Thoughts on 70-300mm DO? UPDATE 2: Pretty good, but sold!

[neuroanatomist]

I have the opportunity to pick up a used (mint condition) copy of the 70-300mm DO for ~35% less than the going retail cost. At retail cost, this lens is rather unattractive. I've got the focal range covered with L-series zooms (70-200mm II± 1.4x TC,100-400mm). But the 70-300mm DO is shorter and not significantly heavier than the 24-105mm f/4L - a lot of reach in a small, light package. It's clearly a trade off between IQ and portability- but, is it a worthwhile tradeoff?


All comments, and especially those from users of the 70-300 DO, are appreciated!

[markcoons]

Do it. I picked up a used copy (only way to get this lens!) and have not regretted it. It has become one of my favorite lenses. It's so much easier to carry around that any of my other telephoto lenses and it is less conspicuous also. But the image sharpness and color reproduction are excellent. I just shot a play last night and the bulk of my images were with this lens. I can not recommend this lens highly enough.

[Bill W]

Neuro....I have to ask the question; why?


You have the 2 best lenses in your bagto cover the 70-300 (400) FL....again, why spend 800 bucks for the redundancy of an inferior lens? I'm using "inferior" to compare IQ to the 70-200 ll and 100-400 IS.


Is the money worth spending for; low profile, weight, and inferior IQ?


White and weight are not factors for my lens decisions....IMOI'd opt for a lens that isn't in my bag, e.g. macro, prime (135 2.0) or some accessories you've been lusting over.


Regards


Bill

[neuroanatomist]

<div>



But the image sharpness and color reproduction are excellent.


Thanks, that's good to hear.
</div>




I have to ask the question; why?


'Cuz I want something other than red for the ring at the end of the barrel, andgreen is my favorite color? [:P]



Is the money worth spending for; low profile, weight, and inferior IQ?


Maybe...if I'm going to go somewhere and I need to travel light. Covering 17-300mm with two lenses (17-55mm, 70-300mm DO) that combined are smaller and lighter than either one of those white zooms would be really nice in some situations. As long as the IQ isn't too inferior...



IMOI'd opt for a lens that isn't in your bag, e.g. macro, prime (135 2.0) or some accessories you've been lusting over.


Got the macro (100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS), got a fast prime (85mm f/1.2<span style="color: red;"]L). Been thinking about the MT-24EX, though...

[Bill W]

Oh, now I understand....green is my favorite color also. [:D]


With the primo IQ lenses in your bag, if I were you; I'd take some pix w/the DOto see if you can live w/the drop off in IQ.


Then I'd purchase the MT-24EX.


Aren't opinions great? LOL


Good luck Neuro....equipment decisions are tough.

[Jon Ruyle]

IMOI'd opt for a lens that isn't in your bag, e.g. macro, prime (135 2.0) or some accessories you've been lusting over.


Got the macro (100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS), got a fast prime (85mm f/1.2<span style="color: red;"]L).





Just curious... have you considered adding the 135 f/2? Sure, you've got a lot of lenses covering that range, but the 135 is really special.

[ddt0725]

Granted, I have never used the 70-300mm DO but ...I was very happy w/ my 55-250mm when I very first started out not too long ago. Now, using the lenses I currently have could I go back and be just as happy with the 55-250mm? Ah...no. I would constantly notice it's shortcomings andit would be even more obvious to me. With that in mind, after you have grown accustomed to using the awesome lenses you have, I don't think you would be happy with the shortcomings that I read about in Bryan's review of this lens. I think they would be more evident to you than to the average "John" using it. You should definitely try it out before purchasing to see if you can accept the tradeoff you are going for. Personally, the "halo" effect caused by the DO elements also mentioned in the review would annoy me.

I say go with the macro lite or wait to see what Canon comes out with in a few months, you won't be missing any shots in the meantime. Being the good friend that I am, you can always dump a lens or two on me to help take the load off! I won't mind! [;)]

Denise

[andnowimbroke]

Is this for your China trip? I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to take the "good-n-heavy" stuff everywhere you go, but I do agree with everything Denise said. Have you checked out the upper end of third party lens (not Tamron 70-300)? They are still pretty cheap and light without the IS and if things go south, no biggie.. or you could buy my 70-200L IS 2.8verI for $800. My shipping and handling fees are a little steep (another $800) but I'll throw in a bucket of JD Green paint and a few helium balloons to lighten the load.

