 |
|
|
calbirder
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, black color is unobtrusive compared to the white zooms, IS works great
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as fast focusing as I would like
|
|
|
When handholding a lens at 300mm my shots really benefit from the IS. This is my long lens for travel since I prefer to be less obvious than the white zooms make me. I tried the 70-200 f/4 and while it took nice pictures it was just too big to carry around for a day. The 70-300 DO IS fits neatly into my small camera bag and makes it possible to have a long lens along without carrying 20 pounds of gear. I don't use it for birds (that's what I use the 500mm for) but it works great for zooming in on details and people at a distance when I travel. The main complaint I have with it isn't flare, though there is a bit of that, but the slow focusing. I was shooting "frisbee dogs" at the State Fair and had a lot of trouble getting the focus to keep up with a fast moving pup. Guess that's what the 70-200 IS 2.8 is for, but I won't be carrying one of those monsters around any time soon!
|
|
 Sep 5, 2005
|
|
Tom_W
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5235
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,110.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Top notch IS, surprisingly sharp, compact, light, good Canon color & contrast, well built.
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare, slight hazy softness wide open (but can be eliminated with just 1/3 stop smaller aperture). A little higher cost than might be expected.
|
|
|
This is a much better lens than its early reputation indicates. It's quite sharp, almost as sharp as the 100-400 L. Color and contrast are very good, and it shines at f/8. Bokeh is usually pretty good, though it can take on an unusual "target" look on OOF highlights in odd circumstances.
Flare is the lenses' only significant weakness, but it can be dealt with if you are careful about your positioning. Generally, you will get a hazing flare when you shoot with the sun (or other very strong light source) just outside of the image frame, but still within the hood opening. Keep the light about 20+ degrees away from where you are pointing and it shouldn't be a problem.
It's size and weight make it a great lens for hiking and touring. Very unobtrusive way to reach out 300 mm. The lens is put together with almost the same build characteristics as "L" lenses.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2005
|
|
Stoffer
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 472
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent IS, unobtrusive size (and color), fast Auto Focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, even a tad soft closed down, inconsistent results
|
|
|
Like others I really wanted to be happy with this lens because with its unobtrusive size and color, zoom range and IS, it would be the perfect travel lens. But in end I returned it and got a 135 f/2L instead.
I my copy was soft wide open on the long end but more importantly didn't always got truely sharp closed down to f/8. I would say that my real problem with this lens was the inconsistent results: Sometimes I got sharp enough results, but other times the photos was too soft and lacked micro constrast/detail. White highlights also seems to bloom and obscure detail in areas with a lot of white.
Would I recommend it to others? I voted yes, because other lenses simply cannot provide all of its features, BUT it is important to test it yourself in order to decide whether the image quality is good enough.
|
|
|
May 19, 2005
|
|
John K.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, fast autofocus, superb image stablization
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft images
|
|
|
To be fair, I used this lens after extensive use of a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 IS. And the images from the 70-300 suffered in comparision. I do realize it's a bit unfair to directly compare L glass with non-L glass, but my reaction is what my reaction is.
Mind you, the images were by no means soft across the board. In some instances, they were quite good. But I want sharp images across the aperture range, and I just didn't see it with this lens.
By the way, I used it with a 20D, in the event that info is helpful.
|
|
|
May 12, 2005
|
|
markcar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: May 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,299.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, Sharp. well-balanced, inconspicuous, much lighter than the 70-200 f2.8L IS, and Image Stabilization works well (see my notes below)
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom is not smooth, slow (4.5 - 5.6), and it's the price of an L Series lens.
|
|
I've read a bunch of complaints about this lens, but, the fact is, this is a great lens.
No, it isn't as sharp as an L Series even though it has the L Series price, but what I paid for is compact and relatively sharp lens. As far as I know there is no other lens in this focal length range with IS and compact size.
Obviously, the main design considerations were size, weight, and Image stabilization. Canon successed well on all of these features. I agree that the lens is not as sharp and contrasty as the L Series zooms, but, take a look at those lenses - they're huge.
I originally bought the 70-200mm f2.8L IS and exchanged it for this lens; the former was just too heavy and awkward for a general walk-around type of lens. However, I was very sad to lose the speed and image quality. I will purchase that lens for keeps in the near future.
The 70-300 DO is a fine compromise. It's easy to handle and sharper than the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM and doesn't have the CA issues. It's sharpers and an all-around better performer than and of the Nikon zooms in this range.
