DO theology/technology dead ? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2010 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Canon seems to have undertaken a major effort to trim the weight of their MKII generation supertelephoto lenses such as 300/400 f/2.8........yes, using refractive optics technology. Right, not diffractive optics technology.

Both 300 f/2.8 MkII and 500 f/4 MkII are now approaching 400 DO in weight and thereby they will erode the very reason for the 400 DO existence.

Deadly silence about the second generation of 400DO. The lens probably needs an update/rework more than any of the refractive supertelephoto lenses regarding its unremarkable IQ, lackluster IS and MFD of 3.5m, to name a few areas for improvement.

Based on the above alone we can draw our own conclusions regarding the near and mid-term future of Canon's DO lenses.

That's a real pitty because DO sounded like a great idea at the time. Even 400 DO is probably a bit better lens than many people give it credit for.

Sep 07, 2010 at 06:45 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · DO theology/technology dead ?

It just arrived in the land of the Dodo, I am afraid (double DOs, how coincidence

). A lot of folks do not like the bokeh of the DO lenses, especially the 70-300mm. Oh, well

.

Sep 07, 2010 at 06:51 PM

alundeb
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Many people always said the main problem with the 400 DO was the steep price compared to the 300 2.8 and 500 4.

With the new IS II super teles, the 400 DO is turning to be the bargain. Still considerably lighter than 300 2.8 IS II with teleconverter and it is possible that the AF will be faster too.

New DO lenses? Not likely.

Sep 07, 2010 at 07:02 PM

uz2work
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · DO theology/technology dead ?

I have no idea what Canon's plans would be for the DO technology, but my guess is that its priority level is not high, if there is any priority at all.

Even given that, I think the premises with which you start the thread are far from accurate.
First, if you are describing the IQ of the 400 DO as "unremarkable" and the IS as "lackluster", I'd question the quality of your copy of the lens. The IS is of the same generation as that on the 300/2.8 IS, 400/2.8 IS, 500/4 IS, etc. While it may not be at the level of the newest 4 stop IS, it is certainly more than capable. And, while any of the 10 year old super teles might have IS that could be improved, the word lackluster hardly comes to mind when I think of its performance

Further, with regard to IQ, while those inclined to look at 100% crops might find some level of difference in IQ between, say, the 400 DO and the current 500/4, I'd be confident that when looking at actual pictures from the two lenses, few could tell which were taken with which lens. Thus, considering the praise that, over the years, has been heaped on the IQ of lenses like the 500/4, I'd hardly describe performance that is, at a minimum, very close to that level as unremarkable.

Further, I'd question the accuracy of stating that the 300/2.8 Mark II and 500/4 Mark II will approach the weight of the 400 DO. Those two new lenses will still weigh almost 50% more than the 400 DO. To anyone who has shot hand held for several hours, I can't imagine that adding 2 to 2 1/2 pounds to the weight of the DO for either of the two new lenses would be considered to be insignificant.

When I see what Canon has evidently been able to do with weight reduction on the Mark II telephotos, instead of making me lose interest in DO technology, it makes me wonder what Canon could do with the weight of an updated 400 DO if they would combine the weight reduction technology of the Mark II lenses with the DO technology. Give me the chance to buy a 400 DO Mark II at 2 1/2 to 3 pounds or a 500/4 DO at 4 1/2 pounds, and not only would I be buying one, but I'd be willing to pay whatever price premium that came along with the weight reduction. Just like with any interest I might have in replacing my current 500/4 with a 500/4 Mark II, the most compelling reason for me to pay the upgrade cost would be weight reduction, and, whether it would be the 500 or the 400 DO, reduction in weight would be a much higher priority than would be any possible IQ improvements. If I do upgrade either my 500/4 or 400 DO, it won't be because of IQ improvements or improved IS, but weight reduction would be what compelled me to make the switch.

I also agree with the comment made above that, with the apparent price structure of Canon's super telephoto lineup with the Mark II lenses, the 400 DO may well be the bargain of the bunch. I suppose Canon could still increase the price of the DO, but my guess is that the premium that we have paid for DO lenses up to now has been to cover the cost of DO R&D, and I'd like to think that those costs have been recovered by now.