[neuroanatomist]

<div>



have you considered adding the 135 f/2?
</div>





I've definitely considered it, and still am. It's lower on my list, though, since getting the 70-200mm II.



You should definitely try it out before purchasing to see if you can accept the tradeoff you are going for. Personally, the "halo" effect caused by the DO elements also mentioned in the review would annoy me.


Definitely a good idea. My preference would have been to try out a new copy in a local shop, for comparison to the 70-200 II (which I know will have better IQ). Unfortunately, none of the shops have one in stock. If I were the CR Guy, I'd say that means a 70-300mm DO MkII is coming out soon. ;)


I'm not too worried about the halo effect, provided it's limited to the OOF highlights.



Is this for your China trip? I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to take the "good-n-heavy" stuff everywhere you go...


Not really for serious travel - in that situation, I'd want my best lenses (likely kit at this point would include 17-55mm, 70-200mm II, 1.4x TC, and 430EX II, and probably the 10-22mm), and live with the weight and bulk. My only concession there will probably to get a smaller backpack-type bag for just that amount of stuff (Flipside 300, maybe).


My intended use for the 70-300mm DO would be local trips and 'grab shots' - situations where I want to cover a broad focal range but not carry many lenses or big, white lenses. It's unlikely that I'd need to print those shots larger than 8x10" or do much cropping.

[andnowimbroke]

My only concession there will probably to get a smaller backpack-type bag for just that amount of stuff (Flipside 300, maybe).





I think the flipside 300 is still on sale for $60 shipped at Adorama. I had bought one to replace my Canon bag, but haven't figured out all I need to know about it yet. Sumthung about my shirtbeing on backwardseverytime I flip it around:)

[Sheiky]

My intended use for the 70-300mm DO would be local trips and 'grab shots' - situations where I want to cover a broad focal range but not carry many lenses or big, white lenses


I think it's quite expensive for such occasions... If you can justify it, I can understand your point. By the way you can buy camera-camouflage to cover your big white lenses...



It's unlikely that I'd need to print those shots larger than 8x10" or do much cropping.


Then a high quality point and shoot with a good zoom-range is perhaps an even better idea?


To be honest, personally I think it's too expansive for what you get for it. The only plus-sides I see are size and color... and I can think of some more negative sides to compensate those [A]

[Tom Wertman]

I too am considering this lens. I am finding most of the criticism read so far to be puzzling. I have read the lens is a poor performer in low light. At f/4.5-5.6 who ever said it should be good in poor light? I've seen it compared to the 300 f/2.8. Hardly apples to apples as the cost comparison should reveal. It clearly beat out the 75-300 in all photo comparisons and since it costs 2x as much it very well should. Flare and halo under certain lighting conditions are the 2 most legitimate concerns IMO. Careful planning should be able to avoid those conditions. Lastly no lens is perfect and no lens does it all. So it seems to me that the pros of compactness, travel capabilities, fast AF, all around general purpose walk around lens capabilities with IS outweigh the cons I have read. Interestingly many of the negatives are coming from people who admittedly do not own the lens. But owners seem to be pleased in general. If there are so many negatives and owners than there should be plenty of these for sale. But I have not been able to find more than 2 listings and both were for more than 35% of retail value. I would say buy it. I might do the same if the right deal presented itself.

[Daniel Browning]

It's clearly a trade off between IQ and portability - but, is it a worthwhile tradeoff?








For most people, I would say no. The 70-300 non-DO is both cheaper and sharper, so the DO only makes sense for circumstances when a few inches of length and a few ounces of weight are more important than money and image quality. I don't think anyone else can really help you decide between the relative merits, only you can discern how important the factors are.






I too am considering this lens. I am finding most of the criticism read so far to be puzzling. I have read the lens is a poor performer in low light.








It's a poor performer in all types of light.









I've seen it compared to the 300 f/2.8. Hardly apples to apples as the cost comparison should reveal.