The Image Stabilization was a bit of a disappointment. I'm using this lens on a Rebel XT 350D and the mag factor is 1.6. So, the 35mm equivelent focal length is 480mm. The rule of thumb for hand-holding is to use a shutter speed no less than the reciprocol of the the focal length in use. That means fully extended (480mm equiv) I should be using a shutter speed of 1/500 with IS off. IS supposedly is effective up to three stops. If that's true I should be able to hand hold at 300mm with a shutter speed of about 1/60. Not so. The best I could get was two stops better than with IS off when photographing a static subject. Even so, that's still quite a bit of help. With a max aperture of f5.6 @ 300mm and required shutter speed of 1/500 IS is neccessary in most normally lit situations.
Even with these few negative aspects I'm still very satisfied with the lens. You can see some of my images made with this lens at the following link.
http://www.pbase.com/markcar
|
|
|
May 6, 2005
|
|
Schemeloong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 29, 2003
Location: China
Posts: 318
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Ideal size, great zoom range, relatively lightweight, lacky of CA, funky green ring, IS, 58mm filter size
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey, unsharp, bad zoom ring feel.
|
|
|
Great concept by Canon, but the copy that I got was unable to churn out sharp pictures, most of the shots are soft, very soft. The zoom ring feels very rough so not so ideal for sports. Maybe I should wait a while (like the 400 DO), let Canon improve the manufacturing process a bit and repurchase the lens again. If this lens can be just as sharp as the 70-200 F4L then I won't mind to pay the high price for such a useful lens.
|
|
|
May 4, 2005
|
|
csd2020
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 994
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, good reach, fast AF, IS, mine is sharp!
|
|
Cons:
|
Not L build quality at an L price
|
|
|
I bought this because I travel a lot and my 70-200L f/4 is just too big to fit in a travel size case. I was looking for something more compact but not willing to give up the sharpness of the L. I figured on buying this lens just to try it out and if not satisfied, resell it. I'm keeping it. I have shot hundreds of pictures side by side with the L and must say, this lens holds it own. The IS really makes a difference for me, especially at longer focal lengths. I have shot numerous resolution charts off a tripod and I can see no difference. The MTF charts are sufficiently close to back that up. My main use is handheld and here the IS really makes a difference. You do need to stop down beyond 200mm to keep it sharp, but the L doesn't even go there. My biggest complaint is the build quality. It's not L quality by any means and there is so much going on inside this thing that I worry about durability. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2005
|
|
AGeoJO
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 8, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 11403
|
|
Review Date: Apr 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact size, light-weight, superb IS and focusing speed
|
|
Cons:
|
Price a tad too steep, although I bought mine used.
|
|
|
My copy of this lens is a stellar performer and I am pleased with the performance of this lens as a travel lens. I did urban shooting during a recent travel for an extended period and the images are superb after contrast adjustment and sharpening in PS.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2005
|
|
jamach
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6104
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, precise, 58mm threads so filters cost less, accepts adapters, has IS. Great lens hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey.
|
|
|
I was a bit hesitant when I bought this lens and was excited about trying it out. The test drive was flowers and people. I am not going to worry about it anymore. This lens is very sharp with contrast, the bokeh is beautiful, and the IS definitely works to increase the keeper rate. Out of 129 pictures only 2 were fuzzy, not bad at all. Also the build quality reminds me of an L lens. If you always wanted a great lens hood this lens has one.
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2005
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Apr 16, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent compact and hand holdable design, IS really works, black unlike the attention grabbing L lenses, optics are better than non-L zoom lenses.
|
|
Cons:
|
Ripoff price. Slow f/4.5-5.6.
|
|
|
I borrow this lens off a pro photog almost every week for our weekend photo events, as I don't own this lens. The lens is really good. I love the way it zips into focus and the IS really works wonders compared to the ancient 75-300 IS whose IS is sub par compared to this baby. I've seen many people complain about the optics, but every single shot I've taken with this lens has been sharper and more detailed than the stuff I get out of my canon consumer zooms.
Of course if I did a controlled test at f/8-f/11 between this lens and (say) a 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM, maybe they will be equal (maybe they won't) but I don't have the time to fuss around with lpmm and resolution charts, there's lots of shooting to be done in the real world, lots of great images waiting to be made.
Yes, my 70-200/4L beats this lens every time, the L gives me better color and a lovely texture which this lens doesn't but for what it was designed for, it does the job.
That said, I would never buy this lens. It is a ripoff. If it dropped by 50% maybe I would consider it, but not otherwise.
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2005
|
|
ijshusky
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2004
Location: Japan
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, IS, range, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
I have no idea about what people are complaining about this len. Maybe I am just luck to have a good copy, but I am not the only one. This lens produces sharp pictures most of the time and the IS really works.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2005
|
|
getg3
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
compact, dual IS, black
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive
|
|
I need a compact zoom for outdoor travel shots. I set my expectation low after reading mixed reviews, but I finally decided to buy this lens. To my surprise, though not a L lens, IMHO this is very sharp lens, even at 300mm. The IS is excellent, I can leave the tripod in my car for most of my shots.