Les

Edited on Sep 07, 2010 at 07:57 PM · View previous versions

Sep 07, 2010 at 07:21 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · DO theology/technology dead ?

uz2work wrote:
Further, with regard to IQ, while those inclined to look at 100% crops might find some level of difference in IQ between, say, the 400 DO and the current 500/4, I'd be confident that when looking at actual pictures from the two lenses, few could tell which were taken with which lens. Thus, considering the praise that, over the years, has been heaped on the IQ of lenses like the 500/4, I'd hardly describe performance that is, at a minimum, very close to that level as unremarkable.

Les

All I can suggest to you Les is that you might own a substandard copy of 500 f/4.

As far as IS is concerned, do a direct 400mm comparison with 100-400 or 300 f/2.8 IS+ 1.4xTC or 300 f/4 IS + 1.4xTC.

Sep 07, 2010 at 07:29 PM

uz2work
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
uz2work wrote:
Further, with regard to IQ, while those inclined to look at 100% crops might find some level of difference in IQ between, say, the 400 DO and the current 500/4, I'd be confident that when looking at actual pictures from the two lenses, few could tell which were taken with which lens. Thus, considering the praise that, over the years, has been heaped on the IQ of lenses like the 500/4, I'd hardly describe performance that is, at a minimum, very close to that level as unremarkable.

Les

All I can suggest to you Les is that you might own a substandard copy of 500 f/4.

As far as IS is concerned, do a direct 400mm comparison with 100-400 or 300 f/2.8 IS+ 1.4xTC or 300 f/4 IS + 1.4xTC.

Peter,
Even though I do see the smiley, I feel compelled to point out that I am confident that I have an excellent copy of the 500/4. There have been many times, over the last 4 years when I've shot the same subjects with both lenses and with the same light, the same camera body, etc., and the only way that I can tell which pictures came from which lens is to look at the file info. The only real world difference that I see between the performance of the two lenses is that one is 400 mm and the other is 500 mm. When I'm using the DO, I often wish it was 500 mm. When I use the 500, I always wish it weighed around 4 pounds.

With regard to IS, I have not owned a 300/2.8, but I have owned a 100-400 and 300/4. The IS on the DO is far superior to that on either the 100-400 or 300/4, and I see no difference whatever between the IS on my DO and my 500/4 (and, yes, I'm sure that the IS on the 500 is working properly.

)

Les

Sep 07, 2010 at 08:04 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Les, I wish my 400 DO would excel in my hands. I have been trying to squeeze out of it every drop of IQ I possibly know how.
After all, I believe I manage to make much lesser lenses, even without IS, emulate supertelephoto lens performance on some occasions when the light is very good etc.

However, the best I can do with my 400 DO copy, and I really haven't seen anything different from other 400 DO users, is to keep approaching the performance of 400 f/5.6 kinda asymptotically.

I think by likening the IQ of 400 DO to that of 500 f/4 you may well be in a minority camp of users of both lenses.

However, all of this is a non-sequitur of sorts. Based on what we see happening with Canon's new lenses, it is a fact that the miracle weight/size trimming DO technology of 2002 has not been utilized so far, not even today in 2010 with the advent of Mk II generation supertelephoto lenses. Sapienti sat.

Edited on Sep 07, 2010 at 10:40 PM · View previous versions

Sep 07, 2010 at 08:35 PM

Grantland
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · DO theology/technology dead ?

a little help for us common folk

asymptote or asymptotically

noun
a line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at any finite distance.

Sep 07, 2010 at 08:52 PM

uz2work
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
Les, I wish my 400 DO would excel in my hands. I have been trying to squeeze out of it every drop of IQ I possibly know how.
After all, I believe I manage to make much lesser lenses, even without IS, emulate supertelephoto lens performance on some occasions when the light is very good etc.

However, the best I can do with my 400 DO copy, and I really haven't seen anything different from other 400 DO users, is to keep approaching the performance of 400 f/5.6 kinda asymptotically.

