70-300mm DO IS Fast Becomming My Favorite

[steibeldj]

For those of you thinking about this lens:

Right now I have been using about three lenses all the time. My 28-135 IS, 28-70 L and mostly the 70-300 DO IS. Yes, it's not 'L' but 'L' expensive, but it pops into my shoulder bag with room to spare and the quality is up there. The IS is truly remarkable. I'm not sure how they are going to top this generation in the future!

If only they would add this generation IS to the 28-135 and the 28-70 they would be sure buys on my list.

I can't show the picture, since I don't have permission and it isn't my kid, but today my 9 year old daughter took a portrait of one of the ball players in our little league. I couldn't believe it! Excellent color, background blur, clarity, etc.

Dante, hope your having as much fun with yours.;)

[Tom W]

Yes, the IS on the 70-300 is great - I believe that it is the same generation (3 stops) as on the 70-200 L. Very good lens overall, though it has a tendency to flare a bit if the sun is just outside the image. My solution for that is simple - don't shoot when the sun just outside of the image circle.

[steibeldj]

Yes, facing sunlight at 4:00pm I will either get uncorrectable flare or some washing out which is quite correctable in PS. I never use the lens hood (which I should) and would recommend it on any lens in this situation.

[Dante King]

Oh yes, I am loving mine. I have been messing with my 28-135. LOL for the price this lens really rocks!. I always find myself back at the DO though. Love how it handles contrast and color. OH OH OH the IS is wicked. Cant wait for vacation in july to really break this baby in. The DO that is not the baby. (just in case the wife is looking!)

[steibeldj]

The 28-135 IS is truly an under rated lens. Probably the best deal out there for the money. If you give it enough light, it rivals (not reaches) the 'L' quality plus it pushes out to 135mm which seems always just enough reach for any candid situation. I think this was my first non-kit lens if I recall. Imagine the flood of 28-135 owners if Canon change over to the new IS. (Canon, are you listening!)

BTW do you have a UV filter on your 70-300 DO? If so have you done a comparison with and without? There are times when I think the filter is getting in the way. (Yes, I know that the AF is an algorithmic process in the software and not some sort of IR or other mechanism and shouldn't be affected by it. Also, this is why low light messes up AF.) I have not tried this in a controlled fasion, but I just have a feeling.

[steibeldj]

Here are a couple of 70-300 DO on the long end pics I can show. No PS processing. :cool:

[Dante King]

steibeldj,
You pics are exactly why I love this lens. Truely natural looking tones and contrast. I rarely have to do any PP work with this lens. Occasionally a WB tweak, but it handles like a dream.

Yes I do use a UV filter. I have not experienced any problems with AF in any lighting situation with this set up. I dont really know how useful the filter is on this lens. I had put one on for protection. Look forward to the results from your test.

[ron chappel]

I'd be very interested in a comparison between the old 100-300/5.6L and the DO lens. Not really to help decide which to buy because they are sooo far apart in price-more just out of interest.
I suspect the older lens would have much more contrast but sharpness would be very similar.
(the comment on contrast is not a put down of the DO lens in any way-i realize the DO gives images that have loads of editing potential in them :)
If anyone lives near brisbane,australia i have the old L model lens available for comparison