I visited the USA last week and ofcourse I also went to the famous B&H store. I bought Canon's new DO zoom lens - the EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. I wanted it because I wanted to have a good telezoom lens, but not a big, conspicuous, heavy white one like the various 70-200 L lenses. They only had one lens left at B&H when I bought it, and my brother also wanted to buy it, so he ordered it and got it sent home in 3 days - so it looks like it wasn't really out of stock...

Here is my current Canon lens collection.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

WOW, tiny.......for its range.

And can you fit a 58mm filter in that??

Ro1

I'm curious - does it extend much when zoomed? If so, how much?

Just when I got used to lusting only for lenses with red rings on them, I now find I have to add green to the list.

It really does seem to offer an excellent compromise between size and performance, and optically it has to be considered exceptional. You get the sense that if would be exponentially more expensive if they tried to make it any faster. (the 400mm f/4.0 DO is about $5,000 US).

Looks like a winner to me although the proof will be in the images produced.

Quick question for you:
How much money did you have when you walked into B&H ?
How moch money did you have when you walked out of B&H ?
:P

Congrats on your purchase. I've heard good things about this lens so far.

I am very interested in this lens.. on a 10D minus the battery grip. it would fit in my little case I got for my old Olympus 2100.. it would not scare people with that small lens.. and 300mm is pretty much exactly what I want on a "walk around lens" (the 28-300mm I currently have is collecting dust as it is CRAP)

Wish it wasn't so damn pricey

So you've gone to DO!!!

roanjohn: Yes, the filter size you need for this lens is 58mm. A lot smaller than the 77mm of the 17-40 and 72mm of the 28-135, so the filters are less expensive.

CoolToolGuy: It does extend a bit when zoomed - but it's still a lot shorter than the 75-300 (here is a comparison image from dpreview.com) and ofcourse it's a lot smaller than a white L lens...

cmM: The price was US$ 1,299 and including tax and a 7-year Mack warranty it was US$ 1,449. A lot of money, but here in Europe it would have been even more expensive! Actually, I paid by credit card so technically the bank still owns it..... 8)

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I am very interested in this lens.. on a 10D minus the battery grip. it would fit in my little case I got for my old Olympus 2100.. it would not scare people with that small lens.. and 300mm is pretty much exactly what I want on a "walk around lens" (the 28-300mm I currently have is collecting dust as it is CRAP)

Wish it wasn't so damn pricey

Yes, you can easily "shoot people" 8) with this lens without them knowing it. First of all you're so far away that they won't notice you and second, the lens is so small and inconspicuous that they won't know you're zooming in on them. Ofcourse 70mm is a bit long sometimes, especially on the 10D (1.6x) - it's really a lens for photographing details.

Jesper wrote:
CoolToolGuy: It does extend a bit when zoomed - but it's still a lot shorter than the 75-300 (here is a comparison image from dpreview.com) and ofcourse it's a lot smaller than a white L lens...

Jesper,

Thanks for the link. All the images of it that I had seen until now showed it retracted. It looks like it can be a very compact setup for those that need it.

I'm curious-which brand/model do you have?
I just finnished some thorough testing of a late model sigma and was quite impressed.It was actually about equal to the best cheap kit zooms

... I've got the Sigma.. it's not the latest version but who knows what actual imporvements they did.

It focuses.. sometimes.. thats the biggest issue.. and manual focus seems out of the question due to the fact that moving the ring a fration of a mm causes it to alter focus dramticlly.. you just can't fine tune it

Could you post some links to pics taken with this lens? We can't torment ourselves very much without the visual aid.

Had a look at your website jesper but couldn't tell for sure which ones were from this lens

Can you give an example of a direct comparison with the 28-135?

The photos in the last two collections on my Fotopic site ( http://jesper.fotopic.​net - the "New York" and "Lancaster County" collections) were all made with the 17-40 and the 70-300. Unfortunately the EXIF info wasn't preserved in the JPEGs so you can't see which of the lenses I used when you click the "Image Info" button... but I guess that with most of the images you can guess which lens I used... also, many of the images there have been cropped or color and contrast edited in Photoshop, so they don't really show the detail, color and contrast that the lens captured.

I didn't make any direct comparison shots between the 70-300 and the 28-135 yet, and I don't have time right now (and the sun is already low on the horizon here) but when I have the time I could make some comparisons with the camera on a tripod etc. - I will post examples later.