I think by likening the IQ of 400 DO to that of 500 f/4 you may well be in a minority camp of users of both lenses.

However, all of this is a non-sequitur of sorts. Based of what we see happening with Canon's new lenses, it is a fact that the miracle weight/size trimming DO technology of 2002 has not been utilized so far, not even today in 2010 with the advent of Mk II generation supertelephoto lenses. Sapienti sat.

Peter,

When I talk about the quality of the images from the 400 DO and 500/4, I make no claim that they are equal when comparing 100% crops. They may be and they may not be. I don't know because I've never been inclined and don't intend to ever be inclined to be comparing 100% crops. What I'm talking about is quality in a practical real world sense. When I look at actual prints from the two lenses, as I said earlier, I see no difference in fine detail. I don't even see the need to process them differently because of alleged lack of contrast with the DO. And, even in the situations where the DO gives me the bad out of focus highlights (like with splashing water), my 500 gives me the same ugly spectral highlights in the same situations. With regard to comparing IQ of the DO, with that of the 400/5.6, there is no contest. Almost as soon as I got the DO, I put the 400 up for sale. Not only was the DO at least as sharp, it's bokeh was noticeably better, and the ability to shoot at f4 and have IS made it no contest. Again, I really question whether your DO is one of the better samples, and, if it can't perform any better than you are describing, I'd consider selling it and putting the proceeds of the sale toward something else, such as one of the Mark II teles.

As far as being in the minority, I don't know whether I'm in the majority or in the minority, but, if I'm in the minority, that is okay if being in the majority would mean that I'd have to have a lens that I'm not happy with. I do know that there are at least 5 people who post on FM who, because they knew that I had the DO contacted me for information about the lens. Each of those people subsequently bought one, and every one of them followed up with emails or PMs to me to let me know how pleased they were with the lens. And, at least 3 of those people ended up selling 300/2.8 IS lenses which were replaced by the 400 DO. If they had replaced a 100-400 or 400/5.6 and were happy, that would be one thing, but I think it says something that they were pleased after replacing a 300/2.8 with the DO. For me, after a few years of ownership, the DO is still my favorite lens. When I use my 500, it isn't because of any complaint I have with the DO. It is only because I want to be using a 500 mm lens.

Les

Edited on Sep 07, 2010 at 11:03 PM · View previous versions

Sep 07, 2010 at 08:53 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Grantland wrote:
a little help for us common folk

asymptote or asymptotically

noun
a line that continually approaches a given curve but does not meet it at any finite distance.

Bingo ! Thank god for math jargon which saves me from having to write a paragraph in plain Anglois.

Sep 07, 2010 at 08:55 PM

Access
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · DO theology/technology dead ?

I think everyone is missing the point, the real / true failure of DO is to come out with a number of ordinary lenses that ordinary people can use (or where the pricing, size, etc. appeals to ordinary people). The closest thing to this was the 70-300 DO zoom which prices itself out of this range. Reduced size does appeal to the ordinary user, but Canon has never been able to capitalize on this and bring the ordinary user a DO lens at a price they are willing to pay for it.

Sep 07, 2010 at 09:12 PM

rddelliott
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · DO theology/technology dead ?

I own the 70-300 DO and my copy is sharp as a tack after a trip to Canon and the correct post processing. The lens is overpriced new but a bargain at $800 used. Small, a great trip lens and the ability to get in to venues the whites cant. It fails at the new price level but great as a used lens.

Sep 07, 2010 at 09:25 PM

scalesusa
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · DO theology/technology dead ?

I'd think that Canon would also like the DO technology to suceed, but the lack of improved lenses does seem to suggest that the cost to benefits ratio is too high to make it commercially successful.

I sold my 600mmL due to the weight, and bought a 100-400mm L because of the light weight and close focus capability. I wanted a 400mm DO, but its too expensive for me.

Sep 07, 2010 at 10:56 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Let us have a little break from the debate by reviewing some 400DO pictures, such as they are.

Edited on Sep 09, 2010 at 01:31 AM · View previous versions

Sep 07, 2010 at 11:32 PM

kakomu
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · DO theology/technology dead ?

