canon 70-300 IS

[jann1033]

what is the difference between the $600 and $1200 models? one says DO in the name ($1200 )not sure what that means. which do you have and do you like it?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

DO = Diffractive Optics. It makes for a much smaller and lighter telephoto lens. There have been complaints about the optical quality not being quite as good. You only get the DO lenses if you really, really need a smaller, lighter lens and are willing to pay a big premium for it.

 

[ndelaware]

The normal 70-300IS is rated higher in optical quality everywhere I've looked. You are paying twice the price for Canon to put the same lens in a much smaller package. I have the non-DO version and it is a great lens.

70-300IS:

70-300DO:

 

[jann1033]

thanks ..
are either of you the one who posted some birds in a tree a long time ago? i think it was with that lens and i was wondering how it worked for something like that...( from what i remember it looked good)?

 

[JR6ooo4]

thanks ..
are either of you the one who posted some birds in a tree a long time ago? i think it was with that lens and i was wondering how it worked for something like that...( from what i remember it looked good)?

this is from one of my first days out with the 70-300IS:
The long heavy one, not the DO

probably still had it on multipoint focus, hehhehheheee
Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Size: 1874x1326
Bytes: 1574540
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 300mm (guess: 583mm in 35mm)
Exposure Time: 0.0062s (1/160)
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Bias: 0

as you can see by the size this is a crop.
Shutter of 160 at ISO 100 so it was realatively bright for overcast winter.

Mikeeee

 

[KaitlinsMom]

OK - now I want to get THIS lens!! I need to stop coming here (and the budget board) - The DIS board is costing me money! (and creating a bigger wish list!) Just have to wait and see what Santa brings....

 

[JR6ooo4]

Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Size: 2586x1878
Bytes: 3892063
Aperture: f/8.0
ISO: 400
Focal Length: 300mm (guess: 437mm in 35mm)
Exposure Time: 0.025s (1/40)
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Bias: 0

Brookfield Zoo, Chicago

 

[spoon2003]

OK - now I want to get THIS lens!! I need to stop coming here (and the budget board) - The DIS board is costing me money! (and creating a bigger wish list!) Just have to wait and see what Santa brings....

I'm with you...I've been wanting this lens!! Earlier in the year, I had the $$ available, it was out of stock! Now it is readily availble and Christmas is such a good excuse to spend money...we had to unexpectedly replace our furnace last week

Sue

 

[jann1033]

ok here is my dilemma...this is with my cheapo promaster 100-300mm telemacro 1:5-6.3 ( gift from hubby yrs ago for my film camera. figured at the time due to the dust on the box, the salesman saw him coming but now i'm more impressed)

can you see enough difference to spend the $600? ( not that i need to say this but be honest, it won't hurt my feelings )

these were on a tripod which i might be able to handhold with the IS of the new one which would be nice for the tiger like shots or things when a tripod wouldn't be handy and the aperture is better on the 70-300..f4 i think?.... but i could also buy a flash and monopod for the same price( well less but i can always find something to spend money on )...i think mostly i'd use it for bird like shots but not sure if it were sharper( minus the tripod i mean) if i'd use that much zoom more often...any thoughts? I think i read an IS gives you roughly the stability of a monopod...

i was sure i was getting the 70-300 next till i removed that dumb window screen( if anyone else read the other thread i started on my bird problems)

 

[boBQuincy]

ok here is my dilemma...this is with my cheapo promaster 100-300mm telemacro 1:5-6.3

can you see enough difference to spend the $600?

For sure, there are diminishing returns as the price of a lens increases. My 70-200 f/4 L is certainly not 6x sharper than my $100 55-200. But once I saw the difference the price didn't matter, I *had to* keep the L series lens. $600 is a lot for almost the same lens that you already have, but the IS can make the difference between a blurred image and a keeper.

Maybe you can rent the IS lens and try it for a few days before buying one.

 

[Mellie0119]

Okay, now that is the lens I want! I was contemplating a wide angle lens (and I'm pretty sure Santa is bringing me the "Nifty 50" ) but now, I really want more zoom.

I was shooting this weekend (pelicans on water) with my 28-135IS and at the end of the zoom, it just isn't as sharp for me (could be photographer error ). Well, that, and I needed a lot more zoom than 135.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Okay, now that is the lens I want! I was contemplating a wide angle lens (and I'm pretty sure Santa is bringing me the "Nifty 50" ) but now, I really want more zoom.

I was shooting this weekend (pelicans on water) with my 28-135IS and at the end of the zoom, it just isn't as sharp for me (could be photographer error ). Well, that, and I needed a lot more zoom than 135.

If you are desperate for a wide angle shot you can build a panorama, but is harder to get closer.

Which are you thinking? the 200 or 300?

Mikeeee

 

[jann1033]

Okay, now that is the lens I want! I was contemplating a wide angle lens (and I'm pretty sure Santa is bringing me the "Nifty 50" ) but now, I really want more zoom.

I was shooting this weekend (pelicans on water) with my 28-135IS and at the end of the zoom, it just isn't as sharp for me (could be photographer error ). Well, that, and I needed a lot more zoom than 135.

that is exactly my problem also...on vacation we kept having these flocks of pelicans fly over the ocean...just far enough away for my 135 not to reach and to blurry to crop more

although this would have much been better had i upped the shutter speed (my camera's biggest problems are the result of user brain error )


so am i to take lack of response( except from always kind and tactful bobq ) to the ? if anyone thinks the canon lens is enough sharper to spend the $$ an attempt to save my feelings and really an implied" YES, of course it is. are you crazy or blind or both?" (actually my eyes are messed up right now so the answer to that last question would also be "yes" but that is a totally different topic)

 

[ndelaware]

Sorry Jann, I thought Bob had covered it pretty well.

I thought, for myself, it was worth the $600. I already had the 75-300 (without IS) and I was looking for something better optically. But having the new version of the IS was the clincher for me. But only you can decide if the cost is worth it.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I always try to avoid "is it worth" questions. It depends on how badly you want it, how much money you have, how much you'll use it, how important the differences are to you. I think that the 70-300 IS, the 70-300 DO, the 70-200 f/4, the 70-200 f/4 IS, the 70-200 f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and the 100-400 are all worth it to the right people in the right situations.

I personally prefer the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I love the speed. With a 1.4x teleconverter, it gets decent range and is still reasonably fast and sharp. On the downside, its a bit costly and bulky.

 

[Mellie0119]

I'm leaning towards the 300. I just want more reach- KWIM?

This is a shot from this weekend- a crop from a full sized photo. It's just not very sharp. It's passable for a 4x6 print, but an 8x10 looks bad.

File size: 197327 bytes
File date: 2006:12:12 18:14:03
Camera make: Canon
Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Date/Time: 2006:12:10 09:41:51
Resolution: 800 x 519
Flash used: No
Focal length: 135.0mm (35mm equivalent: 219mm)
CCD width: 22.20mm
Exposure time: 0.0020 s (1/500)
Aperture: f/11.0
ISO equiv.: 800
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: program (auto)


Again- could be photographer's error- wouldn't be the first (or last) time.

 

[boBQuincy]

so am i to take lack of response( except from always kind and tactful bobq )

Kind and tactful? Yer gonna' ruin my reputation!
Wait until Furgus sees this!!! I'm sure he will have something to say!