Agreed. A better comparison is with the 70-300 non-DO, which is both cheaper and sharper (but longer and heavier).









It clearly beat out the 75-300 in all photo comparisons and since it costs 2x as much it very well should.








Actually, it costs 6X as much ($1,250 vs $200).









Flare and halo under certain lighting conditions are the 2 most legitimate concerns IMO.








Agreed.









If there are so many negatives and owners than there should be plenty of these for sale. But I have not been able to find more than 2 listings and both were for more than 35% of retail value.





I've read posts by a lot of happy D.O. owners and you might be right, but I think that has more to do with the low sales volume.
<div></div>

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for your input, Daniel. What's your take on the DO's lack of sharpness being primarily due to low acutance rather than low resolution (and the implication that unlike poor resolution, poor acutance can be corrected in post)? Looking at Bryan's ISO 12233 crops, even the solid black areas of the chart are relatively gray, i.e. poor contrast).



the DO only makes sense for circumstances when a few inches of length and a few ounces of weight are more important than money and image quality


That comes pretty close to my situation, with the caveat that the DO also has substantially better build quality than the non-DO (I really hate a focus ring that moves during AF, to name one example). If I want the best IQ in a similar zoom range, the 70-200 II does the trick. Really, I'm trying to save the most on size (weight is less important) without sacrificing too much IQ.

[Daniel Browning]

Thanks for your input, Daniel. What's your take on the DO's lack of sharpness being primarily due to low acutance rather than low resolution (and the implication that unlike poor resolution, poor acutance can be corrected in post)?





I think that's right; a good post workflow will make up for a lot of the sharpness issues, including the overall low contrast. Specific flare artifacts (e.g. halos) will not be so easy, but for most scenes (with normal and low dynamic range), I don't think it will be noticeable (kind of like the 50mm f/1.4 wide open).



with the caveat that the DO also has substantially better build quality than the non-DO


Excellent point.



Really, I'm trying to save the most on size (weight is less important) without sacrificing too much IQ.


Sounds like the D.O. is just what the doctor ordered. (For the brain doctor.)

[Sheiky]

Really, I'm trying to save the most on size (weight is less important) without sacrificing too much IQ.


So if I understand correctly: A high-quality point and shoot would mean too much loss of IQ? Even if it has RAW-capabilities?


I can understand your point of view, although I still think it's crazy [:P] However you also say that you want to save on size, weight is less important. Why do you want to save in size? You're obviously doing it purely so you think you will be more stealthy...however I think with the max 9,28" + body it will still be a huge lens/camera-combination to "normal" people. Yes it would be about 2,5" shorter than your 70-200 and it isn't white, but I also wouldn't call it stealthy and small like a point and shoot.


Just as a comparison, the 70-200 f4L IS version is about as long as the 70-300DO in maximum zoom (9,99" vs 9,28")


Sorry John, one side of me understands this and the other side is still wondering why [:P] If it would be your only lens in that range and you'd want to keep the ratio of size/image-quality as good as it gets I would understand it, but now... [:P]


Anyway it's still your call and if you would choose to buy one, I won't argue with that. Your decision has a solid base I think. So if it's all worth it for you, I'm not the one that stops you and I hope you get some good snap-shots with it.



<div>



I too am considering this lens. I am finding most of the criticism read so far to be puzzling
</div>



That's probably because for the same amount of money you can get much better build and image-quality. At the cost of some size, but that's not always such a big deal. So in short terms you get the most for your money.


If the 70-300DO would be quite a bit cheaper I'd think there would be a larger market for it.


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

So if I understand correctly: A high-quality point and shoot would mean too much loss of IQ? Even if it has RAW-capabilities?


I'd be ok with the IQ of a good P&amp;S - an S90 is something else I'm considering for real portability. But a good shot is about more than just IQ. One of the main drivers for my switch to a dSLR in the first place was shot speed - a combination of AF speed and shutter lag, both of which are long even on a good P&amp;S. I missed way too many shots of my little one between the time she started actually moving around and me getting a dSLR, due to slow AF on a P&amp;S. Still, I do see a benefit to a P&amp;S where I wouldn't otherwise bring a camera at all - I can always find room in a pocket (or my wife's purse [;)]).



