|
|
primeshot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great travel lens and build. Optics are good.
|
|
Cons:
|
The lens is very expensive.
|
|
I have owned the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm. The DO beats both in terms of size and build. The focus speed is not even a contest; the focus speed of the DO is noticeably better. All three lenses have great IQ. Why did I go with the DO if all three optics are equal? The focus speed of the DO allows me to get the picture. There were times I missed pictures because the AF was too slow.
The biggest drawback is the price.
|
|
 Nov 1, 2009
|
|
sultan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2009
Location: Qatar
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,190.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
nice lens in 70-300 class , it is nice for portrait in strong lighting
|
|
Cons:
|
this lens very heavy ,
70-300 have low quality result if you comparable with L lenses
|
|
nice lens in 70-300 class, but not comparable with L lenses
this lens very heavy by comparing with other like tamron , but batter sharpness than tamron 28-300 .
70-300 have low quality result if you comparable with L lenses, it is nice for portrait in strong lighting
i recommend this for person who want tow lens , but who want more like professional i well recommend to search in other solutions !
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2009
|
|
dbarthel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 788
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact size, quick focus image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Close focus distance
|
|
Got tired of schlepping a 100-400 around, so tried the 70-300DO. People have looked at charts and said why not just go the 70-300 non DO lens, but there is no comparison for sharpness and contrast. Stopping down to f6.3 at 300mm is all you need to do. At shorter lengths, wide open is fine. What a lens this would have been if built with a 77mm front objective, instead of the 58mm. Oh well,
|
|
|
May 26, 2009
|
|
ISUSMDO
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 90
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact...better build than 70-300...sharp...very useful range
Works well with extender re:AF
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
More than happy with this lens, it compliments my 17-85, indeed the two lenses are very similar in appearance.
I bought this lens on a trip to New York, I took some very impressive shots of the Chrysler Building and its Eagle Heads in close up.
The focal length was further lengthened by using a Kenko 1.4 DG 300... IQ was maintained and the results were very acceptable.
I too read so much bad publicity and comment on this lens but it did not put me off as in recent times this lens has received accolades to which I am pleased to add mine.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008
|
|
teglis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 976
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Just a follow-up to my earlier review. After purchasing the Tamron 28-300VC, I felt I would no longer travel with two lenses (24-105L and 70-300DO) when I could travel with one. I fully expected the 28-300 to be optically inferior to the 70-300DO, but presumed it would be "good enough" for travel-light situations. If I was really concerned about optical quality, I still had my L glass. So I sold the 70-300DO.
Big mistake! The Tamron 28-300 just didn't cut it at the telephoto end. Horrible CA and soft at any aperture. So, sheepishly, I purchased another 70-300DO. The new one (now my 3rd copy) is disappointingly soft at 70mm (even softer than the Tamron at that focal length). But it crisps right up by 100mm and blows away the Tamron from that point on. The overall optical quality of the 70-300DO more than makes up for the inconvenience of traveling with two lenses. I'll just have to be careful to use the 24-105 when working in the 70-100 range.
The 70-300DO is still highly recommended.
|
|
|
May 3, 2008
|
|
jhapeman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1668
|
|
Review Date: Apr 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very compact and relatively lightweight for the focal length. The small size and black color make it inconspicuous; coupled with the focal range, it makes for a great travel lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey and a tad soft wide open at 300mm.
|
|
I bought this lens for travel; I wanted a compact and relatively lightweight long telephoto. As a result, I accept the relatively slow f/4.5-5.6 range (had to be so for the small size and light weight). When I received my copy it was disappointingly soft wide open and was front-focusing. A trip to Canon service resulted in a lens that is now very sharp except wide open at 300mm, where its a tiny bit soft--but only if you are pixel-peeping. Otherwise its very sharp, has excellent color and appears to be completely free of CA--a characteristic it shares with my 400DO. It is the ideal travel lens, and draws virtually no attention attached to a 40D. Combined with a 10-22mm, a 24-105 f/4L and a 40D, you have an ideal travel package that covers 10-300mm (16-480mm factoring in the 1.6x crop).
