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

[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>

[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!

[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 [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...

[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