Any Canon users...
- Thread starter hulagirl
- Start date
i think scott dommin (screen name "scott") owns one and really likes it. ; he has posted samples from epcot before with it. ; you might want to send him a PM asking about it, since he doesn't post here too often. ; he has posted some great shots with it. ;
[shameless plug] be sure to "click the banner" when you are ready to buy it [/shameless plug]
i am considering it as well, due to the small size and relatively light weight, esp. compared to my sigma 120-400 which is a BEAST.
[shameless plug] be sure to "click the banner" when you are ready to buy it [/shameless plug]
i am considering it as well, due to the small size and relatively light weight, esp. compared to my sigma 120-400 which is a BEAST.
PolynesianMedic
Global Moderator
I have the 70-300 3.5-5.6 I think NON-IS. ; I like what I can do with this lens in daylight conditions, and on the tri-pod at night. ; I'll have to see if I have any shots with me, I'm at work, and we all know how good security is here. ; So good I can't get to the photo sites. 
PolynesianMedic
Global Moderator
I can't get to the EXIF right now, but I am pretty sure that I took this with this lens, and it was through the plexi glass.
Just a caution or two... ; First off it's already been mentioned that it's not actually lighter. ; It's actually slightly heavier than the non DO 70-300 IS, the perceived lightness comes from it being wider but shorter. ; It's more about being compact then light.
Also beware that it has a reputation for unpleasant bokeh, or out of focus areas. ; This has been a controversial issue, with some users upset over it and others not seeing it at all. ; The following is a link to an image that demonstrates the effect. ; I gather that this is a result of the DO optic element.
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Personal/Canon_70_300_DO_IS/slides/11_FresnelOOFAreas.htm
I haven't used it, but from what I've seen from googling it it sounds like it's kind of a quirky lens. ; For me the price factor completely eliminates it, but for those that it doesn't I think it's a case of what it provides and what it demands in return. ; It offers the more compact size that lets some feel less conspicuous, plus faster AF with full time manual operation as an option. ; In return it demands more post processing work, the accounts I've found say that images shot with it can need contrast adjustment, sharpening, and custom white balance work. ; I've actually seen a specific sharpening plug in plugged as working well with this lens, I've never seen a specific plugin referenced for a specific lens before.
One interesting note, two reviews I've read of it say that it works best with no UV filter on it, they say to shoot it "naked" at all times. ; This is supposed to relate to it being more flare prone, in flare situations the extra glass of the filter can interact with this unwanted light and create a loss of contrast in the image by brightening the shadows. ; I know that's scary to some, but the demo of the effect that I've seen is fairly convincing:
http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php
It's the first image, mouse over to see what you get with a naked lens. ; There's some further hints on post processing there as well.
Also beware that it has a reputation for unpleasant bokeh, or out of focus areas. ; This has been a controversial issue, with some users upset over it and others not seeing it at all. ; The following is a link to an image that demonstrates the effect. ; I gather that this is a result of the DO optic element.
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Personal/Canon_70_300_DO_IS/slides/11_FresnelOOFAreas.htm
I haven't used it, but from what I've seen from googling it it sounds like it's kind of a quirky lens. ; For me the price factor completely eliminates it, but for those that it doesn't I think it's a case of what it provides and what it demands in return. ; It offers the more compact size that lets some feel less conspicuous, plus faster AF with full time manual operation as an option. ; In return it demands more post processing work, the accounts I've found say that images shot with it can need contrast adjustment, sharpening, and custom white balance work. ; I've actually seen a specific sharpening plug in plugged as working well with this lens, I've never seen a specific plugin referenced for a specific lens before.
One interesting note, two reviews I've read of it say that it works best with no UV filter on it, they say to shoot it "naked" at all times. ; This is supposed to relate to it being more flare prone, in flare situations the extra glass of the filter can interact with this unwanted light and create a loss of contrast in the image by brightening the shadows. ; I know that's scary to some, but the demo of the effect that I've seen is fairly convincing:
http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php
It's the first image, mouse over to see what you get with a naked lens. ; There's some further hints on post processing there as well.
i think bokeh is an overrated concept. ; perhaps if you are shooting high rez macro-photography it would matter, but for the other 99% of the time, background blur is really not an important concept for me. ; think about it this way, if you are shooting pics of the castle, do you really care what something in the background looks like?
i am ALL OVER this lens when the time is right. ; the sheer lack of size (length) is a huge attraction for me. ; since i shoot L glass anyway, weight is not an issue.
i am ALL OVER this lens when the time is right. ; the sheer lack of size (length) is a huge attraction for me. ; since i shoot L glass anyway, weight is not an issue.
For me I love Bokeh effects. It smooths out the out focus areas.
I agree that bokeh is not all that important for Landscapes where you want as much of the subject in focus. It really boils down to what you want to accomplish with the lens.
The pictures that I have seen from the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM always seem to be soft and lack contrast. Especially, if they are not stopped down to f/8.
Although it is larger and heavier. For just a few hundred more you can get the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM which would give you farther reach. ; I would also seriously consider the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens instead. It is an incredible lens and will provide far superior ; images IMHO.
The best answer may be to rent the lens for a week or two and see how you like the results. It will also allow you to get a "feel" for how heavy and conspicuous it actually is.
I agree that bokeh is not all that important for Landscapes where you want as much of the subject in focus. It really boils down to what you want to accomplish with the lens.
The pictures that I have seen from the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM always seem to be soft and lack contrast. Especially, if they are not stopped down to f/8.
Although it is larger and heavier. For just a few hundred more you can get the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM which would give you farther reach. ; I would also seriously consider the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens instead. It is an incredible lens and will provide far superior ; images IMHO.
The best answer may be to rent the lens for a week or two and see how you like the results. It will also allow you to get a "feel" for how heavy and conspicuous it actually is.
Zeagle - WOW what a great photo that is! ; Sigh..yeah. ; I love love love taking photos of people and there's something about gorgeous smooth background like that that appeals to me a great deal. ; The problems people have reported with funny looking bokeh are one of the things holding me back. ; But then....Roger's photo of the Meerkat doesn't look so bad...
I'll take a look at the lens you mentioned, but honestly...I'd feel almost silly shooting with L glass given my level of experience.(as in...not much at all...) ; Man...would the reach be great though. ; Anything else available with that reach for someone who probably isn't at the level of thousand dollar lenses yet? ; I already have the 55 - 250 so a 70 - 200 doesn't appeal to me much...
Thanks for your thoughts.
I'll take a look at the lens you mentioned, but honestly...I'd feel almost silly shooting with L glass given my level of experience.(as in...not much at all...) ; Man...would the reach be great though. ; Anything else available with that reach for someone who probably isn't at the level of thousand dollar lenses yet? ; I already have the 55 - 250 so a 70 - 200 doesn't appeal to me much...
Thanks for your thoughts.
Anything beyond a 70-300 is going to go into $1k or more range; Sigma has two long lenses with Optical Stabilization, some without. ; Canon's 100-400L is a push/pull zoom, so it's going to be a lot longer.
Strike that - you can get the 200-500 Tamron for about $800 I think. ; Justin has it on the Sony mount and loves it; the biggest difference is going to be no Image Stabilization on a Canon camera; he has in-body IS.
Strike that - you can get the 200-500 Tamron for about $800 I think. ; Justin has it on the Sony mount and loves it; the biggest difference is going to be no Image Stabilization on a Canon camera; he has in-body IS.
; Hello!