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

[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





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.

[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;"][b][url="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4831525758_7af7fe2099_o.jpg]85mm[/url] [/b]- 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/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;"][b][url="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4099/4831525766_248a58d003_o.jpg]100mm[/url][/b] -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;"][url="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4831525792_be3b7258d8_o.jpg][b]200mm[/b][/url]-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
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"][url="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4831525804_89d0382f1f_o.jpg][b]280mm[/b][/url]- 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:

1. 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."
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.





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





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

[neuroanatomist]

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)





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! []

[Sheiky]

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]

[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>