On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 Henning Wulff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > I've been looking at getting a more travel friendly tele lens for > digital use than the 100-400 and 70-200/2.8 IS I presently use.
Hi Henning, Exactly the reason I bought my 70-300 DO. <snip> > The 70-300 is compact, better built than any non-L lens > I've seen, heavier than it looks, stiffer zooming than I > would like, and has an idiotically large hood that still > doesn't keep it from having flare problems. The zoom action seems to loosen up with use, mine was like that to start with, but now seems fine. Maybe I've just gotten used to it... Yes, a very nicely built lens, similar to L build. Stupid design award goes to the zoom lock switch. It has the word "Lock" at one end of the switch and nothing at the other end. Only problem is that to lock it, you slide the switch *away* from the word lock, to unlock the switch slides *toward* it. Seems back to front to me.... > On the basic image quality issues, I've compared it to the > 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8 IS plain and with 1.4x (first > version). Overall, image quality seems fairly equal to the > 100-400 where the focal lengths overlap, but somehow > the quality seems uneven. Some images are definitely > better than those of the 100-400, but some seems quite > soft in comparison. f/stop doesn't seem to be the real > determinant, as it is quite good even at f/5.6. f/8 is > definitely better, but don't feel that smaller stops are > absolutely necessary. l Similarly in comparison with the > 70-200, the best images seem essentially equal to > those of the 70-200, while others are definitely a lot > poorer. On the up side, with a little Photoshop massaging > (from RAW images from a D60) the DO images are the > equal of the 70-200 images. Withe the older 1.4x Canon > converter on the 70-200, it seems to consistently deliver > poorer image quality than the 70-300 DO on its own. I haven't done any controlled comparisons with my other lenses in this range (70-200 f2.8L IS & 200 f2.8L, 1.4 & 2x extenders). However my observations are that image quality can be very good indeed (equal perhaps to the L's), and at it's worst it's still much better than the run of the mill 75-300 (any sort) and the 100-300 USM. The IS is very effective and the focusing is very good, even on my 10D. Some observations are that (like Henning) the f-stop doesn't have a great effect on image quality (much like the 200L prime in that respect) but lighting conditions do. In cloudy or front lit sunny conditions it seems to perform very well. Backlit, some of the shots seem not quite so sharp. > Flare seems to be a lot bigger problem for the DO lens, > probably because of the DO element. Things that are very > bright (specular highlights and such) have significant halos, > often green, around them. Not pretty. I've not noticed coloured halos. What I have seen though is that some of the bright, out of focus highlights show signs of concentric circles under closer inspection. Due to the DO optics undoubtedly. A bit like mirror lenses, but *nowhere* near as noticeable. > On the whole the lens works, and does what it's supposed > to. I got it at a very attractive price through my local dealer > (about $1100US) and the quality I can achieve if I pay > attention is significantly better than I can get with any other > compact lens, so I'll keep it. Agreed, I'm very happy with mine. A travel kit for me now consists of the 70-300 DO, 16-35L and sometimes 50 f1.4 and the 15 f2.8 fisheye lens. Plus 10D. It's *much* better than the other compact alternatives. As it should be too for the money.... > It is, however, a lot different than most other lenses, so some > adjustment is necessary. Make use of that IS, as it is very good > but needs a second or two to get up to speed. At 480mm > equivalent, you have to hold it very steady to get the best quality. I've included some links to some images taken with the DO lens. They're not full sized, but are either 1280 pixels wide or 1024 high, so they can be reasonably assessed. http://shutterbug.rdksupportinc.com/gafisher/temp/2004_Fleays_1202.jpg 230mm Program mode, 1/320 @ f6.3 iso 200. This one shows the out of focus highlight circles I mentioned at the top. Back-lit, no hood (!!). http://shutterbug.rdksupportinc.com/gafisher/temp/2004_10D_BiggeraW_1319.jpg 275mm Av mode 1/100 @ f9 iso 100. Pre-sunrise. http://shutterbug.rdksupportinc.com/gafisher/temp/2004_10D_BiggeraW_Daylight_1332.jpg 275mm Av mode 1/500 @ f8 iso 100. After sunrise. http://shutterbug.rdksupportinc.com/gafisher/temp/2004_10D_BiggeraW_1482a.jpg 300mm Av mode 1/320 @ f7.1 iso 400. Cloudy late afternoon, with sudden break of sunlight (behind camera). http://shutterbug.rdksupportinc.com/gafisher/temp/2004_10D_BiggeraW_1311a.jpg 95mm Av mode 20s @ f16 iso 100. Night shot on tripod (with IS left on....) In summary, I like it. A lot. There's a lot of bagging of this lens in some forums (particularly on dpreview (but then there are a lot of well-informed <grin> knowledgeable <grin> users there)). Most of it seems to be coming from a small number who don't own it and don't like the price and can't see past that. Some even claim the old 1st gen IS 75-300 is better. Now *that's* stretching the truth! (yes I've owned one of those ones...) If you want a small, portable lens in that range, ideally suited for travel, then this one is highly recommended. But you pay a premium for it... The alternatives (in L class glass at least) are just as expensive but not as portable (or in the case of the 100-300 f5.6L not as user friendly or as well built as the DO). Horses for courses... Cheers Gary This message has passed through an insecure network. Please direct all enquires to the message author. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
