Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ Lens Test Report - Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM DO IS
#11
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282076761' post='1847']

Canon has filed a number of new patent applications for new DO lens designs. So, who knows, we may see a few more in the next few years?

[/quote]



That can be a sign that they have given up on it. The problem with patents is, that your competition is studying them as well and knows what you are up to. As a result things are often carried to the patent office once you don't want to do it yourself any more.
enjoy
#12
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1281984302' post='1818']

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/540-canon70300f4556doisff"]http://www.photozone...0300f4556doisff[/url]



Could be a little better in relation to its price tag.

[/quote]



I think in your conclusion, you miss the size aspect, which in my view is, what the price is about: Are you desperate enough for a small lens to cough up that kind of money? It is not about price-performance here, which to my reading your present conclusion places to much emphasis on.



But thanks for posting. Very interesting results, in particular the Bokeh section.
enjoy
#13
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1282116341' post='1852']

That can be a sign that they have given up on it. The problem with patents is, that your competition is studying them as well and knows what you are up to. As a result things are often carried to the patent office once you don't want to do it yourself any more.

[/quote]

That reasoning means there will not be a Canon Ef 14-24mm L f2.8, nor an EF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS USM <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> (among others)
#14
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1282116604' post='1853']

I think in your conclusion, you miss the size aspect, which in my view is, what the price is about: Are you desperate enough for a small lens to cough up that kind of money? It is not about price-performance here, which to my reading your present conclusion places to much emphasis on.



But thanks for posting. Very interesting results, in particular the Bokeh section.

[/quote]

I agree... this lens has one design purpose only: Provide a very compact size (standard zoom size) for a 70-300mm zoom lens for 135 format full frame.



The conclusion should reflect on that... it does pull that off remarkably well, and the results possible with this lens are better than the rating would suggest.

Does the small size, with its expensive DO element, justify the price? To some people it does. A great travel lens.
#15
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282128108' post='1858']

I agree... this lens has one design purpose only: Provide a very compact size (standard zoom size) for a 70-300mm zoom lens for 135 format full frame.



The conclusion should reflect on that... it does pull that off remarkably well, and the results possible with this lens are better than the rating would suggest.

Does the small size, with its expensive DO element, justify the price? To some people it does. A great travel lens.

[/quote]



I haven't really calculated the difference but in terms of VOLUME it's probably a very close match between this one and the 70-300 IS. The DO is simply more "fat".
#16
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1282141615' post='1871']

I haven't really calculated the difference but in terms of VOLUME it's probably a very close match between this one and the 70-300 IS. The DO is simply more "fat".

[/quote]

Yes, in width it is bigger. That is true. But not to the extent that that makes a real difference in just about any bag... length usually is a deciding factor though, bag or case wise.



Especially mounted on camera that 4.5 cm is a big difference.

Is that important enough for everyone? No, it is a niche lens.
#17
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282142050' post='1872']

Yes, in width it is bigger. That is true. But not to the extent that that makes a real difference in just about any bag... length usually is a deciding factor though, bag or case wise.



Especially mounted on camera that 4.5 cm is a big difference.

Is that important enough for everyone? No, it is a niche lens.

[/quote]

That is describing the exact reasoning I went for the DO. I don't always want to travel with big lenses (100-400L). My smaller bags effectively limit on length not width. The regular 70-300 would be too long. The only other lenses that can go 250mm+ and are physically short are the superzooms, which generally are pretty bad by the time you get to the long end. The 55-250IS was close, but EF-S mount and no USM put me off (I was also playing with a 5D1 at the same time).



The price is still the hardest part to get over. Would I pay more for a smaller lens, yes, but it is in the ball park of 2.5x difference. Too much, I found a nice used one eventually saving a third off new.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#18
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1282149922' post='1881']

That is describing the exact reasoning I went for the DO. I don't always want to travel with big lenses (100-400L). My smaller bags effectively limit on length not width. The regular 70-300 would be too long. The only other lenses that can go 250mm+ and are physically short are the superzooms, which generally are pretty bad by the time you get to the long end. The 55-250IS was close, but EF-S mount and no USM put me off (I was also playing with a 5D1 at the same time).[/quote]



One of the nicest things I find in EF-S is those nice EF-S lenses which many times offer things that just do not exist in EF form or are way too expensive/heavy/big. Case in point: I recently got myself a 55-250 IS at about half the price of a 70-300 IS. Small, thin, great IQ and superb value-for-money . For the times I'm not sure I'll shoot tele I leave my "heavy" tele primes (100/2.8 IS, 135/2, 300/4 IS) at home and take this one. Have not used it much (when I'm not sure I'll shoot tele I usually don't) but the few pics I've snapped have proved me that it's a worthy purchase.



BTW, when I was on EF (1D) I did have the 70-300 IS, to be used in the same manner. The 70-300 DO never crossed my mind.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)