Red or Green

[Nupro]

If you're mainly into traveling only I might suggest the following lenses on ur 5DM2:
- fisheye
- 16-35mm
- 50mm macro
- 135/200mm

I used this setup when traveling without regret.I too have that heacy lens but used it on either corporate or church weddings only. Try using primes to lighten your load and use your feet for zooming instead.

 

[ManWearPants]

If you're mainly into traveling only I might suggest the following lenses on ur 5DM2:
- fisheye
- 16-35mm
- 50mm macro
- 135/200mm

I used this setup when traveling without regret.I too have that heacy lens but used it on either corporate or church weddings only. Try using primes to lighten your load and use your feet for zooming instead.

which fisheye do you recommend? I have the 12-24, 50f1.4 and am looking to add 70-300 DO for the travelling combination.

I am a hobbyist so no point for me to keep the heacy lens.

I may look at 135 as an interim if I cannot convince myself to get the DO. Then pair it with the 300f4IS later on.

 

[iMac08]

u shld rent a 135 and try.i think IS gd to have but is survivable.like u,i'm hobbyist too.and it is really not that bad without IS else i would not have kept it. As for macro with IS,is like the nikon with VR. There was an earlier thread abt this.IS not really useful at short focusing dist. At least i dun see e need and diff from my friend,s photo using nikon vr macro

 

[PrimePhotog]

Why not replace your f2.8 IS with the f4 IS? Better IQ, extra money in your pocket and no broken backs due to the featherweight 700g.What else do you want

 

[Headshotzx]

For travel, why not consider 12-24, 50 1.4 or 35 f/2 + 85 1.8, 135L + 1.4x TC? What you get back from the 70-200 can pay for the 135L + 1.4x TC + 35 ƒ/2 with more than enough to use for other things (or save).

The output of the 135L + 1.4x TC is the same (or possibly a hair better) than the 70-200 2.8L IS wide open, so you definitely won't think it's "bad" IQ. With a 2x things start to get a little worse from a sample I saw online. Someone was awesome enough to try 1.4x + 2x stacked (AF still working) and it really looked alright.

I was looking to convert everything I have into a 24L II + 50 1.4 + 135L (+1.4x) setup. If it weren't for the fact that I might plan to earn some coin from some events and 2nd-shooter-wedding assignments, I would've done it. But for now, my 70-200 2.8L IS will stay - heavy or not. It's going to be an absolute pain to lug around when I travel at the end of the year, though.

 

[ManWearPants]

Why not replace your f2.8 IS with the f4 IS? Better IQ, extra money in your pocket and no broken backs due to the featherweight 700g.What else do you want

Someone reminded me earlier whether I would get any joy using the f4IS coming from f2.8IS. Also if I attached the 1.4TC, the 760g will becomes 1000g.

For travel, why not consider 12-24, 50 1.4 or 35 f/2 + 85 1.8, 135L + 1.4x TC? What you get back from the 70-200 can pay for the 135L + 1.4x TC + 35 ƒ/2 with more than enough to use for other things (or save).

I don't really fancy carrying so many lenses. I would make do with UWA, prime and tele. Having to keep on changing lenses is also no fun.

At the moment, not surprising that 70-200f4IS and 135L seems to be the recommended ones.

BTW, does stacking 1.4TC on 1.4TC gives you 1.4+1.4 or 1.4x1.4?

 

[Sighn1982]

70-300 DO can be a great lens. Especially if your shoot in RAW. See these pics, taken by 5DII:

 

[hetfieldpaul]

For travel, why not consider 12-24, 50 1.4 or 35 f/2 + 85 1.8, 135L + 1.4x TC? What you get back from the 70-200 can pay for the 135L + 1.4x TC + 35 ƒ/2 with more than enough to use for other things (or save).

The output of the 135L + 1.4x TC is the same (or possibly a hair better) than the 70-200 2.8L IS wide open, so you definitely won't think it's "bad" IQ. With a 2x things start to get a little worse from a sample I saw online. Someone was awesome enough to try 1.4x + 2x stacked (AF still working) and it really looked alright.

I was looking to convert everything I have into a 24L II + 50 1.4 + 135L (+1.4x) setup. If it weren't for the fact that I might plan to earn some coin from some events and 2nd-shooter-wedding assignments, I would've done it. But for now, my 70-200 2.8L IS will stay - heavy or not. It's going to be an absolute pain to lug around when I travel at the end of the year, though.

Definitely your limbs would ache at the end of the day, but that lens is great for capturing wildlife :bsmilie:

 

[iMac08]

For travel, why not consider 12-24, 50 1.4 or 35 f/2 + 85 1.8, 135L + 1.4x TC? What you get back from the 70-200 can pay for the 135L + 1.4x TC + 35 ƒ/2 with more than enough to use for other things (or save).

