Reading mode: Light Dark

Any Opinions on 70 - 300 DO Lens?

Go to last post
P

pahoo

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
379
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I'm thinking about this lens as a lighter alternative to hauling around the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS or the 300 F4L IS. I knowthese are probably better lenses but sometimes you need a compact lens in this range. Let me know from anyone with experience with the 70 - 300 DO.

John W
 
Ken, is that a plasma / lazer cutter of some sort?
Ken C. Smith said:
Ken


pahoo said:
I'm thinking about this lens as a lighter alternative to hauling
around the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS or the 300 F4L IS. I knowthese are
probably better lenses but sometimes you need a compact lens in
this range. Let me know from anyone with experience with the 70 -
300 DO.

John W
Click to expand...
--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com
http://www.pdmsteel.com
Click to expand...
 
to use with her 10D. She likes the size of the 28 - 135 IS (her walking around lens) so I felt that the 70 - 300 IS DO would be comfortable for her to use.

I did some test images with the lens and liked it very much -- so much that I may use it from time to time when I don't want to lug around the 100 - 400 IS L.

It does give donut-like out-of-focus highlights in some situations. I'm aware of it, but no one else who has seen images from it have commented on the highlights.

Ken


pahoo said:
I'm thinking about this lens as a lighter alternative to hauling
around the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS or the 300 F4L IS. I knowthese are
probably better lenses but sometimes you need a compact lens in
this range. Let me know from anyone with experience with the 70 -
300 DO.

John W
Click to expand...
--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com
http://www.pdmsteel.com
 
Here is an image of it just before it lights up (also with the 70 - 300 IS DO).
Ken


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\FocusOnMe said:
Ken C. Smith said:
Ken


pahoo said:
I'm thinking about this lens as a lighter alternative to hauling
around the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS or the 300 F4L IS. I knowthese are
probably better lenses but sometimes you need a compact lens in
this range. Let me know from anyone with experience with the 70 -
300 DO.

John W
Click to expand...
--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com
http://www.pdmsteel.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com
http://www.pdmsteel.com
 
Just bought one and with the many negative comments I had seen, I was prepared to be disappointed. (But wanted a lighter carry lens of good quality. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS)

The reason some have reported "softness" is because the lens does lack some accutance vis a vis the 70-200 2.8/4 zooms and of course primes.
It does not lack resolution however.

Make judicious use of sharpening, levels and curves,making sure that you have a well exposed(to the right) file, and you'll be a very happy person.

It is an absolute joy to carry and with the above caveat, I think you'll like it.
Read Reichmann's review on Luminous Landscape for the full skinny.
I think he nailed it.
Tom
pahoo said:
I'm thinking about this lens as a lighter alternative to hauling
around the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS or the 300 F4L IS. I knowthese are
probably better lenses but sometimes you need a compact lens in
this range. Let me know from anyone with experience with the 70 -
300 DO.

John W
Click to expand...
 
Mine is arriving tomorrow. I rented the 70-200 2.8 IS to see if I could live with the size and weight and the short answer is I absloutely couldn't. So, I have high hopes for the 70-300 DO. I little softness that can be corrected in post-processing is a small price to pay for a lens that doesn't break my back.
Tom Melanson said:
pahoo said:
I'm thinking about this lens as a lighter alternative to hauling
around the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS or the 300 F4L IS. I knowthese are
probably better lenses but sometimes you need a compact lens in
this range. Let me know from anyone with experience with the 70 -
300 DO.

John W
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for your experience - I ordered it from OneCall today.

John W
pahoo said:
I'm thinking about this lens as a lighter alternative to hauling
around the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS or the 300 F4L IS. I knowthese are
probably better lenses but sometimes you need a compact lens in
this range. Let me know from anyone with experience with the 70 -
300 DO.

John W
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

I just got my 10D and the 28-135 lens. I want to shoot birds and find the lens I have is just not enough for that. I am in a terrible dilemna here tying to make a decision. I think the 100-400 will definetly be a great lens, but I am worried about the weight. I think the 70-300 is a great walking around lens and easy to handle, but, and this is the big question, will it leave me wishing I had gotten the extra 100mm when I'm out shooting a bird and need more reach? Has your wife ever used the 100-400? I ask this because being female myself I'd like to know if she can handle it. Also, the dimensions say that its 7.4". Is this fully extended? If not, how long is it fully extended? Your thoughts on this will be very important to me because you have both
Ken C. Smith said:
to use with her 10D. She likes the size of the 28 - 135 IS (her
walking around lens) so I felt that the 70 - 300 IS DO would be
comfortable for her to use.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sorry that I did not see your post earlier.

My wife does not like to use the 100 - 400 because of the weight and the fact that she has to have a hand fairly far out on the barrel of the lens in order to operate the push-pull zooming.

