uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
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 02:57 PM · View previous versions
|
). A lot of folks do not like the bokeh of the DO lenses, especially the 70-300mm. Oh, well 
.
)