Let's talk about Diffractive Optics...

I was thinking maybe Canon could update the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. Or has Canon given up on Diffractive Optics and the "Green Ring" line? Let's hear your thoughts.

I'd go for a 100-300 f/4 DO IS. That'd be cool.

How about a 1200/4 IS DO?

It might even be hand holdable.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #4022901
I'd go for a 100-300 f/4 DO IS. That'd be cool.

That would be a tempting lens. The only thing from stopping me from buying sigma's 100-300 is the size and weight.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

I would like to see an improvement in the DO line but, all in all, you'd be going the L route anyway. I think Ron's suggestion of a 100-300 f/4 IS would be a good idea too.

Canon started with the DO as a means of achieving certain optical goals in a more compact and lighter weight...a good travel lens. The world discovered that proper handling of the DO from an optical perspective required somewhat different techniques, and the world seemed to be more enamored of L lens speed and performance, size and weight be damned. The time seems wrong for DO. Back 20+ years ago, when the world was enamored of smaller and lighter film SLRs (the Olympus OM craze, followed by the Canon AE-1 and Nikon Fm are examples) I think the DO would have wowed the world and been more of a commercial success. Now all the pixel peepers and lovers of huge 'professional looking' dSLR with battery grips (the 1Ds wannbes) make a smaller, lighter, lower performing lens something with few homes.

When a $1K lens @ f/5.6 has better IQ than a $5k Lens @ f/4... and weighs in at less than 1/3rd the $5K lens..
...Then it's a tough argument for the $5K lens.

5X the cost and over 3 times the weight is a tough price to pay for 1 stop of aperture.

Wilt wrote in post #4023030
Canon started with the DO as a means of achieving certain optical goals in a more compact and lighter weight...a good travel lens. The world discovered that proper handling of the DO from an optical perspective required somewhat different techniques, and the world seemed to be more enamored of L lens speed and performance, size and weight be damned. The time seems wrong for DO. Back 20+ years ago, when the world was enamored of smaller and lighter film SLRs (the Olympus OM craze, followed by the Canon AE-1 and Nikon Fm are examples) I think the DO would have wowed the world and been more of a commercial success. Now all the pixel peepers and lovers of huge 'professional looking' dSLR with battery grips (the 1Ds wannbes) make a smaller, lighter, lower performing lens something with few homes.

Some good points here. I notice a lot of people who use the grips secretly wish their DSLR looked bigger (even if they don't admit it or find another (valid) reason to justify the grips.) Note I'm not bashing the grip, but be honest with yourself about why you really want it.

Also, pricing. The 70-300 DO was a fine lens, and its lunch got eaten by the 70-300 IS refractive at half the price. Sure the traditional lens was a little longer, focused a little slower, wasn't built like a tank, but it was half the price and that is still a lot of money. $400 still buys quite a lot of goodies even in this day and age!

Then the 400 DO, which YES, I HAVE shot in person, and yes, I have been impressed. But if I am going to carry that much weight, I might as well go straight to the 300/2.8 which is more versatile and is a surefire winner as well as Canon's gold standard for AF performance.

I like the DO and the concept, I really do. I just wish Canon would bring out a DO offering that is compelling in its own right. I am not a tech-for-tech's-sake kind of guy.

Lightstream wrote in post #4023067
Some good points here. I notice a lot of people who use the grips secretly wish their DSLR looked bigger (even if they don't admit it or find another (valid) reason to justify the grips.) Note I'm not bashing the grip, but be honest with yourself about why you really want it.

Also, pricing. The 70-300 DO was a fine lens, and its lunch got eaten by the 70-300 IS refractive at half the price. Sure the traditional lens was a little longer, focused a little slower, wasn't built like a tank, but it was half the price and that is still a lot of money. $400 still buys quite a lot of goodies even in this day and age!

Then the 400 DO, which YES, I HAVE shot in person, and yes, I have been impressed. But if I am going to carry that much weight, I might as well go straight to the 300/2.8 which is more versatile and is a surefire winner as well as Canon's gold standard for AF performance.

I like the DO and the concept, I really do. I just wish Canon would bring out a DO offering that is compelling in its own right. I am not a tech-for-tech's-sake kind of guy.

so do i....i just don't like the IQ .

ed rader

Lightstream wrote in post #4023067
Some good points here. I notice a lot of people who use the grips secretly wish their DSLR looked bigger (even if they don't admit it or find another (valid) reason to justify the grips.) Note I'm not bashing the grip, but be honest with yourself about why you really want it.

Even so, rather harsh statement. Do you have any facts to substantiate this with?

Kind regards, Wim

On my 350D I can only get 2 fingers without grip. With grip I can get 3 on it. I see that as a fair reason to get one.

Don't we all dream of having a 1DsII?

Lightstream wrote in post #4023067
Also, pricing. The 70-300 DO was a fine lens, and its lunch got eaten by the 70-300 IS refractive at half the price. Sure the traditional lens was a little longer, focused a little slower, wasn't built like a tank, but it was half the price and that is still a lot of money. $400 still buys quite a lot of goodies even in this day and age!

Yes, the price is what hurts the 70-300 DO - well that and it isn't quite as sharp as it could be. Well, sharpness isn't the problem so much as contrast and flare resistance. I wish that the new 70-300 IS had come with true ring-type USM. That would make it an exceptional travel lens, and possibly a sports lens for those situations where a big lens would be obtrusive.

I haven't tried the 400/4 DO but with having a 300/2.8 and 1.4X teleconverter, I see no need for it.

The 400 DO is still considerably lighter, even with the 1.4x TC. But for the price difference and overall flexibility that the 300 2.8+1.4x TC have...it's a no-brainer. Now, if there was a 300 2.8 DO that was 3 pounds...then it might be different.

me was also looking at picking up a 70-300 DO IS a month ago.. ended up buying the 70-300 IS instead. i guess the better optics and price did the trick.

and perhaps the DO technology is just a fad, considering how tamron XR optics works so well on their 28-75mm f/2.8.