Canon 70-300 DO Lens: Good Concept, Shame about the Contradiction
Sunday 11 May 2008 Filed in: Equipment
A recent review of the Canon 70-300 DO lens in
Popular Photography
has prompted me to report my own experience with this
much-maligned lens.
A portable telephoto is pretty much an oxymoron: an inevitable compromise between two contradictory concepts. For moving about, typically smaller and lighter are better. For image quality in a 300 mm lens, usually larger is better, with more glass correlating with better light gathering ability.
Enter Canon’s DO lenses. The DO stands for diffractive optics, and these are the first lenses from any manufacturer (and at this stage there are only two: the 400 f4 DO IS USM and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM) to employ a grate in the lens elements that bends the incoming light to a greater extent than normal refractive lens elements, thereby allowing the lens to be smaller and largely free of the chromatic aberrations that plague digital photography (usually seen as purple fringing along high contrast edges).
First introduced in 2004, the Canon 70-300 DO IS USM lens (with a street price of around $1200 USD) promised to deliver the Holy Grail in the world of the portable telephoto zoom: a small, compact lens that could produce stellar image quality. Not only that, Canon threw in the very latest image stabilization technology (supposedly making you at least three stops steadier than you would otherwise be handheld), meaning that you could leave the tripod at home. It all seemed far too good to be true – and, in essence, it was.
Read More...
A portable telephoto is pretty much an oxymoron: an inevitable compromise between two contradictory concepts. For moving about, typically smaller and lighter are better. For image quality in a 300 mm lens, usually larger is better, with more glass correlating with better light gathering ability.
Enter Canon’s DO lenses. The DO stands for diffractive optics, and these are the first lenses from any manufacturer (and at this stage there are only two: the 400 f4 DO IS USM and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM) to employ a grate in the lens elements that bends the incoming light to a greater extent than normal refractive lens elements, thereby allowing the lens to be smaller and largely free of the chromatic aberrations that plague digital photography (usually seen as purple fringing along high contrast edges).
First introduced in 2004, the Canon 70-300 DO IS USM lens (with a street price of around $1200 USD) promised to deliver the Holy Grail in the world of the portable telephoto zoom: a small, compact lens that could produce stellar image quality. Not only that, Canon threw in the very latest image stabilization technology (supposedly making you at least three stops steadier than you would otherwise be handheld), meaning that you could leave the tripod at home. It all seemed far too good to be true – and, in essence, it was.
Read More...
Canon 24-70 mm f2.8 L vs Canon 24-105 mm f4 L IS
Saturday 08 March 2008 Filed in: Equipment
There is probably no more frequently asked question
on photography forums than what is the better lens
when comparing Canon's two professional mid-range
zooms. These discussions are invariably circular and
pretty much get nowhere, like an old married couple
arguing: "he said..." "she said..." "he said..."
etc,
ad infinitum.
Typically they end up confirming what we already know
at the start: the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L is one stop
faster and somewhat bigger; the Canon 24-105 f4 L has
image stabilization (IS) built into the lens and has
more reach on the long end. They are both built like
tanks. They both cost a similar amount (maybe not an
arm and a leg when you consider their quality, but
the equivalent of a hand and a few toes anyway).
One's tempted to say, "You pays ya money and you
makes ya choice."
But what choice should you make?
Read More...
But what choice should you make?
Read More...
Leica D Summilux 25mm f1.4 – Review
Monday 25 February 2008 Filed in: Equipment
This is a remarkably squat, unexpectedly
heavy
lens.
If it were a member of a rugby team, there is no
doubt that it would be a front-row prop. But this
is no thick-necked thug capable of doing only a
single job. Defying its build, it shows more of
the finesse of a ballet dancer.
Read More...
Read More...
