DaShiv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #5 · TESTED: 70-300DO vs 70-200/f4&f2.8 | |
Looks very thorough! If you have time to repeat the tests at different apertures and focal lengths, I'd be interested to see it. 
I just got my copy today. First impressions: build seems solid enough and it has the L "splattered" finish, but the zoom extension is definitely more flimsy than that of the 24-70 (the only extending L-lens I've shot with). I've found the zoom to be stiff only when zooming "against" the lens's weight--if I point the camera down slightly when zooming out and up slightly when zooming in (i.e. using zoom creep to help), it's smooth enough. It's very stiff when fighting the lens weight though--might not be a good lens for shooting birds in flight, since that requires zooming out with the lens pointed up. It'll take some getting used to, that's for sure. For a telephoto lens, the DO is wonderfully small when the zoom is locked at 70mm with the hood reversed, and fits very nicely into my backpack--but it's still less discreet than I'd like when shooting fully extended with the hood attached. Still, for a 300mm lens it's not bad at all. It's still very obviously a telephoto lens while shooting though, to any casual observer.
The IS is every bit as good as the one on my 70-200 IS, which means it's great. Got some 1/60 shots at 300mm no problem, and I'm sure I can go even slower if needed (with some luck).
Image quality: the DO doesn't quite have the "pop" of my 70-200/2.8L IS, as I'd expected. Corners seemed okay to me, but then again I'm using a 1.6x camera--which camera did you shoot your test with, Amir? I shot a blank wall wide-open and there seemed to be a hint of vignetting wide open at the long end, but I'm not sure. The DO lens degrades a bit wide-open and doesn't give me the same confidence shooting that way like my L lenses do. There's a small amount of softness full-tele at 100% pixel size--this is definitely not a substitute for those L tele-primes that one would be happy to post 100% crops from.  Overall, image quality is acceptable (so far) but won't be knocking people's socks off, I'd imagine. I think anyone buying the lens solely for its performance might be disappointed.
I'm planning to shoot some candids this weekend--I'm curious to see whether this DO lens will give me donut bokeh on spectacular highlights, how it holds up under some real world shooting (backlit, high contrast, etc), and to get a better idea of how sharp this thing is.
I'm already glad I that I still have the 70-200 IS in my bag for more "serious" shooting. As it is right now though, the three lenses tested above each offers something a little different: the 2.8 IS offers maximum versatility, the 4.0 has the best price/performance, and the DO for maxium compactness. After shooting a bit with the DO though, I agree with those who say that the DO is overpriced for its performance--compared to the price, it's nowhere close to 2x the quality of the 70-200/4 (although it does have IS, which is very helpful at 300mm). I wouldn't recommend this lens for anyone who's very price conscious. But it's usable, and it's small. The jury is still out for me as to whether it's "good enough" to justify keeping it. The 70-200 zooms are simply very, very good.
Because of zoom weight/stiffness and possible sharpness issues, I think this is more of a "people lens" than a "wildlife lens."
Did I mention how nicely the DO lens fits into my backpack though? Okay, I'll mention it again.
|
: THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!