Happy Mother's Day! Happy Father's Day! Happy Graduation! Photo.net has great photography gift ideas for the Mom, Dad, or Grad in your life. Shop for camera bags, lenses, DSLRs, and more...
Clubs, bars, and small venues are the places where most concert and live music photographers get their start, the reason being that there are fewer restrictions since the performers are less likely to...
I am a firm believer that the real test of lenses is to take photographs of
the subjects that you love. If you are happy with the photos, that is all you
need to know about a lens. Taking photographs of test charts has never appealed
to me. Life is too short. However, after taking a lot of real world photos with
this lens, I began to wonder just how it compared to my other lenses. I had hoped
it would be a lot better than the Canon EF 75-300 IS and maybe nearly as good as
the Canon EF 100-400 IS but the photos didn't always look like that. Bob Atkins
put out an appeal on photo.net for anyone who could do a comparison test. I had
the lenses. I had the time, so why not.
I set about devising fair tests for the lens, comparing it to my 75-300 IS,
100-400 IS and 200 F2.8 lenses. The questions that were raised on discussion
groups after my first review included bokeh, dreaminess, flare, and distortion,
as well as resolution in dim light. All these issues are examined in the
following tests.
Low contrast resolution
The first test was of a low contrast subject, a detailed colored map 22 inches
by 15 inches, taped to a flat wall in a room lit by dim diffuse daylight. The
camera, a 10D, was mounted on a sturdy Slik tripod 24 feet away in a dark
corridor, filling the frame with the subject at 300mm. Exposures were taken with
each lens, using the self-timer, at full aperture and F11. Focus was manual
throughout and for the wide aperture shots, focus bracketing was used with the
sharpest picture from each lens being used for the comparison to avoid
mis-focussing biasing the results. No Unsharp Masking was used in any of the
tests.
The major comparison, and the one shown here, was of all the lenses at 300mm,
at both F5.6 and 11. Tests were also done filling the frame at 70/75mm for the
Canon 70-300 DO and Canon 75-300 IS and at 100mm for all three lenses again at
full aperture and F11.
250x500 pixel crops, corner of frame f5.6
250x500 pixel crops, centre of frame f5.6
250x500 pixel crops, centre of frame f11
Crops were taken from the center and lower left corner of all the images.
Matching crops from all three lenses were tiled in groups on the screen (
Mitsubishi Diamond Pro) and magnified for visual comparison.
In the low contrast detail test the 100-400 IS was the clear winner at 300mm.
No surprise there. It is an L-series lens and was not fully zoomed. The
comparison between the Canon EF 75-300 IS and Canon EF 70-300 DO was less clear.
At F11 both showed a little less detail than the 100-400 IS but it was not
possible to choose a winner. Essentially they had similar resolution. At f5.6
however the 75-300 IS had a clear advantage over the 70-300 DO.
After compressing the files for web use I noticed that the file sizes were
different. When there is less detail in an image, the compressed file will be
smaller, so did these measurements confirm my own visual observations?
For the center crop the file sizes were as follows :-
70-300
75-300
100-400
f5.6
74Kbytes
80Kbytes
90Kbytes
f11
86Kbytes
86Kbytes
91Kbytes
High contrast resolution
The second test was of a high contrast set of lens test charts photographed
indoors as described above. I mounted three test charts on a board 33 in x 23in.
The portion shown is a cropped part of a Norman Koren test chart printed at
2880dpi positioned in the top right corner of the frame. Manually focussed shots
were taken with the 70-300 DO, 75-300 IS, 100-400 IS and 200 F2.8 all at 200mm,
at apertures of F5.6, 6.7 and 8. This target was also photographed outdoors with
the camera handheld in bright light.
The high contrast test showed the lack of of chromatic aberration in the Canon
EF 70-300mm DO which gave cleaner boundaries between black and white areas.
Before compression for the web the 75-300 IS shots showed substantial chromatic
aberration along these edges but this is difficult to see in the compressed
image. The 70-300 DO improved dramatically as soon as it was stopped down, even
by half a stop. At F6.7 and F8 it left the 75-300 IS behind and produced
resolution similar to the 100-400 IS.
