high SBR outdoor scenes (subject brightness range, dynamic range, contrast range-whatever people call it).
Second idea, get your RAW converter back to default settings also. Do some conversions.
Let us know how you make out. Hope this helps. J.

[TWM]

I reset all the camera settings but hardly any were changed. I changed the AF to the star button and I set the working space to Adobe RGB. That's got me wondering, should I use sRGB or Adobe RGB. I use Adobe because I understand there is a greater color gambit available. I guess that would make some difference how it looked on the screen.

[Dante King]

To me this definately looks like a Pc Issue. Something along when the pic hits your pc things go wrong. What image processor are you using? If you use PSCS or PS, then import the raw, change mode to SRBG, change image size to 650 pix wide and then save for web with ending file size just under 100K. this will give us a close approx of what these pics really look like un adjusted.

[Wazza]

Yes, those images are a bit messed up. The framing etc, looks fine, just the output isn't coming out good.

Also, rather than resizing to 200dpi - 4x6, just insert a pixels maximum dimension of 800 pixels x 533, and the surface area of the image, will in fact be half of 1200x800 as you're posting, and you should get much better jpg quality saving, still under 100Kb.

[TWM]

OK let me try. This isn't much of a picture but I converted it from raw in PS CS2, this changed the pixel dimensions and saved it for the WEB.

[Dante King]

No this looks MUCH better. You are right, not much of a pic, but it show me that your compression and resizing was much to blame of for the images we saw previous.

[Tom W]

No this looks MUCH better. You are right, not much of a pic, but it show me that your compression and resizing was much to blame of for the images we saw previous.

To those of us in the electrical industry, those are beautiful images. :)

I think Dante is on to something here - that last image is much cleaner.

[Dante King]

Tom, what are those things?

[Tom W]

Tom, what are those things?

Covers for underground utility equipment. The tall round one is telephone. If you open the cover, its basically a junction box. Cable and Electric use similar junction boxes to the other ones, though the power transformers for electric service are generally under a much larger cover. Cable will also have amplifiers under covers like this to boost the cable signal. There may be fiber-to-wire transducers as well if the telephone or cable company brings fiber optics into the neighborhood.

I can't identify the other boxes with certainty though I think the one with the vents is a cable amplifier box.

[TWM]

Well I've been out all afternoon shooting under cloudy skies. I just dont know. Something is missing. They just don't stand out, contrast, color , I don't know what. I have taken some decent photos with film cameras and digital point and shot, but I'm haveing an awful time with this camera. Would it do me any good to shoot basic mode for a while or should I stick to creative and try harder? I don't know how much is shooting the picture or raw processing. I appreciate everybody's help.:lol:

[TWM]

Whoops! In converting I forgot to save for the web. I don't know if it willl make any diffrence.

[adnil]

When I put your pic into my Photoshop, I got a box which claimed that your pic has an embedded color profile that does not match the current RGB working space. Maybe, that is your problem. I then used curves and got a really good picture. Why are you taking pictures in raw? Raw is good but it requires post processing which you are apparently not doing. It says in the manual that "raw assumes that the image will undergo post-processing. Special knowledge is required........" Since I've never shot in raw, this is like the blind leading the blind. Hopefully, someone with more experience will come along and help us both out.

[J Rabin]

TWM. Tough to tell anything from small 400x600 images, but I'll take a whack to help or confuse...
Both images lack contrast. Both images lack shadow detail. I highly doubt either is a lens issue, because even though the 70-300 DO has problems, contrast is certainly NOT one of its weaknesses. That leaves a camera handling problem or a computer workflow processing problem.
Let's start with camera. There is an old adage in landscape photography: "Getting in the right light versus getting the light right."
Getting the light right is about exposure. If, in your second posted image, you directed the camera to meter off the dominant dark mountain, then the whole image is about an f/stop +/- over-exposed. That explains both low contrast and lack of shadow detail. The highlights are not blown only because the sky looks to have gray clouds that day. You may have gotten a better exposure spot metering a gray cloud, or spot metering the mountain, and then setting a -1 exposure compensation. Off white balance can lead to missed exposure also. Check your WB setting.
Getting in right light is about composition. If you were shooting under midday haze, then contrast would be reduced, narrow histogram results, and lack of both shadow and highlight detail results. I do not know weather on day you made these.

Is there a nature club, photo club, or something in Anchorage you can visit to get help? If problem is camera handling, go to Norman Koren's web site, and read up on the zone system for 35mm photography. In outdoor scenes with a wide subject brightness range, the evaluative/matrix meter gets fooled every day. You can either shoot manual, training your eye to find and meter a neutral midtone in the image, or shoot evaluative, and learn exposure compensation.

If none of this helps, your problem is computer post-processing workflow related. Since both lack contrast, have you tried setting contrast at about 65 +/- in PhotoShop AC RAW, or to "High" in File Viewer? Like Adnil above, when I messed with contrast either in curves or levels, much color, contrast, and detail popped back in these two photos.

Hope this helps you get back on the happy path soon. J.

[TWM]

Hey thanks to both of you. I certainly have a lot to learn. I think I need to take alot more pictures and practice exposure metering. I'm sure post -processing is part of it too. I need to study raw processing. Thanks again, I 'll post me photos as I go along.

[CyberDyneSystems]

When I put your pic into my Photoshop, I got a box which claimed that your pic has an embedded color profile that does not match the current RGB working space. Maybe, that is your problem.

Why would his photos match your working space? ;)

This is one of the edownsides of this lens IMHO.. it needs more Post work than any of my other lenses.. due to the DO's impact on contrast and color saturation.. however,. I do find that Post processing will make the images shine.

[Dante King]

WOW, CDS, I find that I have to do little PP with this lens. Very ODD.

[Dante King]

Hey, just an update. I just got the kenko 1.4 off the ups truck. Yes auto focus and aV do work with this combo. Seems like a good match. Will post some pics tomorrow with the DO and TC