Canon M supertelephoto - Canon missing a trick?

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

It was I believe the first version of DO. Unlike the 400mm I don't think the 70-300 got a ninja update through it's lifecycle. But basically it's the bokeh that you may not like about it. but £250 .. I know this economy is tough, but that's a steal.

Click to expand...

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

KevinRA said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

Suggest do a little more reading - Ken and DxO not usually the best rated reviewers on these forums - and beware the high density pixels on modern M system cameras are really non forgiving. I dont own a DO - but did try the non DO version 1. The DO most reviews says softer still at the key 300mm f/5.6 apertures. There's a reason why I'm sure the 2nd hand value of this lens is so low compared to new - the discount buying used is massive - much more than the really good glass where 2nd hand can be 75-85% of new.

I'd be more tempted by the EF-S 55-250 perhaps... suspect but dont know a crop of the 250mm will be as good as the 300mm of the DO lens in practice.

link here: Know which I'd prefer

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

Rock and Rollei said:

KevinRA said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

Suggest do a little more reading - Ken and DxO not usually the best rated reviewers on these forums - and beware the high density pixels on modern M system cameras are really non forgiving. I dont own a DO - but did try the non DO version 1. The DO most reviews says softer still at the key 300mm f/5.6 apertures. There's a reason why I'm sure the 2nd hand value of this lens is so low compared to new - the discount buying used is massive - much more than the really good glass where 2nd hand can be 75-85% of new.

I'd be more tempted by the EF-S 55-250 perhaps... suspect but dont know a crop of the 250mm will be as good as the 300mm of the DO lens in practice.

link here: Know which I'd prefer

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

I had the DO and the Mk I IS - as well as the L. Frankly, the DO and IS were more or less identical performers and although I used the DO for a while as my travel zoom, the L displaced it for everything, so I sold it . Never really considered it as suitable for my Ms, as it's not really all that small. I guess one that only had to cover a crop sensor would be a much more convenient size.

Click to expand...

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

KevinRA said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

Suggest do a little more reading - Ken and DxO not usually the best rated reviewers on these forums - and beware the high density pixels on modern M system cameras are really non forgiving. I dont own a DO - but did try the non DO version 1. The DO most reviews says softer still at the key 300mm f/5.6 apertures. There's a reason why I'm sure the 2nd hand value of this lens is so low compared to new - the discount buying used is massive - much more than the really good glass where 2nd hand can be 75-85% of new.

I'd be more tempted by the EF-S 55-250 perhaps... suspect but dont know a crop of the 250mm will be as good as the 300mm of the DO lens in practice.

link here: Know which I'd prefer

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

I had the DO and the Mk I IS - as well as the L. Frankly, the DO and IS were more or less identical performers and although I used the DO for a while as my travel zoom, the L displaced it for everything, so I sold it . Never really considered it as suitable for my Ms, as it's not really all that small. I guess one that only had to cover a crop sensor would be a much more convenient size.

Click to expand...

which L displaced it?

Click to expand...

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

Click to expand...

PhotosByHall said:

I've currently got the MK1 70-300 Non L.

I'm happy with it, it's just heavier than expected. It's manageable though.

Click to expand...

PhotosByHall said:

I'll either live with it or get the 55-250. We will see.

I'd read from other people that they were not happy with the DO lens. Reviews seemed to be completely polarized around it - just an idea, but no point if there is no significant size\weight saving...

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

PhotosByHall said:

I've currently got the MK1 70-300 Non L.

I'm happy with it, it's just heavier than expected. It's manageable though.

Click to expand...

The DO version is even heavier.

nnowak said:

I'll either live with it or get the 55-250. We will see.

I'd read from other people that they were not happy with the DO lens. Reviews seemed to be completely polarized around it - just an idea, but no point if there is no significant size\weight saving...

Click to expand...

Any positive reviews of the DO are likely quite old and come from a time when the only alternative was the MK1 70-300 that you currently own.

Click to expand...

KevinRA said:

nnowak said:

PhotosByHall said:

I've currently got the MK1 70-300 Non L.

I'm happy with it, it's just heavier than expected. It's manageable though.

Click to expand...

The DO version is even heavier.

KevinRA said:

I'll either live with it or get the 55-250. We will see.

I'd read from other people that they were not happy with the DO lens. Reviews seemed to be completely polarized around it - just an idea, but no point if there is no significant size\weight saving...

Click to expand...

Any positive reviews of the DO are likely quite old and come from a time when the only alternative was the MK1 70-300 that you currently own.

Click to expand...