The comparison with the 200 F2.8 was included to show how close to maximum
performance these zoom lenses could get. All three zooms showed less contrast
than the prime, as is shown by the brighter white in the prime lens shots. This
is to be expected because of the larger number of elements in zoom lenses. The
lower contrast of zooms can sometimes be beneficial in digital photography as it
reduces the risk of highlight burnout.
Bokeh
The third test examined bokeh, the quality and smoothness of the out-of-focus
image. I compared the 70-300 DO and 75-300 IS with my 200 F2.8, which I have
always thought gives excellent bokeh. The camera was set on a tripod outdoors on
a sunny day and I manually focussed each lens on the left petal of a pink poppy.
Three sets of pictures were taken at different angles and distances to give a
selection of out-of-focus backgrounds.
Half frame crops, f5.6 200mm
The set shown is a crop of one of the backgrounds and is typical of all the
results. Bearing in mind that I showed target-like out-of-focus highlights from
water and described the bokeh as 'broken' and wiry in the previous review, I was
surprised that under normal conditions, all 3 lenses, when set at 200mm and F5.6,
gave very similar bokeh. The 200 lens opened up to F2.8 gave me the smooth bokeh
I know and love but that is not possible with the slower lenses.
Interesting bokeh, half frame crop, f8 110mm, sea pinks out-of-focus in
foreground, sparking sea in background
The test for bokeh suggests that most of the time there will be
little noticeable difference in the quality of the more distant out-of-focus
areas with the 70-300 DO. However, as demonstrated before, areas that are just
out of focus can appear 'broken' and when photographing into the light,
especially when there are specular highlights such as from sparkling water, the
bokeh will look very different.
Flare
When I sent the first review to Bob Atkins, he asked about the flare pictures
I had included. He pointed out that the lens hood is much less effective at 300
than at 70 and asked if the flare was worse than the 75-300 IS. The reason I
included the flare shots in the first review was not just because it was worse
than the 75-300 IS but because of the nature of the flare. I had never seen that
type of flare in any other lens. It had a prismatic quality. When I moved my eye
from side to side across the viewfinder, the flare changed color, like a rainbow.
I set out to try and demonstrate this effect and compare it with other lenses in
identical circumstances.
Full frame, f5.6 200mm, bottom row after auto-contrast applied
For this test I set up my 10D on a tripod and photographed elder flowers and
leaves, into the light, with three lenses, the 70-300 DO, 75-300 IS and 200 F2.8,
all at 200mm. All three lenses, even the prime lens, showed substantial veiling
flare which lowered the contrast in the pictures. I have found that this loss of
contrast is usually retrievable using Auto-contrast in PhotoShop Elements. The
lower three pictures in the flare comparison show the improvement when this was
used. With the 75-300 IS and 200 F2.8 lenses, usable results were obtained. With
the 70-300 DO, the strong colored flare meant it was not possible to retrieve a
usable picture. In the 70-300 DO picture the concentric circles of the
Diffractive Optic are clearly visible in the colored area of flare.
Above is a 200x200 pixel crop from the shot with the Canon EF 70-300, showing
the concentric circles from the diffractive optics visible in the flare
pattern.
The flare test shows that the Diffractive Optics can cause substantial flare
when shooting into the light. Care has to be taken to avoid this but good
technique, such as always using the lens hood and shading the front of the lens
can help to minimize it.
Distortion
Pincushion distortion was measured at 300mm. Both 75-300 and 70-300 were very
similar.
Verdict on the Canon EF 70-300 DO
Pros
Excellent focus and stabilizer performance.
The small size means that you are more likely to carry it with you all the
time and get shots of unexpected subjects.
It would make a good travel lens because of the substantial reduction in
length made possible by the DO optics. An ideal travel lens set, in my view,
would be a 17-40, a 50mm F2.5 (my choice) and the 70-300 DO. On a 10D or Digiral
Rebel that would be equivalent to 27-480mm.
For candid street photography, of the type I have done in India and China, the
70-300 DO would be a great companion. The small size, black color and fast,
silent focus would make it a winner. Even at 300mm the size of the lens gives
little clue to the magnification being used. The stabilizer should allow sharp
results even in low light situations such as indoor markets.
