uz2work
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: 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.
Les
|
