70-300mm DO IS

damn compression makes this retouch look worse! LOL


Nice quote Skip! I like "Do you feel lucky? Well DO you? PUNK!" By the same great american. Notice I got a "DO" in there again.

I think the correct quote is; "DO you feel lucky, punk? Well DO you?"

Dante you are slaying me.

LOL, well I stand corrected! I got to bone up on my dirty harry. Been way to long.

I'll add some nature and sports shots here.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=56878
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=52199
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=66976

I like this lens. A good lens providing a mixture of size and reach. Yeah, it's not the fastest, but for hiking and travelling it is a great piece of glass

70-300mm DO IS takes requires a learning curve - Curse Dante King

I've been looking for a solid monopod. My camera store calls me; has a used Gitzo carbon 1568 came in for $150 instead of $225 B&H price. I go to buy it. Walk out with it AND the 70-300 DO IS for $1,100 because he lost the warranty card showing it in shop, so I get no rebate.

There is some weird bokah and flare, which I will post later. BUT, this was shot spot-metered, HAND HELD, AT 1/30, 300mm, f/9 DIRECTLY into the SUN behind the leaf.
http://postit.rutgers.​edu …f%20Silhouette%​2002%2Ejpg
Hand Held 1/30 300mm. For real. Here's one at 1/125 right into the sun, spot metering the leaf.
http://postit.rutgers.​edu …f%20Silhouette%​2001%2Ejpg
This lens has the most amazing LACK OF CHROMATIC ABERRATIONS I've seen in a consumer tele zoom. OK, I know this is f/9, but still, NO PURPLE FRINGE EDGES, even pixel peeping a bunch of images at 400%. Wow. You gotta see it to believe it.

1. This lens does have softness at edges at 300mm, even stopped down, even on the 1.6 sensor camera. Somewhere between f/8 and f/11 it gets really sharp though. But, at this focal length, that hard to do under ISO 400.
2. This lens has fabulous color contrast. There is plenty of confounding confusion about perceived sharpness, resolution, and contrast blah, blah. But, I feel the GREAT CONTRAST of this lens makes up for lacks in optical sharpness (which it lacks in comparison to the 70-200L lenses).
3. This lens IS is FAR better than the IS on the 28-135 and far faster focus.
4. This lens has nice neutral color, with a cool bluish bias, like slide film, in contrast to the warm (yellow gold) color of the 70-200 L lenses (I use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS at work, so I know it well).
5. Some files from this lens tolerate, in fact need, to be SLAMMED with SHARPENING. Luckily, I own PhotoKit Sharpener, and when I followed Luminous-Landscape recipe using Edge Sharpen 1, or others, even some of sports shots I did looked strong. Images that I sharpened the hell out of do not show sharpening halos. Interesting. Like engineers knew the compromises they had to make in DO, and knew in digital, we're sharpening anyway. Images from 24-70L and 70-200 require much less sharpening.
6. This lens is too expensive, but there just is nothing else like it on the market. I use and respect the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, higher % photos from the 70-200 lenses are in-focus keepers, special, but can't lug it around the with a TC 1.4 for casual use. That's a discreet 2 kilo cannon.
I have shakey hands. More images later J.

You were doint alright, yout just needed more green in you DO.

J, those were fantastic. I am so looking forward to my birthday.

Celebrate EARLY! DO it. DO it NOW.... LOL Sorry. I am ashamed. LOL

J Rabin, Great examples of what this lens can DO!

DO wonderers:

In my post above, I promised more good/bad shots from my 70-300 DO. Here are two from from the Air Products youth bicycle racing at Velodrome. I've only had it two weeks, still getting to understand this lens.
70-300 DO at its best:
http://postit.rutgers.​edu …own%20Velo%20Sp​rint%2Ejpg
300mm f/7.1, 1/1600. I had to hit this HARD with sharpening, but the 8x10” print was fabulous. Good sports shots come harder with this lens compared to 70-200 L IS I use normally. I don't have to sharpen much. But, I happen to have access to that great chunk of glass and comparison is not fair.
But, THIS IS STRONG photo with good detail. I think families would be elated if they took travel/kid/candid photos with this detail all the time, if they only had one tele zoom.
The narrow depth of field, even at f/7.1 is typical. Some whiny web forum carpers do not understand how narrow DoF is at 200-300mm. Go to Canon museum and print the DoF chart for this lens. Learn it.

70-300 DO at its worst:
http://postit.rutgers.​edu …tart%20Time%20T​rial%2Ejpg
180mm, f/6.3, 1/125. A parent or kid could display this standing start time trial photo with pride. But for me, look at the OOF background against the chain link fence. Pixel peep 200%. You will see when this DO lens encounters repeating OOF backgrounds it forms weird ugly target bokeh, or when it has overexposed backgrounds, it gets confused and “cracks-up” the image or flares, really badly.
This was only my second day with it. So, I will take great care where I point this from now on. That's this DO lens' weakness. I can live with it, but I had to experience it and learn.
Heck I was shooting at only 1/125, so I should not complain about lack of sharpness. IS works as advertised.
J.

Thanks for all the kind critiques. (I would really liked to have set it at ISO 1600. )

I was hoping to help those who may be on the fence with this lens. This is an expensive lens that fits a very popular niche. If 60-70% of your pictures are family, kids sports and occasional events, this lens has the reach, picture quality, size and weight. Maybe I'm just not confident enough to bring a 9 inch white lens to my 6 year old's soccer game, but with this lens, I get a good shot and most of all, I'm not afraid to pull this thing out, point it and get the shot. Most people say nice camera, not nice lens!

what dose the DO stand for?

Diffractive Optics, like the thick Fresnel Lenses with their concentric rings in old light houses.

Ok, I wanted to try and make up for the concert photo. (The 100kbyte limit kills me.)
First is @70mm 1/200 f8 second is @300mm 1/250 f7

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Whoa! The 100kb limit really killed that shot. I had to set the quality down to make it fit. Yipes! Oh well, take my word for it, it was sharp.

Also, the sun was setting right behind my shots and this lens is known to flare. At least that is my excuse.

Okay, okay Dan & Dante!!!! As soon as we unload a couple of lenses that we decided did not fit our needs, I will buy that lens for Skip. Father's day is still a month off and his birthday is still 3 months off. I had to wait for my birthday to get the 16-35mm........