The 70-300 DO is also good for moving subjects. I have got sequences of birds
in flight which are among the best I have taken.
It might also be good for romantic shots. Wedding portraits and high-key nudes
would all benefit from the 'dreamy' qualities when used at full aperture.
Cons
There is an unpredictability about the results from this lens. I have had
great results, sharp punchy pictures, and also soft hazy pictures. These tests
show that the lens is weakest at full aperture at 300mm, especially with white
subjects, and also into the light.
In the comparison shot of the white flowers, although the 70-300 DO lacks the
chromatic aberration of the 75-300 IS, the results still look less sharp because
of a white haze around the subject. The effect looks like a mild diffusion filter
has been used, overlaying the sharp image with a soft one. This 'dreamy' quality
appears when scattered (diffracted?) light submerges the normal definition of the
lens. The 75-300 IS is one of the lower grade lenses produced by Canon. It is
basically the same optical design as the much cheaper non-IS version, with an IS
group added. There are reports that recent copies of this lens are better
performers than the earlier ones but mine is one of the earliest ones. If full
aperture performance at 300mm is really important to you, save money and buy the
cheaper 75-300 IS.
With such an effective image stabilizer, and working in aperture priority, it
would be easy to avoid using the 70-300 DO at full aperture. Even half a stop
down from full aperture produces a noticeable jump in quality. The results
available from the 10D at ISO 200 and even 400 are so good that using slow lenses
stopped down is quite practical in most lighting situations but should you have
to avoid full aperture on œ1,000 lens to get good photos?
The magnification of the 70-300 DO is noticeably less than the 75-300 IS. For
example you need to zoom the 70-300 DO to 90mm to get the same image size as the
75-300 IS at 75mm at minimum focus. This is because the 75-300 IS can exceed the
quoted focal length because of front cell focussing. The 75-300 IS can reach the
equivalent of 330mm at maximum focal length depending on the focus position.You
also lose half a stop at the minimum focal length, F4.5 instead of F4 compared to
the 75-300 IS.
Conclusion
In real world photography, with normal subjects taken in good light, most
people will be very pleased with the results from this lens. The resolution can
be close to that of the 100-400 IS but with a much smaller, easier to handle
lens. The excellent image stabilizer performance, coupled with the good balance
of this lens allows sharp photographs to be taken hand-held at very low shutter
speeds.
I have a photo taken with this lens as the wallpaper on my computer at the
moment and every time I switch on the computer I marvel at the feather detail in
the side-lit bird.
The major advantage of this lens, the small size, is only possible because of
the DO optics. The disadvantages of this lens, prismatic flare, dreamy quality at
full aperture and different bokeh are all caused, in my view, by the DO optics.
Only you can decide on the balance of the trade-offs. I hope these tests will
allow you to make a better informed choice.
Remember, photographs taken by a lens you have with you are ALWAYS better than
photographs taken by a lens you have left at home.
(As ever, the findings only apply to a single example of each lens.)
Where to buy the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens
Purchasing the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens through the
following links helps to support photo.net.
I'd like to add some perspective with respect to the cost of the 70-300 DO ($1300). I would compare it against a very good "bargain" Canon lens, the 70-200 f/4L ($580).
To achieve similar range you want to buy a 1.4X canon TC ($280) and a tripod mount ring ($110) seems to be a must, you pay a total of $970.
DO weirdnes aside I think that the 70-200 + TC has similar optical quality than the 70-300 DO, but is longer, heavier, and it has no IS. Does this justify the extra $330?
When I first read about this lens, my first thought was "mh, very nice lens, I must get one, but I am an amateur and do not want to spend some 1300? on a telephoto zoom lens. I will wait some years until the price has dropped below 1000?".
After the first Review by Bob Atkins it was clear to me that for the sort of images I like this lens will not work.
I allready have the EF 75-300mm 1/4-5.6 IS USM, and in my eyes the two largest flaws of this lens are:
- the lack of a real USM and FTM as well as the rotating front element and the missing distance scale.
- the relative low contrast of the lens when used at 300mm.
The later issue - surprisingly - refers only to images I have taken when the subject is further away than, lets say, 10m (30'). It is surprising, but my example of this lens is tack-sharp even at 300mm when the distance to the subject is not to large. Since most of the shots I really like are back-lit or side-lit shots on a distance of not more than 10m, my lens fits perfectly to my needs.