PetKal wrote:
Let us have a little break from the debate by reviewing some 400DO pictures, such as they are.

So, are the scribbles in the 2nd picture the DO bokeh?

Sep 07, 2010 at 11:39 PM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · DO theology/technology dead ?

kakomu wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Let us have a little break from the debate by reviewing some 400DO pictures, such as they are.

So, are the scribbles in the 2nd picture the DO bokeh?

Practically speaking, there is no "DO bokeh" in reality...only on Canon forums.

What you might see on the 2nd image are some hastily deleted white feathers floating on water. (fixed).

Edited on Sep 08, 2010 at 02:26 AM · View previous versions

Sep 08, 2010 at 12:01 AM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · DO theology/technology dead ?

scalesusa wrote:
I'd think that Canon would also like the DO technology to suceed, but the lack of improved lenses does seem to suggest that the cost to benefits ratio is too high to make it commercially successful.

I sold my 600mmL due to the weight, and bought a 100-400mm L because of the light weight and close focus capability. I wanted a 400mm DO, but its too expensive for me.

Ed, I know what you mean.....because of the darn 400DO purchase, now I have to beg all the members of my family, young and old, to make a generous contribution to the "get for dad a 400 f/2.8 IS for Xmas" fund.

Sep 08, 2010 at 12:14 AM

digitalbug30d
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · DO theology/technology dead ?

wish I wasnt affected by the economy...to buy 3k,4k,7k,10k lenses must be nice,to be an amature and afford lenses that are the price of some used cars
sorry lil rant....

Sep 08, 2010 at 12:29 AM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Bugsy, perhaps a little perspective is in order here: more mature folks like Les, Scalesusa and I probably spent 35+ yrs toiling in diverse salt mines. Now we can finally afford a big stinkin' lens or two.

BTW, how old are you ?

Sep 08, 2010 at 12:47 AM

mohamed alfari
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Peter, I dont own 500mm but is it that much better than 400 DO? if too much is the difference i can understand your point, but if little the 400 gives you the ability to handhold, which too me is a big puls, especially when i am not tripod guy

Sep 08, 2010 at 12:52 AM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #21 · DO theology/technology dead ?

mohamed alfari wrote:
Peter, I dont own 500mm but is it that much better than 400 DO? if too much is the difference i can understand your point, but if little the 400 gives you the ability to handhold, which too me is a big puls, especially when i am not tripod guy

Same here Mohamed.........500 f/4 weight forces me to use it about 75% on a pod, 25% handheld.

Speaking of my lens copies....yes, 500 f/4 is a decidedly better performing lens, and differences go deeper than "sharpness" and "contrast" alone.
However, IMO 400 DO is a reasonably well performing f/4 lens which will not break your back and make your arms sore.

Sep 08, 2010 at 01:01 AM

Bmetcan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · DO theology/technology dead ?

I'm one of the individuals that contacted Les and asked him about his thoughts on the DO prior to purchase. I have to admit I was a little underwhelmed at first when compared to my 500/4 but I sure did love the weight and handling of the DO. A few months after I bought it, and during an out of state weekend photo trip, the IS motor made a "revving up" sound and didn't stop even when I turned the camera off until a few seconds later. The IS seemed to work ok but I couldn't seem to get any shots that weren't blurred. It was retired for the rest of the trip and returned to Canon upon my return home. They replaced the IS motor and calibrated the lens and when it came back, it was much sharper.

Steve

Sep 08, 2010 at 03:29 AM

big country
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #23 · DO theology/technology dead ?

Petkal, has anyone released the weight for the 500mm ii?

Sep 08, 2010 at 04:06 AM

PetKal
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · DO theology/technology dead ?

big country wrote:
Petkal, has anyone released the weight for the 500mm ii?

Not that I know of.
I guess any weight reduction will be a bonus, but I am hoping it will come to at least 3.4 kg, i.e., 15% reduction.

Sep 08, 2010 at 04:13 AM

big country
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #25 · DO theology/technology dead ?

i am hoping they can get that 600 f/4 ii to around 8 lbs...i will be owning one.

Sep 08, 2010 at 04:51 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end