70-300mm DO IS + diopter?

[hikari]

I am very tempted by all the raving reviews here to buy the 70-300mm DO IS for my 350D. I also like to do close-up and macro photography, where I would need a longer focal length to keep some distance from insects. However I don't have the funds for buying the DO as well as a dedicated macro lens.
So I was just wondering if anyone has tried a close-up diopter on the DO lens. If so, what are your results? Is this a path to consider?

[Andy_T]

Herman,

why don't you look at extension tubes?
They are a cheap way of using your normal lens as macro lens.

As far as the raving reviews of the 70-300 DO are concerned ... what is your main motive for getting the lens?

I find it a bit expensive if you compare it to other lenses that have better image quality (e.g. the 600 EUR 70-200/4.0).
On the other hand, if you absolutely need a very small and inconspicuous 300 mm lens, it might be the way to go.

Check out this article (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml), it compares the lens to other lenses (e.g. the Canon 70-200/2.8L)

Best regards,
Andy

[steibeldj]

Herman,

As far as the raving reviews of the 70-300 DO are concerned ... what is your main motive for getting the lens?

Best regards,
Andy

For those of us who really love this lens, realize that it's based on three simultaneous criteria and not each alone:

1) Small, lightweight and very inconspicuous as compared to the 70-200 L lenses
2) Good optical and build quality, better than 75-300 IS and others.
3) Excellent IS, makes this lens capable of (amature) sports photography

Shortcomings we overlook:

1) Lens flare, more than other similar lenses.
2) Not 'L' quality optics shows up from 250mm-300mm (called soft by some) (similar to 75-300 IS)
3) Price
4) Constant questions from people asking if we are from the press!;)
5) Others.

[hikari]

Herman,

why don't you look at extension tubes?
They are a cheap way of using your normal lens as macro lens.

As far as the raving reviews of the 70-300 DO are concerned ... what is your main motive for getting the lens?


I try to avoid extenders as it means loss of light which leads to the use of a tripod.

This specific lense is attractive for me as it is small and (relative) lightweight. I like to take my camera with me on the bike or when I am hiking around. That means that I do not like to carry around a tripod and other relative big and heavy stuff. Just the camera and one additonal lens. When I am out shooting I work without tripod, at most using a camera support that nature provides on the spot. So the excellent IS is a bonus as well.....

[Andy_T]

Stejbeldj,

thanks for summing it up really nice.

I assume that your shortcoming #2 (Not 'L' quality in 250-300 range) is not really a deciding factor if you compare it with the 70-200 L :wink:

Herman, based on your description of your photo habits, this is just the lens for you :D
I was going to suggest looking at the Sigma 100-300/4.0 as well, but that would be more suitable for riding a motorbike.

Best regards,
Andy

[Skip Souza]

For those of us who really love this lens, realize that it's based on three simultaneous criteria and not each alone:

1) Small, lightweight and very inconspicuous as compared to the 70-200 L lenses
2) Good optical and build quality, better than 75-300 IS and others.
3) Excellent IS, makes this lens capable of (amature) sports photography

Shortcomings we overlook:

1) Lens flare, more than other similar lenses.
2) Not 'L' quality optics shows up from 250mm-300mm (called soft by some) (similar to 75-300 IS)
3) Price
4) Constant questions from people asking if we are from the press!;)
5) Others.

I do not believe I have seen such a succinct comparative evaluation of the 70-300 DO. It should be required reading at the beginning of any discussion about the lens.
Thanks, Steibeldj

[J Rabin]

For travel zooms, diopters are much better than extension tubes. The longer the focal length of the lens, the more magnification benefit you get from a diopter. So, a Canon 500D +2 diopter, giving you 500mm focus distance at infinity focus, added to the 70-300 DO IS normal 0.19x magnification, would get you in the neighborhood... say 0.3x +/- magnification (I'm guessing here).

Not bad for butterflies, but an expensive way to get there!