What I found surprising with the new DO optics is the fact, than none of the tests emphasizes the differences in the IS technology. The 75-300mm lens was the first photographic lens ever sold which came with an image stabilizer, the IS used there is of first-generation. The 70-300 DO now has a third-generation IS within, so what is the difference?
I have my own experiences with the IS of the 75-300mm lens, and they are far better than the technical specifications of Canon:
- with proper hand-hold technique, you can even get shots at 1/30s sharp at 300mm. With the same technique without IS, my limit would be 1/180s. This is a gain of 6x or 2.5 stops. The limit is reached when the IS gets to its mechanical limitation, that means: Not the stabilisation itself is the problem, but rather the fact that only some arc minutes can be corrected, not 20 or more. If you cross this limit, you get multiple sharp images on your film, for the lens sends the IS group back to the center and starts stabilization again, thus creating two or more sharp images on the film which are some 0,1mm distant from each other.
- it is possible to use the IS of first-generation even with moving subjects. This can be done by first starting the movement and then pressing the shutter half-way down. The IS stabilizes the movement with two axis, not only with one (you can not switch of a single axis). So the correction of the movement must be quite good BEFORE pressing the shutter.
- the IS of the 75-300mm IS lens works fine even with the lens/camera mounted on a tripod or a monopod. Maybe if the exposure time exceeds 1/6s this may not be true, but the normal "shutter release shake" is well corrected by the IS, see also Michael Reichmann's report on the first and second generation IS on his homepage.
So maybe in tests the advantages of Canons third-generation IS are not emphasized in any way because the first-generation IS is so well.
For my lens: I bought my EF 75-300mm 1/4-5.6 IS USM in 2000, so this might be not one of the first ones (the lens was presented in 1996 as far as I know).
What I would like to have is not an optical better lens, but rather one with a non-rotating front element, a ring-type USM and a proper distance scale (even my old 75-300mm lens had one, but the IS lens has not).
There is another similar review at e-fotografija but the results are quite different. In the other review the 70-300 DO is shown to be very much better than the75-300 IS at the longer end.
Does anyone see a flaw in one or both of the testing processes that would lead to the substantial difference in conlusion?
http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml
As David commented in his review, he only tested one sample of each lens, and that probably applies to all other reviews you see posted on the internet and in magazines. While there aren't normally huge lens to lens variations I presume there are a few better than average samples and a few worse than average samples, so I wouldn't exect every published test to give exactly the same results or come to exactly the same conclusions.
Test results can also depend on the test target used and the target distance. If one test uses a high contrast resolution chart at 10m and another uses the side of a building 500mm away, there could well be differences in the conclusions drawn about the lens.
The trick to reading lens tests and reviews is to never believe just one! Each is a data point you have to factor into your final analysis as to whether this is the lens for you.
Bottom line is that it's a good lens with flaws which show themselves when it's used wide open and in flare inducing conditions.
For me, I wish Canon would just come out with a conventionl optics UD and fluoride element 75-300 zoom. It could be white or black, I don't care and I don't care about variable aperture, so a 75-300/4-5.6L would be just fine. Give it IS if you want, either way is OK with me. It should be possible to sell such a lens for well under $1000 without IS, maybe $750. With IS, maybe $1000. If it had excellent performance at 300mm, it's a lens I might actually buy myself!
>> Bottom line is that it's a good lens with flaws which show themselves when it's used wide open and in flare inducing conditions.
But THIS test shows something else... in low contrast situation even stopped down at f11, the 70-300 can't ourperform cheap 75-300!! And in high contrast situation the difference is too little.
Most lenses are pretty similar in the center of the frame by the time they are stopped down to f11.
As for the high contrast shots, it's clear to me that the 70-300 outperforms the 75-300. Just now much difference do you expect to see? If what you see isn't worth $900 (along with the better IS, faster AF, ring USM motor with FTM focus and smaller size), then you'd be wise to buy the 75-300 instead.
