70-300 DO IS v. 70-200 2.8L IS v. 300 f4L IS

For those needs the DO should be fine but then so should the new 70-300 IS or even some of the cheapo sigma 70-300's

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

PeaceFrog said:

I would love to see the data that you used to come to your
conclusions here. I have owned both the 70-300 DO and the new
70-300 IS and my findings were pretty different from what you have
posted here.

Thanks,

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Click to expand...

Sorry I can't show you the pics anymore. I tested the new one myself against my DO and the new one is good but is it not significantly better if at all better. But my HD is to full already and so I delete pics when I do not need them anymore. I just wanted to know for myself I have no need to prove this to others. You are allowed to not believe me.

The 5D DO vs non DO comparison I saw quite some time ago on the net somewhere but I do not know where anymore maybe googling you can find it. The difference was clearly visible.

As to everything else as you have used both you know the DO is way above the new one. But as I already said that is maybe not worth the price difference for you. For me it clearly is.

PS: I'm always interested to see your data if that would be online.

Oh and I forgot. When people really say the DO is optically not good they probably have a UV filter fitted. Don't ask me why but the UV filter is a no no on the DO. It has a much more deteriorating influence than any other lens I have ever used.

Agree totally - initially thought it was my filter so I upgraded to SHMC Pro, but still a deterioration so off it came. I'd also add that the hood is a must in direct light (although not needed as badly as when I had the filter on)

Dom

slipstream said:

Oh and I forgot. When people really say the DO is optically not
good they probably have a UV filter fitted. Don't ask me why but
the UV filter is a no no on the DO. It has a much more
deteriorating influence than any other lens I have ever used.

Click to expand...

Foggy !!

No you little frog, i didnt make that up, the cheek of it!

its all true, but then you beleve what you want to beleve, at least your happy in your little exotic esoteric high end 'L' Lens rich mans world.

not nice to be insulting is it,
so lets not go any further as it just gets childish, agreed?

Michael,

PeaceFrog said:

Wow, what a reasonable response. So in other words you just made
that information up.

Thanks for confirming that.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Click to expand...

--
Canon 1Ds mkII at work & 1D mkII
Eos 1v Film SLR now covered in dust, sad but true.....

This is new to me.

How about circular polarizers? Do they have a deteriorating influence as well?