The output of the 135L + 1.4x TC is the same (or possibly a hair better) than the 70-200 2.8L IS wide open, so you definitely won't think it's "bad" IQ. With a 2x things start to get a little worse from a sample I saw online. Someone was awesome enough to try 1.4x + 2x stacked (AF still working) and it really looked alright.

I was looking to convert everything I have into a 24L II + 50 1.4 + 135L (+1.4x) setup. If it weren't for the fact that I might plan to earn some coin from some events and 2nd-shooter-wedding assignments, I would've done it. But for now, my 70-200 2.8L IS will stay - heavy or not. It's going to be an absolute pain to lug around when I travel at the end of the year, though.

sure it does. i was in japan with 2470,70200,135..in the end 135 and 2470 stay in the bag while 70200 takes the breather in the hotel after 3days...did miss using it when i saw some wedding at meiji shrine...but 135 saves the day..it was then i think the 70200 got to go...but for now i doubt i will touch the f4IS for travel since i am happy with my 135.

and with a kenko 1.4x..quality i feel is still better than the tele L @f2.8....now i am thinking if i shld get a 1.4x TC or just mount it on a 50D to get the FL.

 

[ManWearPants]

Definitely your limbs would ache at the end of the day, but that lens is great for capturing wildlife :bsmilie:

I feel 200mm is still a bit too short for serious wildlife.

 

[ManWearPants]

Thanks for the samples. The bokeh looks patchy. Is this the white mist that some reviewers claim to be present?

It seems that this DO requires quite a bit of post processing to adjust the colour curves and contrast.

undoubtedly, this lens strength is in its portability.

70-300 DO can be a great lens. Especially if your shoot in RAW. See these pics, taken by 5DII:

 

[ManWearPants]

sure it does. i was in japan with 2470,70200,135..in the end 135 and 2470 stay in the bag while 70200 takes the breather in the hotel after 3days...did miss using it when i saw some wedding at meiji shrine...but 135 saves the day..it was then i think the 70200 got to go...but for now i doubt i will touch the f4IS for travel since i am happy with my 135.

and with a kenko 1.4x..quality i feel is still better than the tele L @f2.8....now i am thinking if i shld get a 1.4x TC or just mount it on a 50D to get the FL.

135L + TC. Is it handholdable at 189mmf2.8 without IS? The lack of IS is really what's stopping me from this lens. What is the keepers rate for you?

 

[Michaelavaloke2009]

The bokeh looks patchy. Is this the white mist that some reviewers claim to be present?

.

Thats why its call individual preferences. Some may not like the bokeh, but others do. when people see such bokeh, sure know this is the work of unique 300DO.:think:

 

[Nupro]

dude ...got money buy the canon, if not get the sigma....I'm using the sigma btw good enough for me. Anyway sori bout the typo ...its "heavy" . Looks like you already have a UWA, 135 or 200 will be good enough for those portrait streetshooting on travels. I bought the 200mm much cheaper and for the extra reach. For me I could always move backward if its too tight but moving forward my subject might notice.

 

[Reim1o]

Since when the 70-300 DO is sharp?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=404

It's short yes, but its very fat

 

[Alex chong]

Since when the 70-300 DO is sharp?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=404

It's short yes, but its very fat

Had a look at the test chart. Is it really that bad?

But I have to admit the pictures posted by Sighn1982 look real good. I guess this definitely not about the lens rather who is behind it. :thumbsup:

 

[nottipiglet]

I went though the same decision process.

I have never considered the f/2.8 tele because it's just way too heavy for my liking. I'll probably just leave it at home.

So, I bought myself the f/4L IS version. It was wonderful. Fantastic optics. However, as you pointed out, it is white and conspicuous, and not small enough to carry about comfortably with the regular zoom in the bag... especially for long trips. So, I considered the DO lens really really seriously. I pondered for a long time... and I decided that for the price I'm paying for the lens, I should not have to live with all the flaws... like ghostly halos in the out-of-focus areas, concentric flares,etc... I probably can reduce these in PS, but why would I want to do that when I have other options?

So, I got the middle-of-the-road option: The EF 70-300mm IS... the non-DO version. The optics are similar to the DO version, minus the flaws.

But... I still think about the f/4L IS from time to time. It's really a great lens. [Because I have since sold it.]

 

[ManWearPants]

I have decided. Red is the victor. I will replace the f2.8IS with the lighter f4IS. Hope that the latter will see more use from me. Thanks all for your opinions and comments.