One in particular was Michael Reichman's from Luminous Landscape

https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6-do-is-test/

Lower resolution full frame cameras - more forgiving with respect to centre of frame image quality. Of course for web / small pictures I'm sure fine even on EF-M. Not one for pixel peepers... or for images where halation which is quite commonly reported impacts images - seems mostly reported at 300mm f/5.6 - cleared up to a degree at 300mm f/8

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

Click to expand...

There is a reason why that DO lens is so cheap. It is a misearable lens. While it is shorter in length than the other Canon 70-300's, it is the second widest and second heaviest of the lot. The only 70-300 that is wider and heavier is the L version. Optically, it is worse than the 1st generation EF 70-300mm IS.

If you want a true compact and lightweight travel option, get the EF-S 55-250mm STM. It is roughly half the weight of that DO lens while also being far, far better optically. You can probably find a new copy of the 55-250 STM for the price of a used 70-300mm DO.

If you really want a 300mm zoom, get the newest EF 70-300mm IS II. Optically, it is miles ahead of the old DO lens while weighing basically the same.

While the idea of DO sounds great, everyone I know who has been tempted to try the lens in recent years has promptly resold the lens within weeks... too much weight and far too little optical performance.

Click to expand...

Rock and Rollei said:

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

KevinRA said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

Suggest do a little more reading - Ken and DxO not usually the best rated reviewers on these forums - and beware the high density pixels on modern M system cameras are really non forgiving. I dont own a DO - but did try the non DO version 1. The DO most reviews says softer still at the key 300mm f/5.6 apertures. There's a reason why I'm sure the 2nd hand value of this lens is so low compared to new - the discount buying used is massive - much more than the really good glass where 2nd hand can be 75-85% of new.

I'd be more tempted by the EF-S 55-250 perhaps... suspect but dont know a crop of the 250mm will be as good as the 300mm of the DO lens in practice.

link here: Know which I'd prefer

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

I had the DO and the Mk I IS - as well as the L. Frankly, the DO and IS were more or less identical performers and although I used the DO for a while as my travel zoom, the L displaced it for everything, so I sold it . Never really considered it as suitable for my Ms, as it's not really all that small. I guess one that only had to cover a crop sensor would be a much more convenient size.

Click to expand...

which L displaced it?

Click to expand...

70-300 L.

Click to expand...

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

KevinRA said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

Suggest do a little more reading - Ken and DxO not usually the best rated reviewers on these forums - and beware the high density pixels on modern M system cameras are really non forgiving. I dont own a DO - but did try the non DO version 1. The DO most reviews says softer still at the key 300mm f/5.6 apertures. There's a reason why I'm sure the 2nd hand value of this lens is so low compared to new - the discount buying used is massive - much more than the really good glass where 2nd hand can be 75-85% of new.

I'd be more tempted by the EF-S 55-250 perhaps... suspect but dont know a crop of the 250mm will be as good as the 300mm of the DO lens in practice.

link here: Know which I'd prefer

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

I had the DO and the Mk I IS - as well as the L. Frankly, the DO and IS were more or less identical performers and although I used the DO for a while as my travel zoom, the L displaced it for everything, so I sold it . Never really considered it as suitable for my Ms, as it's not really all that small. I guess one that only had to cover a crop sensor would be a much more convenient size.

Click to expand...

which L displaced it?

Click to expand...

70-300 L.

Click to expand...

oh right.. duh. that's the one i forgot. that's a nice little lens too.

Click to expand...

Rock and Rollei said:

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

KevinRA said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

Suggest do a little more reading - Ken and DxO not usually the best rated reviewers on these forums - and beware the high density pixels on modern M system cameras are really non forgiving. I dont own a DO - but did try the non DO version 1. The DO most reviews says softer still at the key 300mm f/5.6 apertures. There's a reason why I'm sure the 2nd hand value of this lens is so low compared to new - the discount buying used is massive - much more than the really good glass where 2nd hand can be 75-85% of new.

I'd be more tempted by the EF-S 55-250 perhaps... suspect but dont know a crop of the 250mm will be as good as the 300mm of the DO lens in practice.

link here: Know which I'd prefer

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

I had the DO and the Mk I IS - as well as the L. Frankly, the DO and IS were more or less identical performers and although I used the DO for a while as my travel zoom, the L displaced it for everything, so I sold it . Never really considered it as suitable for my Ms, as it's not really all that small. I guess one that only had to cover a crop sensor would be a much more convenient size.

Click to expand...

which L displaced it?

Click to expand...

70-300 L.

Click to expand...

oh right.. duh. that's the one i forgot. that's a nice little lens too.

Click to expand...