Why do you want to save in size? You're obviously doing it purely so you think you will be more stealthy...


Not at all. When I'm using the lens, it can be arm-length and white - that's fine. This is purely about fitting in a small bag, while minimizing the IQ penalty. I don't mind the weight (I've got good arm strength thanks to regularly carrying a 22 pound/10 kg weight - my daughter!), but I want to minimize the bulk. The 'ultimate' in convenience would be something like the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - but that has consequences on build and image quality that are too much of a compromise for me. However, the 70-300mm DO and either the 17-55mm or the 24-105mm would both fit (along with the gripped 7D) in something relatively compact, like the Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW. That, with a 430EX II in the outside pocket, and I'm good for most shooting situations with something that's about the size of a shoebox, is easy to carry over a shoulder along with my toddler, fits behind the driver's seat of the car, etc.



Your decision has a solid base I think. So if it's all worth it for you...


Thanks - I think it will be worth it. But, that's one reason that for lenses I'm not positive are right for me, I get them used and at a good enough bargain that I'll be able to sell them down the line without a significant loss (and as I've mentioned, in a couple of cases already, with a gain). Given the relative lack of popularity with this lens, I may have to sit on it for a while if it turns out I don't use it - but that's ok. Worst case scenario, I'll take a loss about equal to the amount I'd pay to rent it for 4 days from lensrantals.com (~US$55) - that would mean selling it for 40% less than retail, which won't be difficult. Not that I'm trying to be pessimistic - however, I think it's always good to anticipate success, but plan for failure.


Thanks everyone for the input and helpful opinions!

[neuroanatomist]

However, the 70-300mm DO and either the 17-55mm or the 24-105mm would both fit (along with the gripped 7D) in something relatively compact, like the Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW. That, with a 430EX II in the outside pocket, and I'm good for most shooting situations with something that's about the size of a shoebox, is easy to carry over a shoulder along with my toddler, fits behind the driver's seat of the car, etc.





Incidentally, I tried this out today with the gripped 7D, 24-105mm, and 85L in the Toploader Pro 75 AW - we went on our bi-weekly trip to the farm cooperative we're members of, out in the fields picking berries, vegetables, and flowers, and taking some portraits along the way. In this case, I probably wouldn't have taken the 70-300 DO (wouldn't need the length, and I had snapshots and portraits in mind) - but the two-lens kit was portable enough to allow me to carry it, take pics with both lenses, and still gather produce (does weather-sealing work for blueberry juice too?). The standard zoom and 70-200 II (or even a 70-200 f/4) would have required a bigger, bulkier bag, which would have gotten in the way.

[Tom Wertman]

Daniel Browning


It's a poor performer in all types of light.





What are you basing this on? Do you have any examples to share? Have you looked at the samples on this sites review page? To me I have a hard time finding things I don't like, except where a shot is shown to display a distinct problem in the review content.

[Daniel Browning]

What are you basing this on?


Everything I have read about this lens for the last 4 years.



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

Do you have any examples to share?


No.



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

Have you looked at the samples on this sites review page?


Yes. But the samples are not intended to demonstrate the sharpness of the lens.They are 500 pixel images, which corresponds to a "wallet" print size. The bottom of a coke bottle would be sharp enough for images that small, so it's not useful as a tool to determine relative sharpness between lenses. That's what the ISO chart comparisons are for.








At several focal lengths, the 70-300 IS easily beats out the DO lens, even at half the price:





70-300 DO at 70mm f/5.6 vs 70-300 non-DO at 70mm f/5.6 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=0&amp;API= 2&amp;LensComp=358&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =0&amp;APIComp=2)





70-300 DO at 135mm f/5.0 vs 70-300 non-DO at 135mm f/5.0 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=2&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=358&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =2&amp;APIComp=1)





But at 300mm, the DO does better:





70-300 DO at 300mm f/5.6 vs 70-300 non-DO at 300mm f/5.6 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=4&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=358&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =4&amp;APIComp=1)


To me, 300mm is the most important focal length on that lens, and I had thought the cheaper non-DO lens was sharper here as well, but I was wrong. They only apply if you feel the other focal lengths are just as important or the center of the image more than the outside edge.