Note I didn't do the tests or see the original images. David did and I'll leave it up to him to further comment on these matters. However I will note that in the text he did say "...the high contrast test showed the lack of of chromatic aberration in the 70-300 DO which gave cleaner boundaries between black and white areas. Before compression for the web the 75-300 IS shots showed substantial chromatic aberration along these edges but this is difficult to see in the compressed image...", so maybe there is more difference than shows up here.
As one of the early purchasers of the DO I think that both of David's reviews are right on. Everyone of his conclusions has been portrayed numerous times by others if you've followed the threads so I would discount the possibility that he has a bad copy.
The common feeling I'm seeing among happy DO users (of which I am one) is summarized perfectly by David with this:
"The small size means that you are more likely to carry it with you all the time and get shots of unexpected subjects.
It would make a good travel lens because of the substantial reduction in length made possible by the DO optics.
For candid street photography, of the type I have done in India and China, the 70-300 DO would be a great companion. The small size, black color and fast, silent focus would make it a winner. Even at 300mm the size of the lens gives little clue to the magnification being used. The stabilizer should allow sharp results even in low light situations such as indoor markets."
I shoot RAW so 98% of the "problems" this lens is being criticized for are easily fixed, but how can you shrink a 100-400 down to a managable, unobtrusive size, speed up the AF / IS / handling on a 75-300 to match or attach a 1.4X TC to a 70-200 in the time it takes to twist the zoom ring on the DO.
There may be substitutes for this lens down the road but IMHO none of these lenses are.
The old 100-300L is better than any of the current 75-300 or 100-300 non-DO zooms. I had one myself at one time. It wasn't as good as the 300/4L and it was an awkward, slow focusing, design - so I sold it. I don't know how it would compare to the DO lens, but I'd bet it would be just as sharp.
I'm 100% sure Canon could bring it back in a new design with ring USM motor and even throw IS in, and still charge less than they do for the DO lens. There's no reason to make it constant aperture either. Might as well make it 75-300/4-5.6. It's a simple design and only a 4x zoom ratio. The reason they don't is certainly more one of economics than any technical issues. It could well hurt sales of the 100-400/4.5-5.6L for example, especially if it were a few hundred dollars cheaper as well as smaller and lighter.
On a 10D with a 1.6 cropping factor, you are only seeing the center 40% of the full-frame. The "corner" is actually more than 8mm in from the corner of the full frame provided by a traditional 35mm camera. This would seem to make any test of quality at the corners invalid as a 10D's corners are in what should be the "sweet-spot" of a lens. If quality in the corners suffers on a camera with a 1.6 crop factor, it is sure to be much, much worse on a film camera.
Greetings!
Thank you all for your detailed comments on the Canon EF 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens. I am considering this lens along with the Canon 5D. I've read conflicting reports on the sharpness and contrast of this lens, so am very curious about how it behaves on a 5D, which I understand demands alot of its' lenses.
After a while with this lens, I discovered that it's like no other and has very specific characteristics. That's why I created this Tips and Tricks page to help you get the most out of it!
This is the first time I have commented on this site, and am not clued up as much as almost all the contributors, but I would like to try and give a clue to the question asked by Rich Dykmans , July 31, 2004; 11:15 A.M, where he says
"I shoot RAW so 98% of the "problems" this lens is being criticized for are easily fixed, but how can you shrink a 100-400 down to a managable, unobtrusive size, speed up the AF / IS / handling on a 75-300 to match or attach a 1.4X TC to a 70-200 in the time it takes to twist the zoom ring on the DO."
I read a few months ago on the Digital Preview website about a new material for making lenses, which is a glass clear,transparent ceramic material, which has a much higher refractive index than glass, and can be made very thinly too, because of it's greater strength physically.
I imagine that using this material, the space needed to 'spread' the light to create an artificial 400mm in a much smaller length, would shrink the lens, reduce the weight, and make it much smaller and so unobtrusive too. The lighter material means presumably easier control of all aspects of motorisation, increasing speed of focussing too, and I would guess less of twist to produce the same zoom, and this would be in a shorter length too.
anyone who knows about lens design out there and can check these thought for real application may just be able to figure a new design, though personally I reckon the DO lenses need a bit of work before I would be happy with one, so if the ceramic lenses get there first, I am in the queue for one.
