Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EF 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 Do Is USM Feedback.  
User currently offlineGavinConroy From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 33 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4273 times:

Hello,
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.

Cheers Gavin


Never stop believing.
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKlintrepid From United States of America, joined May 2005, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

The image quality is great on this lens. Some say it's L quality. Build is ok, there was some issues with lens barrel wobble. I think canon fixed that though.


~its a JEEP thang~
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6683 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4225 times:

810 photos on this site indicate that the EF-70-300 (IS USM) lens was used.

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...truecount=false&engine_version=6.0



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4211 times:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The main complaint I've heard about this lens is the bokeh...

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4205 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!

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4203 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Tony,

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!
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

Andres,

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!  Smile

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.  Smile

Thanks again for the info; it's very much appreciated.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineVishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 464 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4183 times:

I myself have been pretty seriously thinking about these 2 lenses :-

1. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Do IS USM = $549 (on B&H)
2. Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens = $189 (on B&H)

how good is the second one as compared to the one with the IS ??
As i may not be able to afford the more expensive one just as of now.

Some expert advice from the pro's will be much appreciated, thanks in advance.

- Vishal.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4180 times:



Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 7):
1. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Do IS USM = $549 (on B&H)

Are you use it's the DO version or the standard EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens? The DO version costs about $1,100.

Anyway, please check

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

for reviews on all those lenses.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineRoni957 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4178 times:

This is the really good one for its price
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Some reviews say is a "L" lens in quality


User currently offlineVishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 464 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4174 times:



Quoting SNATH (Reply 8):
Are you use it's the DO version or the standard EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens? The DO version costs about $1,100.

Sorry the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Autofocus Lens, btw what does the 'DO' signify & what is the difference between that one & this.

Also if you guys can rate the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens.

Thanks - Vishal


User currently offlineMictheslik From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4168 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  Smile

.mic


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4129 times:



Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 10):
btw what does the 'DO' signify

DO = Diffractive Optics. If you look at the review of the DO lens I included in reply #3, it has a quick explanation and a link to Canon's site that explains this (4th paragraph down...).

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4102 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.


User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4072 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.

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineZuluLima From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 302 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4066 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 $$.


I didn't get a 'Harumph' outta that guy!
User currently offlineGavinConroy From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 33 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4002 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.



Never stop believing.
User currently offlineZululima From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 302 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3972 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.



I didn't get a 'Harumph' outta that guy!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L Is USM posted Thu Aug 24 2006 00:51:24 by Brick
Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM Review Wanted posted Thu Apr 6 2006 12:01:46 by Deaphen
New Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:12:17 by TRVYYZ
Canon EF 400mm F/4 Do Is USM posted Fri Jan 25 2008 19:31:43 by GavinConroy
Lense Thoughts: Canon EF 100-400mm F/2.8L Is USM posted Thu Jun 29 2006 21:56:02 by Aero145
Canon EF-S 17-85MM F4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Jul 13 2005 18:12:23 by Scottieprecord
EF 70-200mm F4.0L USM posted Sun Nov 16 2003 01:17:08 by Contact_tower
Canon 70-200 L F4 Is USM posted Tue Dec 10 2002 16:34:45 by PRM
70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM Or L Glass posted Thu Jan 3 2008 12:50:43 by Rsmith6621a
Need Help On Canon 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM! posted Wed Dec 19 2007 03:42:04 by Mnazarinia