Lenses in its own price class handily beat the DO on resolution and contrast (even with a teleconverter):


70-300 DO at 200mm f/5.6 vs 70-200 f/4 L IS at 200mm f/5.6 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=3&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=404&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =4&amp;APIComp=2)





70-300 DO at 300mm f/5.6 vs 70-200 f/4 L IS at 280mm f/5.6 (200mm f/4 + 1.4X TC) ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=243&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=4&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=404&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =5&amp;APIComp=1)


That said, the 70-300 DO lens is the absolute highest quality telezoom you can get in 3.9 inches.

[Tom Wertman]

Well it certainly is hard to ignore the charts. Does the size for travel and the others pros to this lens help justify the cost and other cons? It is a question only I can answer. Thanks for letting me chime in everyone.

[Daniel Browning]

Does the size for travel and the others pros to this lens help justify the cost and other cons?


For its intended market, yes. That's because the intended market of the DO lenses is photographers that have a good budget and need the best quality possible for a certain, limited length (and/or weight). That's only a small portion of the overall market where the balance between cost/quality/length/weight tends more towards the cost/quality than length/weight.


It's a little like the 50mm f/1.2 vs 50mm f/1.8. The $100 fantastic plastic has several advantages over the $1,500 L lens: it's sharper (at f/2.8), lighter, cheaper, and doesn't have as the focus shift problem. Those factors make it a better choice for a lot of photographers. But the 50mm f/1.2 has a certain target market of photographers who are willing to give up a little sharpness and a lot of money to get the advantages offered by the f/1.2 such as bokeh, flare, DOF control, MF ring, build quality, etc.

[neuroanatomist]

Well it certainly is hard to ignore the charts.Does the size for travel and the others pros to this lens help justify the cost and other cons?
<div>
<div>


Charts are good, but 'real world' performance is also an important characteristic. [;)]


I decided to buy theEF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DOIS USM and see for myself. I had a bit of spare time early in the morning last Friday, so I set up a static test scene and took some shots. That 'little' test actually turned into a full-scale comparison of the 70-300mm DO with my other lenses covering that focal length range. I was planning to post the results here and made 800 pixel wide composite images of the test shots, but then I realized that amounted to over 10,000 pixels in image height - a little much to scroll through on a thread here. For those who are interested, I am posting links to the composite images.


Each image composite is an array of shots from a specific focal length (approximated on the zooms), with the full scene and a 100% crop from the focal point. The focal point was the "model's" right eye (anatomical right, meaning the left eye as you view the picture), and the strand of hair on her cheek. (Choice of models was dictated by what was laying on the floor - can you tell I have a little girl?) Focus was manual with Live View and 10x magnification. For each lens/focal length there's a shot wide open for that lens, and another at f/8. Lighting was from a constant halogen lamp at camera right and fill flash from a StoFen-diffused on-camera 430EX II. The images are RAW conversions in DPP with the only PP being a Kelvin white balance adjustment (same for all images). For the DO images, I include a second set with additional PP - contrast adjustment and +1 sharpness in DPP.


If you view the images, remember that the eye/cheek is the focal point, so in some of the wide-open shots the text to the left is blurred due the the thin DoF.


Here are the links to the composite images (800 pixels wide and rather tall) and the lenses tested at each focal length:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]L IS II,70-300mmf/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DO IS, 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS, 85mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: red;"]L II
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]100mm (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4831525758_7af7fe2099_o.jpg]85mm - 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;) -100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS,70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II + 1.4x Extender II,70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II,70-300mmf/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DO IS, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L Macro IS
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]L IS,70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II + 1.4x Extender II,70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II,70-300mmf/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DO IS
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]280mm (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4831525792_be3b7258d8_o.jpg]200mm-100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;)- 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS,70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II + 1.4x Extender II, 70-300mmf/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DO IS


Bonus trivia challenge:The book in back is a table-top art book. The painting that's pictured on the page is one of my favorites. Here's the challenge - can you identify it? If so, post your ID - I've got an interesting bit of visual trivia to share about the painting if anyone is interested...