My word of advice: Before panning any lens make sure its operating within spec. I have owned many lenses over the years, and have had to return several for adjustment (Nikon and Canon). If you can return it to the store, great, but they should know its faulty so someone else does not get it. Otherwise send to the manufacturer and get it corrected.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2008
|
|
teglis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 976
|
|
Review Date: Dec 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, sharp edge-to-edge on 5D, no CA
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, placement of zoom lock switch (nit)
|
|
I bought this lens as a small, inconspicuous telephoto zoom to complement the Tamron 28-135 (since sold) or Canon 24-105, on the 5D. In both cases, the result was 24-300mm in just two lenses. This combination proved very successful during a trip to Europe in late 2006.
The lens focuses fast and is very quiet. Results are sharp across the 5D frame. Chromatic aberration is absent, even in tough shooting situations. Contrast can be a little low, but shooting in raw and correcting in 16-bit PS yields very good results.
I'm actually on my second copy of this lens. The first performed flawlessly. However, a small mark appeared on the inside of the rear element just before the warranty expired. Though it probably wasn't affecting image quality, it seemed prudent to get it looked at before the warranty expired. That was actually a mistake. The Montreal repair facility had the lens for months, and sent it back with the mark still there and internal elements in the front loose. I returned it for further repair, and it appeared fixed the second time. However, they had messed up the optics somehow. Sharpness beyond the centre circle was abysmal. So I took it to the Toronto (Mississauga) facility. Their pronouncement: the lens was damaged beyond repair, and sent me a new one for free.
This second copy performs up to the high standard of the first (before Canon Montreal messed it up).
To nit-pick, this lens' one annoyance is the placement of the zoom lock button. If you're putting the lens away (either on camera or off), and reverse the lens hood before setting the zoom lock button, you cannot get at the button without removing the reversed hood.
All-in-all though, a versatile general-purpose tele-zoom.
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2007
|
|
robster99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Black, compact, extremely sharp, colours
|
|
Cons:
|
Colours sometimes troublesome but can be corrected in PP. Cannot use a permanent protective filter/UV filter.
|
|
I use this with a 5D and I have a 24-105L and 50/f1.4. The reason for purchasing this lens was simple. I wanted the nearest thing to L quality but black. The cheaper 70-300 just isn't up to scratch when it comes to build quality. That one feels like it's gonna break at any moment with it's huge, bare, barrel spinning around waiting for someone to grab it and kill the motor! White L lenses are for professionals. God knows why any amateur would need one. It's not all about the equipment when making great photos ;-) I'm from the camp that wants photos that are great straight from the camera, with no post processing required.
This lens is extremely sharp and has accurate sharpness (i.e. the AF on the 5D with this lense is very accurate and quick). Very rarely do i have unsharp photos straight out of the camera from this lens. You cannot have a protective filter on this lens, if you do then the sharpness will noticeably degrade but can be corrected easily in post processing. I tried a Hoya Pro1 D protective filter (not even UV - basically just a plain piece of glass) and noticeable lost sharpness. I use the lens hood where possible to avoid anything touching the front element. The colours from this lens can be L quality but sometimes you get some "off" colours - i found those to appear in very bright sun light. I'm not sure why but it happens rarely. Maybe it's from flare but i did have the hood on at the time. Best colours were obtained after rainfall. The build quality is not bad but when i started using the 24-105L again i did notice the "juicy" zoom mechanism on the L. It just feels so much nicer. My copy of 24-105L has a tight zoom mechanism but i understand others might be looser. Sometimes it's very hard to distinguish between photos taken with this lens and those from the 24-105L (i.e. from a colours and sharpness perspective). I have a Hoya Pro1 D Wideband polariser on order for this 70-300.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2007
|
|
chromedome
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 4, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Size and weight are great for travel, used alongside the EF-S 17-85 and 50mm1.4 this makes a great travel set on my 20D. Very Sharp and contrast is good with hood on.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly soft wide open at 300mm. Needs hood as any extraneous light lessens contrast quickly on this lens. Doesn't like UV filters (No biggie) Lens Lock has to be on when carrying or it extends by itself.
|
|
I absolutely love this lens, I took it with me to Portugal recently and found it to be the surest focussing lens that I have on my 20D. That includes the 100-400L and the 70-200F4L. I've had more keepers out of this lens than either of the other two combined (although I don't have any complaints about the 100-400).
