Red or Green

[Headshotzx]

For safari, many people would prefer the 100-400L.

For general travel, I would prefer the 70-200 ƒ/4L IS. The sharpness helps in cropability.

 

[ManWearPants]

For me, i treat carrying my 70-200m around as a workout too, so i dont mind the weight, since im used to doing 12kg bicep curls, however in the case of camera equipment it tend to defers, Handheld a borrowed 400mm f2.8 at the A div soccer finals earlier this year for the entire 90 mins and had my arms aching for the rest of the week

I am no small man myself. But my idea of enjoying photography is not having to lift "dumbbells" when shooting. That's why I am starting to think these white lenses are really what Canon claims them to be, for pros' use. They can sit around with tripod/monopod and wait for the moment.

 

[ManWearPants]

since u r from the 200f2.8IS, i don't think u prefer the f4 IS. 300 DO also a good choice.

hmm....I have not really thought about this before. Would I enjoy moving to 70-200f4 from f2.8?

Good point.

BTW, I am not experience but just an enthusiast. I pick up photography quite late. But better late than never.

 

[ManWearPants]

For safari, many people would prefer the 100-400L.

Nope. Not from one heavy weight to another. I think I am comfy with 300mm. Anything more will have to crop. I did consider the Sigma 120-400mm but it is another large barrel. I will avoid big lenses.

 

[Alex chong]

Ya lo. Sell the 2.8 IS and get the f4 IS and a 1.4 extender:thumbsup: good stuff

I think this is a good alternative to having longer zoom.

 

[FeiFei]

What is it about DO lens that you do not like that you will not consider owning it?

I ever own this DO lens for very short periods of times. I sold it eventually because I find the IQ a bit too soft to my liking.

However, softness is very subjective term, while the image may look soft in my eye it may actually perfectly OK to you.

If you are looking at relative smaller form factor and lighter weight this DO lens may serve your intended purpose well.

I agree with you that this may not be the best in it class but it certainly is a very practical lens.

I have no other issue on this DO lens other than softness.

 

[ManWearPants]

I ever own this DO lens for very short periods of times. I sold it eventually because I find the IQ a bit too soft to my liking.

However, softness is very subjective term, while the image may look soft in my eye it may actually perfectly OK to you.

If you are looking at relative smaller form factor and lighter weight this DO lens may serve your intended purpose well.

I agree with you that this may not be the best in it class but it certainly is a very practical lens.

I have no other issue on this DO lens other than softness.

This lens is known to be soft wide open and sharp after f6.7. Did you also have a UV filter on?

This link shows the difference of not using UV filter on this lens. Without UV filter, the lens is sharp.
with UV:

without UV:

In fact the sharpness at f6.7 is comparable to the 200f2.8

 

[ManWearPants]

flaws: handle flares very badly

the concentric patterns on the DO

causes concentric flare lines

 

[ManWearPants]

"photographs taken by a lens you have with you are ALWAYS better than photographs taken by a lens you have left at home"

 

[gazkw]

tbh it already sounds like you have decided.

there is no point trying to come to a forum to ask others to support your decision. everyone has different tolerance levels on quality.

just hit it like you mean it.

 

[ManWearPants]

tbh it already sounds like you have decided.

there is no point trying to come to a forum to ask others to support your decision. everyone has different tolerance levels on quality.

just hit it like you mean it.

I have not decided yet. I am not quite happy with the IQ of the DO. But also not happy with the portability of the 70-200. I am not asking for support. But I want opinions to tell me the bad of the DO instead of the good of the 70-200.

 

[chalib]

If you are not pixel peeper and able to accept to work within its limitation...

DO is a great lens for travel and walkabout for its compactness and low profile

 

[Alex chong]

Manwearpants,

Go for the 70-200 f4 IS. You will not regret it. f2.8 IS is heavy, no question there. But the f4 IS is not much heavier compared to the DO. Plus, you have already brought up about the bad things about DO. Why you still thinking about it?