After all of that pre-weekend testing, I learned 4 things:

Image quality of the DO is acceptable. It's not L-quality, but I wasn't expecting that. It will be fine for the purposes I intend to use it for. As Roger (lensrentals.com) points out, "If you shoot<span class="caps"]RAWand don&rsquo;t mind a little postprocessing to up the contrast you&rsquo;ll be very happy with DO pictures."
Build quality of the DO is very good - it falls somewhere in between the 17-55mm and the 24-105mm in terms of feel and quality. Too bad it isn't weather-sealed, though.
The size is really nice. This is a very portable lens for the focal range it delivers. Hopefully that means I'll bring it along and get substantial use from it. If that turns out not to be the case, I'll just re-sell it.
I have a new appreciation for all of Bryan's work on the ISO 12233 and vignetting charts.




<div>







Really, I'm trying to save the most on size (weight is less important) without sacrificing too much IQ.


Sounds like the D.O. is just what the doctor ordered. (For the brain doctor.)



<div>Well, the jury (or review board, as the case may be) is still undecided. But so far, I'm pleased. Bryan summed it up nicely in the penultimate line of his review of the lens: "...having a lens that is easily carryable will get MUCH nicer shots than a lens left at home because of its size/weight."</div>
</div>


Case in point happened over the weekend. Over past several months, I've occasionally chased a downy woodpecker around anearby Audubon preservewith my 100-400mm, but was never able to get a shot of him that wasn't either obstructed by branches or just him perched on a suet feeder. The preserve is also a working animal farm - on this outing with my daughter I wanted be able to get some nice shots of her having fun, so I took the 24-105mm. Knowing that I'd need to carry her around for a fair bit of the time (two-year olds tire out pretty fast!), bringing the 100-400mm or 70-200mm II was not feasible - but the 70-300mm DO in a Lowepro Lens Case 1W was small enough to bring along.


Of course this time when I walk by, he's right there, perched on a tree in plain view.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/4831062061_60670a93d3_b.jpg


A goldfinch made a brief stop on a nearby tree, as well.


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/4831062071_0354d577b8_b.jpg


Both of the above shots are with the 7D + 70-300mmf/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #00ff7f;"]DOIS @ 300mm f/5.6. I think having a long lens that I'm willing to bring along because it's conveniently-sized will be an asset, and IMO the resulting images are just fine.


Thanks everyone for the helpful input and discussion!


--John
</div>
</div>

[Lars]

The painting is identified, but I am not sure if I should reveal it to spoil the fun for others.


Nice bird pictures by the way. It seems that you justified the need for the 70-300mm DO already.


Lars

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, Lars!



The painting is identified, but I am not sure if I should reveal it to spoil the fun for others.


Good point (and it's nice that at least one person thinks it's fun!). Tell you what - you and anyone else who'd like can PM me the name/artist (click my handle, then click Start a Conversation at the upper left). I'll give it a day or two, then post the answer and the trivia bit (which, now that I think about it, wouldn't give away the painting anyway).


--John

[ddt0725]

Wow, John! How long did it take you to put all this together!? The time and dedication you put intoit is very admirable! Congrats on the new lens and yes, it sure looks like you really made the right choice here ...sure glad you didn't listen to me! [:$]

Denise

[ddt0725]

Wow, John! How long did it take you to put all this together!? The time and dedication you put intoit is very admirable! Congrats on the new lens and yes, it sure looks like you really made the right choice here ...sure glad you didn't listen to me! [:$]

Denise

[neuroanatomist]

How long did it take you to put all this together!? The time and dedication you put intoit is very admirable!


Thanks, Denise! Not as long as it might seem - putting together composite images like that for publications and presentation is something I do pretty often (although with different subject matter). A lot of the steps are saved Actions I've made in Photoshop, for example.



it sure looks like you really made the right choice here ...sure glad you didn't listen to me!


I think it was, so far. But as I said, if I don't find myself using the lens much after the 'newness' wears off, then I'll sell it. Your advice was sound, though! If I was more financially constrained, I think I'd have made a different choice - one thing the comparisons made obvious is that I've got a lot of lenses in that range. But I am a fan of having the right tool for the job...


EDIT: Post #1000. Woot!