The build is very solid. The only negative thing other than the expensive price is the lens extended when positioned vertically downward, the good thing is there is a lock to prevent it.
I would highly recommend this lens for those enjoy travelling light.
Some sample shots are posted here (some USM applied):
http://www.pbase.com/getg3/los_angeles_zoo
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2005
|
|
CanonB
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
small, IS, range
|
|
Cons:
|
slow, soft, black :P, expensive
|
|
|
I was looking for a tele zoom with IS for hiking, and the DO wont be the one.
Get a white zoom if you really want a good tele zoom. Forget the DO.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005
|
|
John57
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, black casing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor sharpness, poor contrast and colour. Cost
|
|
|
I had high hopes for this lens.... small, not white and very manageable. Am I satified though - NO ! The images I have had from this lens have been poor at all focal lengths, soft and lacking in contrast. It has been very disapointing. I really wanted to like it. It is an ideal travel lens and marketed as 'near' L quality. Well, it isn't near the quality of any of my L lenses..... I have compared it to the 28-300, 100-400 and 70-200 - all of which are in a different league! To be fair they are all huge, heavy and white whereas the 70-300 DO is light by comparison, very compact and black. The trouble is the cost of this DO lens puts it up there with them and not say towards the 75-300 IS.
The size and colour make me want to keep it but I will probably sell it - the image quality just isn't up to the standard I want and am used to.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2005
|
|
MandrewsA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light, surprisingly sharp, terrific IS, unobtrusive size & color
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit slow, but anybody who is surprised by that either can't read or has ADD.
|
|
|
I've been spending money on L glass like a drunken sailor (just picked up a mint 200 f/1.8 for a heinous price), and have really been nervous that this glass would be a big let-down compared to the 200 f/1.8 or my 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I got this lens for my wife, so that she'd be less intimidated in using our 1DsM2.
I needn't have worried; this lens is great! It's a real joy to use as a walk-around. Yeah, compared to the L glass I've mentioned, it lacks a (very minor) tad in terms of sharpness, saturation, & contrast, but anyone who can spell Photoshop can compensate for those issues in about 30 seconds, at least for print sizes up to 13x19. Maybe I hit the Lottery in terms of a great copy, but it certainly seems that this is one great little lens. The IS is amazingly effective, even more so than on the 70-200, it seems.
At any rate, I'm glad I read all the negative comments about this lens - they served to set my expectations very low, such that I was very pleased by the reality of this particular copy. I've heard a lot of remarks about the DO optics suffering from variable quality; who knows if I just lucked out or Canon's reduced the variablility of their DO line. Clearly, though, the 70-300 DO is capable of some very impressive work, especially for its size.
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2005
|
|
gimmick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, silent, exceptional IS, not white - great for urban and travel photography. Excellent quality from 70-200mm wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost (although it's coming down), needs to be stopped down 2/3 stop to f/7.1 at 300mm for good results and f/9 for very good.
|
|
First off... this lens gets criticism for image quality, it almost stopped me buying it... It's true it's not a prime and it's also true a 100-400L beats the optical quality at 300mm, and it's true it **doesn't cost** nearly as much as those options.
If you want IS, 300mm and good optical quality in a non-white L barrel then this is your lens.
I found that 70-200mm f/5 produces sharp images. From 200-300 f/7.1 gives a noticeable improvement and f/9 is very sharp. I compare the images against my 70-200L f/4.
You do lose some light by stopping down to f/7.1 but only 2/3 stop compared to the 100-400L which is at f/5 or f/5.6 at 300mm.
I also compared images at 300mm with a 70-200L f/2.8 IS + 1.4xTC and the latter struggled to match the DO until it got to about f/8. Considering the cost, weight and size of that combination the DO doesn't look at all bad! (NB. A TC will always hurt performance, the 70-200L f/2.8 is otherwise a stunning lens)
Build quality is good. Solid metal outer barrel with platic zoom segments. When zoom locked at 70mm it's a tank.
Finally, IS is a must have over 200mm on a digital SLR. You're heading into shutter speeds of 1/300s to 1/500s to correct for shake. I've hand held at 1/60s indoors and 1/160s in windy conditions outdoors with no problems. The first step to a sharp image is no shake!
And it's been said before but I'll say it as well. A lens with you is far better than a larger lens left at home due to it's size. My 70-200L f/4 is regularly at home because of this.
RECOMMENDED! 
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
108
|
232402
|
Apr 13, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
81% of reviewers
|
$1,155.47
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.65
|
6.36
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