As Russell Peters (a very funny comedian) would say in his Indian accent.

"Take it and go"......"Take it and go"..... :bsmilie:

 

[ManWearPants]

Manwearpants,

Go for the 70-200 f4 IS. You will not regret it. f2.8 IS is heavy, no question there. But the f4 IS is not much heavier compared to the DO. Plus, you have already brought up about the bad things about DO. Why you still thinking about it?

As Russell Peters (a very funny comedian) would say in his Indian accent.

"Take it and go"......"Take it and go"..... :bsmilie:

cos of 2 things that the 70-200f4IS don't have - 10cm length for portability and 300mm focal length for reach. ok, I am swaying...... maybe the IQ of the DO is not really there. Maybe I'll go without a telezoom for now. I may consider the 135f2 or 100f2.8 macro lens as an interim to cover portrait/street.

OT: BTW, I don't find jokes targetting any racial or cultural groups to be funny. I think this Russell Peters, though a Canadian but has his roots in India, to be digging fun at his own race to be the biggest joke of all. Furthermore, he got the cheeks to disclaim that he is a Canadian Indian and nothing to do with India Indian.:thumbsd:

 

[Michaelavaloke2009]

If you are not pixel peeper and able to accept to work within its limitation...

DO is a great lens for travel and walkabout for its compactness and low profile

personally i agree with chalib. no lens is perfect. just utilised the most from the lens. enjoy your shoot, afterall we are not pro photog that have to sell our photo for living. DO is not a bad choice.

 

[ManWearPants]

personally i agree with chalib. no lens is perfect. just utilised the most from the lens. enjoy your shoot, afterall we are not pro photog that have to sell our photo for living. DO is not a bad choice.

Yes, dilemma. Anyway, thanks all. I am still unsure if I should go for DO given the flare problem that it has. But I also don't see the point to change from f2.8IS to f4IS. I may just let go of the f2.8IS since I do not see myself using it at all. I will see what other lens comes up within the next 3 months.

 

[iMac08]

if u really do buy e 135L,the 70200 will almost confirm see less action.(at least that's for me). I do miss the versatility to zoom sometimes but i have choose to live w a lighter lens for travelling. Why not just get e 70300 non-DO?the one with usm and IS.i think still cheaper than DO.

 

[ManWearPants]

if u really do buy e 135L,the 70200 will almost confirm see less action.(at least that's for me). I do miss the versatility to zoom sometimes but i have choose to live w a lighter lens for travelling. Why not just get e 70300 non-DO?the one with usm and IS.i think still cheaper than DO.

Also not that cheap. That 70-300 is $1.xk. I might as well get the 70-200f4IS with that kind of $. Somemore the dimension is not as attractive as DO.

I am quite concern about the lack of IS on 135L. I have trembling hands. IS helps me a lot. I'll wait to see if Canon will release a 135LIS or a 100f2.8II IS macro as according to rumour Afterall, the new IS is supposed to be for macro lenses.

 

[hetfieldpaul]

I am no small man myself. But my idea of enjoying photography is not having to lift "dumbbells" when shooting. That's why I am starting to think these white lenses are really what Canon claims them to be, for pros' use. They can sit around with tripod/monopod and wait for the moment.

Lifting dumbells is good :bsmilie: , i like it myself haha, then if weight is a concern, just get the 70-200mm f4 IS with a 1.4 TC

 

[ManWearPants]

Lifting dumbells is good :bsmilie: , i like it myself haha, then if weight is a concern, just get the 70-200mm f4 IS with a 1.4 TC

My problem with the f4IS is the bulk of the lens with TC and the 200mm only. If with TC the weight will come at 1kg and length 20cm. I feel there is a better option in Sigma 120-400mm if going this way. Either I get the f4IS and live with the 200mm or don't get it at all.

At least I have made up my mind to lose the f2.8IS. Will ponder over my telezoom requirements later.