[Daniel Browning]

Here are the links to the composite images (800 pixels wide and rather tall) and the lenses tested at each focal length:





Thanks for posting those, it's really interesting.

[Sheiky]

Hey John,


congratulations with the 70-300! It doesn't look that bad after all. However it really does IMO need the adjustments you made before it starts to shine, so you'll get a lot of post-production or actions. But then again, I could see the potential better now and I guess it could be worth it for some occasions.


Thanks for putting up the comparison photos. Very nice and helpful info for potential buyers and general interested people like me [:P]


I hope you can show us some great examples in the future of times where you've used it with the circumstances you mentioned here. In other words, the initial reasons for you to buy the lens. Anyway I wish you happy shooting!



<div>



EDIT: Post #1000. Woot!


Woop woop! Congrats on talking so much [;)] For what it's worth, you've talked about 1/36th of the times someone's talked around here since the forums existed [:P] Nice job! I think you're comments are often very welcome [Y]
</div>

[neuroanatomist]

The painting is identified


Lars named the artist -Hieronymus Bosch ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch) (born Hieronymus van Aken), a 15-16th century painter from the Netherlands. The painting is"The Garden of Earthly Delights" - it's a three-panel painting with an incredible amount of detail. (click the image for a high-res version)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resol ution.jpg/400px-The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resol ution.jpg ("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resol ution.jpg)


I'd seen images of this painting in numerous art books over the years, but it wasn't until I visited Madrid a couple of years ago and saw it hanging at the Museo del Prado that I realized the backs of the side panels were also painted:


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/GardenEarthlyDelights.jpg


I'm sure this is old news to anyone who knows much about art - but I was very pleasantly surprised! [:)]

[Sheiky]

I'm sure this is old news to anyone who knows much about art - but I was very pleasantly surprised! /emoticons/emotion-1.gif


Me too, since I live in the Netherlands and I've never heard of the guy(at school art-class) nor did I ever seen the painting [:O] I must say that I don't have an interest for art, but I'm pretty sure this guy doesn't belong to the most famous artists of the Netherlands. Perhaps between artists, but not for the common person.


Anyway you've learned me some cultural things about something from my own country [:P]

[neuroanatomist]

But as I said, if I don't find myself using the lens much after the 'newness' wears off, then I'll sell it.


As it turns out, this is exactly what happened. I think the IQ from the DO lens was decent. Given a choice, I suppose I'd prefer the new 70-300 L as having (presumably) better IQ, not much greater size, and weather sealing. I'm still moderately interested in the newest white zoom. But the 70-300 DO did ok.


Still, I haven't found myself reaching for it lately. Honestly, part of that I can blame on the S95 - in many situations for a grab-shot, that does really well. When I look at the combination of body + 24-105mm + 70-300mm DO, that's about the same bulk and weight as body + 100-400mm - with the latter option I gain IQ and 100mm on the long end, but I lose the short end of the range completely. The S95 gives me 28-105mm equivalent and adds neither weight nor bulk, relative to the dSLR. For that reason, I've found myself heading out with the S95 and 100-400mm instead of the 24-105 + 70-300 DO.


Accordingly, as part of the full frame lens conversion I'm aiming for with the 5DII added to my kit, I said goodbye to my 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 <span style="color: #00ff00;"]DO IS lens today. I did take a slight loss on the re-sale - I priced it low since I didn't want to just keep reposting on CL, and the lens I bought had been continuously reposted for ~2 months before I bought it. Still, the loss was actually less than it would have cost to rent it from lensrentals.com for only 4 days,and I had it for 3 months, got a chance to thoroughly evaluate it and got some nice images, too.

[Jon Ruyle]

Still, the loss was actually less than it would have cost to rent it from lensrentals.com for only 4 days,and I had it for 3 months, got a chance to thoroughly evaluate it and got some nice images, too.


This is one reason I don't rent lenses [:)]

[neuroanatomist]

This is one reason I don't rent lenses /emoticons/emotion-1.gif






Same here. I only rarely recommend rental to people - pretty much only when it's clear that a person has a definite need for a certain lens for a short period, and it's otherwise out of reach. Personally, I think renting to 'see if you like a lens' is a not a good use of my money...