EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6DO IS USM

[jsbn]

thanks..

do admit that the DO lens is X for its class but then i like the weight and compact.

There's a price to be paid...

 

[dragos]

a price for everything...

 

[Zack]

As of now, I'm not really keen into performance as my skill still pretty sux anyway. A white L lens, I don't think I have the guts to carry it yet :sweat:

Now that $150 non IS lens looks like a good deal to me. But is it really $150? A sigma apo macro 70-300mm oredi cost $330...

Then the new IS version of 70-300mm cost around 1K, hmmmm...if compared to 75-300mm non IS both using tripod, technically optically should be the same right?

Thanks for the input guys, keep them coming!

$150 is the 2nd hand price for a 75-300mm III non IS non USM. You can probably get the 75-300mm USM but non IS for about $200-250 2nd hand.

I think that the Sigma Apo macro 70-300mm is optically marginally better. You might probably want to get that instead.

 

[kik]

There is a price to pay for everything. I'm a DO user(have the 400 F4) and the difference in terms of portablility is huge. Since you started the thread you should know the price and be able to afford it. Yes it is value for money for its use, i carry 5 lenses on me when i'm on assignment and over the pass year plus that i have had the 70-300 DO, it has never let me down. There are alot of critics out there due to its price. But if you can afford it , go for it. I found that majority of the critics out there do not like it due to the fact that it costs over two thousand. But when i'm on foot i have only 2 lenses on me. My 24-70 2.8 and my 70-300 DO. WHat you pay for the DO and IS is worth while.

 

[Rumplestiltskin]

One of the better review sites for Canon lenses (including the above DO lens) can be found here:

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

 

[justshot]

I shot this with the 75 - 300 USM. What do you guys think?

Oops, can't seem to be able to post the picture...

What happenend?