Originally Posted by Tom Wertman
Everything I have read about this lens for the last 4 years.
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
No.
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
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
70-300 DO at 135mm f/5.0 vs 70-300 non-DO at 135mm f/5.0
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
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
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)
That said, the 70-300 DO lens is the absolute highest quality telezoom you can get in 3.9 inches.
Reply With Quote