| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2009 03:14:17 PM · #1 |
Has anyone shot with both of these that could give me an opinion? Or, if you've only used one, how do you like it?
As much as I've tried to like the 100-400 I have it just doesn't mesh well with my personality or shooting style so I'm going replace it with one of these two I think.
The smaller size of the DO is extremely appealing to me as is the higher build quality since this would be doing a lot of traveling/outdoors work.
On the other hand I've heard things about diffused colors and highlight rings that make me wary. It seems like a lot of people feel the over all IQ of the non-DO lens is superior.
Any enlightenment would be much appreciated :) |
|
|
|
02/04/2009 03:24:46 PM · #2 |
I have not used the lenses, but Luminous Landscape (a site I've always trusted) had this to say about the DO version:
"This lens is truly a pleasure to use in the field. Its small size and light weight (for its focal length) are real plusses when hiking. I shot several hundred frames with it over a two day period and even under close examination never saw any artifacts from the DO elements. My friend, photographer and naturalist Bill-Caulfield Browne, was shooting with me on this trip, and he has owned and used the Canon 400mm f/4 IS DO since it first was introduced. He has nothing but praise for it, though in reviewing some prints which he'd brought along we could occasionally see some curiously patterned out-of-focus areas which are clearly DO artifacts. None could be seen though on subsequent examination of prints from the 70-300mm DO, so Canon has obviously been doing its homework in the two years between these lenses."
That's good enough for me.
See the full test here.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2009 03:40:29 PM · #3 |
The real issue with that lens is the price IMO. The other 70-300 has IS and is marginally larger once you zoom out anyway. I had a serious look at that DO but went with the honking white 70-200f4 instead (at the time that f4IS was not out - today I would get it instead without blinking)..... for half the price and I don't regret it. If I didn't want the white one.... I would probably go for the non DO just on price.
Message edited by author 2009-02-04 15:41:19.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2009 04:31:43 PM · #4 |
| Fred Miranda has user ratings of both lenses. I tried both and ended up with the non-DO. Personal preference, based on money vs. quality - the extra price wasn't worth it to me. |
|
|
|
02/04/2009 05:37:30 PM · #5 |
Thanks for the LL link bear, I never remember that site exists!
If I wasn't re-organizing my whole kit and selling a lot of stuff I might be more tempted to get the non-DO just based on price. Not looking at price though it's a tough choice.
I still have a bit though before I need to decide so I may see if any local shops have them both in stock that I could check out and see how they feel.
I do like the looks of the larger zoom ring on the non-DO. |
|
|
|
02/04/2009 09:09:07 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Fred Miranda has user ratings of both lenses. I tried both and ended up with the non-DO. Personal preference, based on money vs. quality - the extra price wasn't worth it to me. |
Getting through some of the reviews there made me certain that I want either one or the other ;) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/26/2025 08:29:24 AM EST.