The DO has become the lens that goes with me everywhere as it's just so easy to carry and use. For what it is it does it's job well. I wanted FTM which instantly excluded the non DO from my list of prospective lenses. I would recommend that anyone try this lens, rather than listen to the negatives, those are minor niggles from my point of view.
It should perhaps be a little less expensive due to it's slightly less than "L" build quality and the lens creep. however it focusses quickly, quietly and accurately. It's IS is effective for me up to between 2 and 3 stops (no more). It's definitely easier to hold and use than the 100-400. I've also had success with it when coupled with a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x TC. I still get AF which I find surprising on a 20D.
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2007
|
|
poodlelvr
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 440
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wonderful travel lens; useful range. Small & light in comparison to others and excellent quality photos.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens does creep; I keep locked when not using and have learned to live with it. Not a big deal.
|
|
I find this to be a very useful lens to take when travelling; with current airline restrictions I pack this & my 17-55 and am pretty well covered. Recently flew across the country and used this to cover my granddaughter's soccer games as well as landscape photos. Handheld all and I came home with wonderful photos of the games, both action and coaching moments, taken both at mid-day and close to sunset. Photos are clear with excellent color; many would have been impossible with a smaller range. I paid full price when I bought this and have not regretted it although it did take me awhile to learn to use it properly.
The lens DOES want to creep and although a bit annoying it is not a big deal. Highly recommend this one.
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2007
|
|
Radim Horak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 210
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,099.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Range, image quality, FTM, excellent IS, non-rotating front element, size, portability - great travel zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
Non-L build for L lens price, lens creep, fairly heavy, slow on the long end,
|
|
I needed a travel lens that would not be too big and white. My 70-200 f2.8L IS was just too bulky and conspicuous. I've read some nice compliments from M.R. at Luminous Landscape regarding this lens.. I've tried it .. and it is really really good non-L long zoom lens. Very portable but a little bit on the heavy side.
The slow aperture at the long end is offset by the excellent IS and with the low noise of my 5D most of the time you won't even notice it.
I use this lens primarily as a travel lens together with my 24-70L... But it does not replace the 70-200... have to have the right tools for the job 
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2007
|
|
Arthur Chen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 5, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
This lens produces extremely sharp photos if used properly, even with no post processing. Plentiful light will increase your keepers, as well as increasing iso (using a 30d, it was amazing that pictures were still acceptable at ISO speeds of 800 to 1600). It is second to none in size relative to other lenses of its range, a very stealth lens, and convenient. I love how far I can shoot from, and the closeup pics I can get. This lens is for people who put a premium on convenience and can afford it, you WILL appreciate its size. If you don't have the money to spend or want the best value for a lens, look somewhere else. I have absolutely NO regrets purchasing this lens!
At first, my pics came out blurry as a result of my own fault, not keeping a steadier hand while shooting, and not having a high enough shutter speed. This is a slooooow lens, plus you have to work harder for tack sharp pics, so not a lens for beginners (I am a beginner, so it took me a while to recognize what situations will produce optimal photos, and the limitations of the lens). If you like slapping on a lens and shooting away, don't get it. If you put some thought into your photos, it will work well for you. Heavier and wider than I thought, but not uncomfortable (5 hours of straight handheld shooting and my hand was not even a bit sore). Works very well on non-moving images and animals; but I found people to be harder to shoot, less keepers and produces more mixed results. Great at around F8 or F9, soft at around 300mm.
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2007
|
|
|
