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. []


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