One of my favourites. It's quite short, although not exactly light, and more than sharp enough. My favourite FF travel telezoom. Must say the same thing but only covering APS-C would be tempting.

Click to expand...

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

rrc1967 said:

Rock and Rollei said:

KevinRA said:

PhotosByHall said:

rrc1967 said:

PhotosByHall said:

Here's a thought.

If you've seen any of my posts here - you'll know for me that the M43 and the Nikon 1 CX system have one thing primarily going for them - REACH (or long reach to small size & weight ratio).

The N1 system had too low IQ, so I abandoned it, but I did very much enjoy using M43 and the Olympus supertele 75-300mm (long end is 600mm as M43 has x 2 crop factor) for a time.

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

I would imagine that a 100-375mm (which would be 160-600mm) would not be MUCH bigger than the m43 lenses equals are.

Click to expand...

This is really m43's claim to fame though..

Where m43's excells is really telephoto because if you ignore equivalent aperture nothing can put pixels on target like M43 can. As long as you have good light it's really hard to beat the M43s compactness.

Except the M6 Mark II - the pixel density between the two sensors is the same, so a 70-300mm on a 20MP M43 would be approximately the same as a 70-300mm on a M6 Mark II with 32.5MP.

While the 70-300 nano USM is certainly there, it's larger than what is would absolutely necessary have to be size and weight because it's meant to cover a full frame sensor size. It's certainly an option but loses out on the size and weight department, and the AF works very well from what I've heard with the M6 II,etc.

Another option but a little less focal would be the EF-S 55-250mm or the EF-M 50-200mm

or if money is no object there is always the 70-300 DO which is the smallest of the bunch.

As far as Canon making one - I'm not sure .. I guess they could make one as small as the Olympus, but I fear it would have to be aperture compromised to make it as small.

that all being said, there's a lot of telephoto options that work well on a M6 II.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did really enjoy using m43 for the relatively short time I had it. Sick of maintaining 2 systems though.

You're bang on with the DO 70-300. I originally looked at it but read conflicting accounts of its sharpness. More reading indicates that Ken and DXO test it as practically the same as the 70-300 non-IS anyway. So I might get one just for that size and weight saving.

Again, DO tech would probably make the production of a small 70-300 supertele possible. Who knows?

As for price, I've seen it 2nd hand from Cex for £250.

I know a lot of people who would scoff, but they do a 2 year warranty, and when I've tried to sell to them they spotted a *tiny* chip on the front glass that even MPB missed

Click to expand...

Suggest do a little more reading - Ken and DxO not usually the best rated reviewers on these forums - and beware the high density pixels on modern M system cameras are really non forgiving. I dont own a DO - but did try the non DO version 1. The DO most reviews says softer still at the key 300mm f/5.6 apertures. There's a reason why I'm sure the 2nd hand value of this lens is so low compared to new - the discount buying used is massive - much more than the really good glass where 2nd hand can be 75-85% of new.

I'd be more tempted by the EF-S 55-250 perhaps... suspect but dont know a crop of the 250mm will be as good as the 300mm of the DO lens in practice.

link here: Know which I'd prefer

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

I had the DO and the Mk I IS - as well as the L. Frankly, the DO and IS were more or less identical performers and although I used the DO for a while as my travel zoom, the L displaced it for everything, so I sold it . Never really considered it as suitable for my Ms, as it's not really all that small. I guess one that only had to cover a crop sensor would be a much more convenient size.

Click to expand...

which L displaced it?

Click to expand...

70-300 L.

Click to expand...

oh right.. duh. that's the one i forgot. that's a nice little lens too.

Click to expand...

One of my favourites. It's quite short, although not exactly light, and more than sharp enough. My favourite FF travel telezoom. Must say the same thing but only covering APS-C would be tempting.

Click to expand...

Certainly a nice size though



APS-C would probably not be that much smaller, probably for sure less bulkier.. if we look at the 100-400's:

Click to expand...

PhotosByHall said:

So why don't Canon make a unique selling point of the M system by producing an equivalent of the Olympus and Panasonic super-teles?

Click to expand...

R2D2 said:

Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll see a new tele lens here until Canon determines which way they want to go with crop. IMO I hope it’s the M system. Give me a new lens and some user adjustments to the AF and I’ll be quite happy. :-D

Click to expand...

R2D2 said:

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

R2D2 said:

Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll see a new tele lens here until Canon determines which way they want to go with crop. IMO I hope it’s the M system. Give me a new lens and some user adjustments to the AF and I’ll be quite happy. :-D

Click to expand...

Go look at which lens mount Canon is putting on their new 100-500mm zoom. That should give you a really good clue where Canon is going with crop sensor cameras.

Click to expand...