I use this lens primarily for sailboat races where being able to use 400mm is a big help. I occasionally use it to photograph people working in warehouses. In a dark warehouse, the reach and IS are great aids.

I would suggest that you try out the 100 - 400 L IS at a camera shop to see if you can hold it comfortably. Even better, would be to rent one for a week-end so that you can use it in your normal shooting.

My wife does not have a problem using the 70 - 300 IS DO. It is small, lighter than the 100 - 400 IS L, and has a twist zooming action. I think my copy of the 100 - 400 IS L is more contrasty than my copy of the 70 - 300, but it would be difficult to spot the difference in images from these two lenses after post-processing.

If the 100 - 400 is simply too big and heavy for you to handle for several hours at a time, then the your decision will be easier. The 100 - 400 is a better lens, but if its size and weight would make you hesitate to carry it on a shoot, then it will not be a good option. In this case, the 70 - 300 IS DO is a great (but not inexpensive) alternative.
I hope this helps.
Ken

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
stephanie gaspard said:
Ken C. Smith said:
to use with her 10D. She likes the size of the 28 - 135 IS (her
walking around lens) so I felt that the 70 - 300 IS DO would be
comfortable for her to use.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com
http://www.pdmsteel.com
 
Ken,

Thanks so much for responding. Just knowing that your wife will not use it almost helps me here. Just one more question though, in your opinion, will 300mm be enough to fill my viewfinder with a bird high up in the tree? After all, my search for a better zoom is basically because of my interest to take photos of birds without having them fly away because I got too close. I'm just having a hard time trying to realize what 300mm will look like compared to 400mm. The most I've ever used is a 70-210 zoom on a film camera. I already have the 28-135 IS, and to me its great to walk around with and for general use, but not enough for birds. Will the jump from 135mm to 300mm be enough? I know that the best way to decide would be to go and try them both, but my local camera shop does not have canon lenses. They can order them, but carry promaster. I really have no where to go to try them out. Thats why I'm looking for all information I can get here. I think I will start another thread like maybe "Is the 70-300 good for birds", or if anyone else here knows and has done some bird photography with this lens, I'd love to hear from you. Thanks again for your response.
 
Unfortunately, I don't believe that anyone can tell you, with any degree of certainty, if 300 mm will be enough reach to photograph birds -- too many varialbles. You might try borrowing a 300 mm lens of any brand (even a prime), to see if the reach is enough on the 10D for the photos you want to take.
Best Wishes,
Ken

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
stephanie gaspard said:
Ken,
Thanks so much for responding. Just knowing that your wife will not
use it almost helps me here. Just one more question though, in your
opinion, will 300mm be enough to fill my viewfinder with a bird
high up in the tree? After all, my search for a better zoom is
basically because of my interest to take photos of birds without
having them fly away because I got too close. I'm just having a
hard time trying to realize what 300mm will look like compared to
400mm. The most I've ever used is a 70-210 zoom on a film camera. I
already have the 28-135 IS, and to me its great to walk around with
and for general use, but not enough for birds. Will the jump from
135mm to 300mm be enough? I know that the best way to decide would
be to go and try them both, but my local camera shop does not have
canon lenses. They can order them, but carry promaster. I really
have no where to go to try them out. Thats why I'm looking for all
information I can get here. I think I will start another thread
like maybe "Is the 70-300 good for birds", or if anyone else here
knows and has done some bird photography with this lens, I'd love
to hear from you. Thanks again for your response.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com
http://www.pdmsteel.com
 
Stephanie,

Take a 28-135 bird image in a tree at 135. Crop to
the central 1/3 of the linear dimension and look at it
filling the computer screen. That should replicate what
the 300 will do on your body. Disregard the image
quality since that will be better with the 300, but the
coverage should tell you what you want to know.

Bob Watt
stephanie gaspard said:
Ken,
Thanks so much for responding. Just knowing that your wife will not
use it almost helps me here. Just one more question though, in your
opinion, will 300mm be enough to fill my viewfinder with a bird
high up in the tree? After all, my search for a better zoom is
basically because of my interest to take photos of birds without
having them fly away because I got too close. I'm just having a
hard time trying to realize what 300mm will look like compared to
400mm. The most I've ever used is a 70-210 zoom on a film camera. I
already have the 28-135 IS, and to me its great to walk around with
and for general use, but not enough for birds. Will the jump from
135mm to 300mm be enough? I know that the best way to decide would
be to go and try them both, but my local camera shop does not have
canon lenses. They can order them, but carry promaster. I really
have no where to go to try them out. Thats why I'm looking for all
information I can get here. I think I will start another thread
like maybe "Is the 70-300 good for birds", or if anyone else here
knows and has done some bird photography with this lens, I'd love
to hear from you. Thanks again for your response.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top