I own the 70-300 DO. No one else has a travel lens on the market with its combination of features, so as Skip says above, users work around its shortcomings. I would not buy it JUST to double as a macro. Canon users complain about the 70-300 DO price, but have you checked the older Nikon 80-400 VR? Equally expensive, much bigger, much slower focus and slower IS. Has its own weak points and strong points, but Nikon users bitch less.

Alternate I. A Canon 70-200 f/4 L, with a Canon 1.4x II teleconverter, with a Canon 500D +2 diopter will get you a whopping 0.7x + magnification. Now you're talking. This whole set up costs less than the 70-300 DO alone, and permits "never grow out-of-it" flexibility to use it for different things. Take off the 1.4x II and you've got a sports lens, e.g. Of course, hard to handhold 280mm without IS.

Alternate 2. Just get a used Canon consumer 100-300mm zoom, the one with rear USM focus. This will be less than $250. Get the Canon 500D +2 for about $100. This combination will get you about 0.58x to 0.70x magnification without any other toys. Amazinngly damn good. No light loss. Focuses fast enough for butterflies. Buy a 67mm 500D with a step up ring in case you want to graduate to an "L" lens in the future. See how you like the set up at lower cost before making expensive decisions.

At one time I had worked out all the macro math on these lenses.
Jack

[Tom W]

For those of us who really love this lens, realize that it's based on three simultaneous criteria and not each alone:

1) Small, lightweight and very inconspicuous as compared to the 70-200 L lenses
2) Good optical and build quality, better than 75-300 IS and others.
3) Excellent IS, makes this lens capable of (amature) sports photography

Shortcomings we overlook:

1) Lens flare, more than other similar lenses.
2) Not 'L' quality optics shows up from 250mm-300mm (called soft by some) (similar to 75-300 IS)
3) Price
4) Constant questions from people asking if we are from the press!;)
5) Others.

Good list, though I'd give the optical quality a good rating all the way out to 300, and even wide open. Not quite "L", but good.

The flare situation can be a problem, but if you are aware of the situations where it will occur, you can adjust your shooting angle to accomodate. Also, stopping down just 1/3 stop can improve contrast a great deal in very high-contrast situations where the highlights are potentially blown. But the lens is generally useable at f/5.6. Watch those bright metallic reflections wide open.

[hikari]

At one time I had worked out all the macro math on these lenses.

Thanks for sharing your ideas!

I knew all the macro lens equations as well, but that was 30 years ago. Isn't it amazing how much one can forget in just a couple of years? :confused:


I own the 70-300 DO. No one else has a travel lens on the market with its combination of features, so as Skip says above, users work around its shortcomings. I would not buy it JUST to double as a macro.


I won't :)

I will buy the 70-300 DO one day. With or without macro add-on. It seems to be a great lens for what I like to do. Shooting a bird when I am hiking in our wetlands for example, something that my current lens (the EF-S 17-85 IS USM) is way too short for. I can use a decent IS as well, as I find that my hands are not as rock-steady as they used to be 30 years ago (could there be a relation between forgetting lens equations and acquiring shaky hands? :rolleyes: )It would be so nice if this lens could double as a macro with a relative inexpensive add-on.

If it appears that, for whatever reason, the DO is not likely to produce decent macro / close-up images with a diopter I will just have to decide which lens to buy first: either a decent dedicated macro lens or the DO. If the DO can produce decent macro / close-up shots with a diopter I could by the diopter almost from the change when buying the DO ;)



Alternate I. A Canon 70-200 f/4 L,
[snip]
Of course, hard to handhold 280mm without IS.


It seems attractive, but I guess I need the IS. The alternative is a tripod which I don't like to carry around in the field...



Alternate 2. Just get a used Canon consumer 100-300mm zoom
[snip]
See how you like the set up at lower cost before making expensive decisions.

It seems attractive again, but no again hard to handhold without IS.....

Thanks for thinking with me!