GavinConroy From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 32 posts, RR: 4 Posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2638 times:
Just wondering if anyone has any feedback on this lens?
Due to its size it would be a good air 2 air lens and I have looked at sample photos etc on websites but none are of aircraft so thought I would ask you guys what you think of its build and image quality.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
BTW, a related question (I hope the thread starter doesn't mind!). I also would like a lens at that focal range, but I was actually thinking of using a combination of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and the 1.4x extender. Yes, I will marginally lose some reach, but I think this combo will give me overall more flexibility (constant min aperture, and also a f/2.8 lens for when I need it). Does anyone know how that combo would compare quality-wise to the 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 DO IS (especially at the longer end)? Thanks!
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2568 times:
I use that combo (but with the regular 70-200 f/4.0, no IS), and have been able to compare it 'in the field' with the 70-300 lens. I have to say that the quality and thus results from the 70-200 are just great, even with the 1.4 converter. However, that combo is not free of problems, as I have experienced many focusing issues when opening to much the lens. Accordingly, when I have the converter on I don't stop down lower than f/6.1, and preferably keep it at f/8.0. As far as I was able to test, the 70-300 is a good lens, but cannot reach the quality of the 70-200 + 1.4 combo at >f/6.1.
[Edited 2008-02-12 06:07:13]
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2558 times:
Thanks for taking the time to write!!!
Quoting Acontador (Reply 5): I have to say that the quality and thus results from the 70-200 are just great, even with the 1.4 converter.
That's very good to know!
Quoting Acontador (Reply 5): However, that combo is not free of problems, as I have experienced many focusing issues when opening to much the lens.
I'll keep this in mind. I was thinking that I'll maybe use it without the converter most of the time (it will be 320mm equivalent on my XTi, so still pretty good reach) and I'll use the converter only when I have to... so, if there are a couple of issues, I'll just learn to put up with them. Maybe, the f/2.8 lens might get more light through it and focusing might be a bit better with the converter?
Quoting Acontador (Reply 5): but cannot reach the quality of the 70-200 + 1.4 combo at >f/6.1.
I think you're rapidly convincing me... I'd better start saving up now.
Thanks again for the info; it's very much appreciated.
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Mictheslik From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
The EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM is a decent starting lens, all my pics on this site were taken with it, but it gets very soft at the 300 end, and is pretty poor in low light (no IS), but if you're on a budget it's a good lens
TRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1311 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 7): 2. Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens = $189 (on B&H)
it is not a bad lens for what its worth. It takes good pictures on a clear day with good light and if you don't push the zoom to its limit. The keeper ratio will be samller compared to the above lens mentioned in the thread. There are some amazing shots with that camera in the A.net database.
You could try the new 55-250mm IS laens of canon, hopefully the IS will increase the keeper ratio.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
My father owns the 70-300 DO IS and it is a very nice lens to use. It's really tiny in it's size and makes a great travel telephoto. I personnally really like it. I have not used it for aviation but have shot vintage motor racing with it and wildlife and the photos are lovely and sharp and very contrasty.
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
ZuluLima From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 266 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2431 times:
I've owned the 70-300 DO for over a year and a half now (mostly used for aviation) and I'm very happy with it. The optics are below L standard, but are very good anyhow. The diffractive optics are probably responsible for this, as they allow the amazingly short length of the lens, but at the cost of some sharpness. If you have photoshop and an accurate-focusing body your photos will come out with great detail in most situations. Low light is a bit tough for autofocus with this lens. You could spend $1300 for a 100-400 L instead of $1100 for the 70-300 DO and get slightly better optics and another 100mm, but I believe the build, weather-proofing, and other features are of equal quality. The upside to the DO is a very compact package, no push-pull zoom, and (IMO) better looks. Less bulky and less conspicuous for travel. Choose the one that works best for you and you'll be happy either way. Long story short: it's worth the $$.
GavinConroy From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 32 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2367 times:
Thanks for the feedback.
I have a 100-400L IS as well as the 24-105L IS but the 100-400L is a bit big in confined open cockpits.
I have ordered the 70-300 DO IS and have a few aircraft to photograph air 2 air today but it hasnt turned up in time but never mind, will try it out on a Catalina on Thursday afternoon if it gets here by then.
Zululima From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 266 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2337 times:
Quoting GavinConroy (Reply 16): I have a 100-400L IS as well as the 24-105L IS but the 100-400L is a bit big in confined open cockpits.
I have ordered the 70-300 DO IS
Seems like a great aviation package if you can afford it. I'm getting the 24-105L next and I think with the 70-300 DO I should have my bases covered, especially for travel. Keep in mind you may need to shoot without the lens hood if space is tight, but it shouldn't cause too many problems. Even with the hood, length is manageable and I haven't seen too many flare problems when not shooting directly towards a strong light source anyway. Enjoy.