Re: Thoughts on the 70-300mm DO?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars
The painting is identified
Lars named the artist -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/wikipedi...Resolution.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:
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/GardenEarthlyDelights.jpg[/img]
I'm sure this is old news to anyone who knows much about art - but I was very pleasantly surprised! [:)]
Re: Thoughts on the 70-300mm DO?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I'm sure this is old news to anyone who knows much about art - but I was very pleasantly surprised! [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]
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]
Re: Thoughts on 70-300mm DO? UPDATE: Pretty good! (w/ lens comparisons)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Re: Thoughts on 70-300mm DO? UPDATE: Pretty good! (w/ lens comparisons)
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
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 [:)]
Re: Thoughts on 70-300mm DO? UPDATE: Pretty good! (w/ lens comparisons)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
This is one reason I don't rent lenses [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]
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...
