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>

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for your input, Daniel. What's your take on the DO's lack of sharpness being primarily due to low acutance rather than low resolution (and the implication that unlike poor resolution, poor acutance can be corrected in post)? Looking at Bryan's ISO 12233 crops, even the solid black areas of the chart are relatively gray, i.e. poor contrast).

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

That comes pretty close to my situation, with the caveat that the DO also has substantially better build quality than the non-DO (I really hate a focus ring that moves during AF, to name one example). If I want the best IQ in a similar zoom range, the 70-200 II does the trick. Really, I'm trying to save the most on size (weight is less important) without sacrificing too much IQ.

[Daniel Browning]

Thanks for your input, Daniel. What's your take on the DO's lack of sharpness being primarily due to low acutance rather than low resolution (and the implication that unlike poor resolution, poor acutance can be corrected in post)?

I think that's right; a good post workflow will make up for a lot of the sharpness issues, including the overall low contrast. Specific flare artifacts (e.g. halos) will not be so easy, but for most scenes (with normal and low dynamic range), I don't think it will be noticeable (kind of like the 50mm f/1.4 wide open).

with the caveat that the DO also has substantially better build quality than the non-DO

Excellent point.

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.)

[Sheiky]

Really, I'm trying to save the most on size (weight is less important) without sacrificing too much IQ.

So if I understand correctly: A high-quality point and shoot would mean too much loss of IQ? Even if it has RAW-capabilities?


I can understand your point of view, although I still think it's crazy [:P] However you also say that you want to save on size, weight is less important. Why do you want to save in size? You're obviously doing it purely so you think you will be more stealthy...however I think with the max 9,28" + body it will still be a huge lens/camera-combination to "normal" people. Yes it would be about 2,5" shorter than your 70-200 and it isn't white, but I also wouldn't call it stealthy and small like a point and shoot.


Just as a comparison, the 70-200 f4L IS version is about as long as the 70-300DO in maximum zoom (9,99" vs 9,28")


Sorry John, one side of me understands this and the other side is still wondering why [:P] If it would be your only lens in that range and you'd want to keep the ratio of size/image-quality as good as it gets I would understand it, but now... [:P]


Anyway it's still your call and if you would choose to buy one, I won't argue with that. Your decision has a solid base I think. So if it's all worth it for you, I'm not the one that stops you and I hope you get some good snap-shots with it.



<div>

I too am considering this lens. I am finding most of the criticism read so far to be puzzling

</div>



That's probably because for the same amount of money you can get much better build and image-quality. At the cost of some size, but that's not always such a big deal. So in short terms you get the most for your money.


If the 70-300DO would be quite a bit cheaper I'd think there would be a larger market for it.


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

So if I understand correctly: A high-quality point and shoot would mean too much loss of IQ? Even if it has RAW-capabilities?

I'd be ok with the IQ of a good P&amp;S - an S90 is something else I'm considering for real portability. But a good shot is about more than just IQ. One of the main drivers for my switch to a dSLR in the first place was shot speed - a combination of AF speed and shutter lag, both of which are long even on a good P&amp;S. I missed way too many shots of my little one between the time she started actually moving around and me getting a dSLR, due to slow AF on a P&amp;S. Still, I do see a benefit to a P&amp;S where I wouldn't otherwise bring a camera at all - I can always find room in a pocket (or my wife's purse []).

Why do you want to save in size? You're obviously doing it purely so you think you will be more stealthy...

Not at all. When I'm using the lens, it can be arm-length and white - that's fine. This is purely about fitting in a small bag, while minimizing the IQ penalty. I don't mind the weight (I've got good arm strength thanks to regularly carrying a 22 pound/10 kg weight - my daughter!), but I want to minimize the bulk. The 'ultimate' in convenience would be something like the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - but that has consequences on build and image quality that are too much of a compromise for me. However, the 70-300mm DO and either the 17-55mm or the 24-105mm would both fit (along with the gripped 7D) in something relatively compact, like the Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW. That, with a 430EX II in the outside pocket, and I'm good for most shooting situations with something that's about the size of a shoebox, is easy to carry over a shoulder along with my toddler, fits behind the driver's seat of the car, etc.

Your decision has a solid base I think. So if it's all worth it for you...

Thanks - I think it will be worth it. But, that's one reason that for lenses I'm not positive are right for me, I get them used and at a good enough bargain that I'll be able to sell them down the line without a significant loss (and as I've mentioned, in a couple of cases already, with a gain). Given the relative lack of popularity with this lens, I may have to sit on it for a while if it turns out I don't use it - but that's ok. Worst case scenario, I'll take a loss about equal to the amount I'd pay to rent it for 4 days from lensrantals.com (~US$55) - that would mean selling it for 40% less than retail, which won't be difficult. Not that I'm trying to be pessimistic - however, I think it's always good to anticipate success, but plan for failure.


Thanks everyone for the input and helpful opinions!

[neuroanatomist]

However, the 70-300mm DO and either the 17-55mm or the 24-105mm would both fit (along with the gripped 7D) in something relatively compact, like the Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW. That, with a 430EX II in the outside pocket, and I'm good for most shooting situations with something that's about the size of a shoebox, is easy to carry over a shoulder along with my toddler, fits behind the driver's seat of the car, etc.

Incidentally, I tried this out today with the gripped 7D, 24-105mm, and 85L in the Toploader Pro 75 AW - we went on our bi-weekly trip to the farm cooperative we're members of, out in the fields picking berries, vegetables, and flowers, and taking some portraits along the way. In this case, I probably wouldn't have taken the 70-300 DO (wouldn't need the length, and I had snapshots and portraits in mind) - but the two-lens kit was portable enough to allow me to carry it, take pics with both lenses, and still gather produce (does weather-sealing work for blueberry juice too?). The standard zoom and 70-200 II (or even a 70-200 f/4) would have required a bigger, bulkier bag, which would have gotten in the way.

[Tom Wertman]

Daniel Browning


It's a poor performer in all types of light.





What are you basing this on? Do you have any examples to share? Have you looked at the samples on this sites review page? To me I have a hard time finding things I don't like, except where a shot is shown to display a distinct problem in the review content.

[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.