| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
  | sent on 06 Marzo 2023 Pros: LIGHTNESS, WEIGHT, BULK... aesthetics Cons: sharpness, poorly functioning stabilizer, quality, price Opinion: I had this perspective and I paid it really a lot. I believe, from direct experience, that it is the optics, medium-high-range, worse. It looks good, aesthetically. But qualitatively it is lower than the optics of 150 euros. Just purchased, and to have it I had to request it, it had problems with the stabilizer. Canon changed it for me. But the result... is that the quality was really poor. Versatile sin, but useless. Especially for those who love details. Very disappointed, I traded it in, losing almost half, also because nobody wanted it. Sold out. |
  | sent on 19 Dicembre 2022 Pros: Weight, compactness, autofocus speed, overall robustness, filter diameter 58mm Cons: sharpness Opinion: I bought it to match the all-rounder zoom, first a 28-135, now a 24-105 L USM. Before I had the 70-200 F4, a completely different planet in terms of sharpness up to 200. But with a big flaw, or rather two: he often stayed at home, because it was too bulky (he needed a much longer case), and only reaches 200. The DO is in the same belt case as the 24-105 and I wear it almost always every time I take the SLR. The quality, as written by others, is not so indecent and, indeed, being able to close slightly, maintains a good definition on all focal lengths. I have it for at least 6-7 years, paid 600 euros at the time, and it will be a lens that I will sell only if I change the camera body format. And if it were to break and I wanted to spend more money to replace it, I would almost certainly buy it again (the doubt is only formal. If you need space or in any case you want something to really always carry with little hassle, but maintaining a more than decent quality, it is an excellent lens. Se si cerca le vette, meglio rivolgersi a more... But all in all, that wasn't even his destination. |
 | sent on 07 Aprile 2022 Pros: Bulk, image quality, technology 20 years ahead, given away on the used Cons: Unusable hood, classic zoom compromises Opinion: Truly extraordinary goal. Assuming that I am an amateur and I do not practice photography at a professional level in any case I was exaggeratedly satisfied with this goal. Precisely because I do not practice this passion of the trade, the funds for the optical park are always limited, so every purchase always requires a great preliminary research. After hundreds of reviews — many of them negative — I decided to buy this 70-300 (I'm bastian against), and what to say, for 300 euros used, is really gifted, also creates a considerable dependence on the shot. Those who have been "screwed" by the market because they bought it new for 1300 slices instead of used for a fifth of the price have not been deceived by Canon (which has focused on DO technology for all the new telephoto lenses of the RF range, and, unlike owls, has produced this lens for 13 years continuously), but by the amateur photo market that, sometimes, he seems to judge the lenses more by the color of the paint than by their actual quality. The negative reviews are often the work of people who have "tried" it from their friend and (personal opinion) I do not deny that, given the fussiness, they all seemed to me to be Sunday amateur photographers, those who when you hear them talk fill their mouths with words about the quality of the optical crystal, the sharpness, the gamma, the flares, and then have more dust on the shutter of their Canon R3 than under the bedside table. The mostly positive reviews, however, much less, perhaps because the only ones made with criterion by people who have had the opportunity to try the lens and compare it with some Canon whites, were of a completely different tenor, try it to believe. The 70-300 DO against the Bianconi prime lens loses across the board, it goes without saying, but at a retail comparison it defends itself and on certain points it also plays well (it wins in aberration against a prime lens of 1500 euros 300mm f / 4). Those who compare this lens to the various 70-300 "entry level" I do not think know what he is talking about. DO technology at the time was behind, but perhaps not as far behind as some would have us believe. Who says that it is a lens without quality or has not tried it or judges the lenses by the weight on the scale. Last but not least the Form factor, small and heavy lens, quality weight (inside it has the USM and double stabilization), body of an L series (a 24-105 to be clear) collapsible if necessary. Those who say that the form factor matters less than the other points I do not think are telling the truth. A lens like this if necessary you also bring it from the baker who "meanwhile you never know", is in your bag as in your wife's bag, coupled with a 24-70 you are covered over 10x and you will ensure images of great quality (other than compact, as I read around, perhaps more comfortable than a compact). Lens that will accompany me for quite a while. P.S. Hood unusable and too bulky. |
 | sent on 08 Ottobre 2019 Pros: Small footprints, contained chromatic aberrations, attractive prices if purchased used Cons: Microcontrast levels not very high, especially canvas side, optics very sensitive to the backlight Opinion: It was the first, as well as the only (at least as of the date of this review) optical zoom produced by Canon with DO technology. This technology allows to contain the dimensions of optics, compared to a traditional solution, wanting an equal level of correction of aberrations: in fact, in the second case it would be necessary a greater number of lenses, with particular materials (e.g. fluorite). On the other hand, the processing is extremely complex, so much so that according to Canon for the DO element the required precision comes to the micrometer: consequently the costs are quite high, and have an unpleasant impact on the price of optics (it is out of production since 2016, although at the moment it is still listed), substantially equal to that of 70-300 f4-5.6 L is usm. In short, the strengths are the small size (at least with the zoom in the wide-angle position) and the good correction of aberrations, as well as good build quality (better than the 70-300 mid-range, which however are less expensive). On the other hand, the microcontrast is not very high, especially on the canvas side: I knew what to expect, and I acquired the conscious optics of such limitation. It is certainly better than a 75-300, but it does not reach the levels of the current 70-300 II is usm. The 70-300 DO has several backlight flare problems: it was one of the flaws of the first generations of Canon's DO targets, with the addition that at the time the anti-reflective treatments of the lenses were not comparable with those of today. With regard to autofocus, the lens was commercialised in 2004, and adopts an old-fashioned ring usm unit, less sophisticated than today's: similar discourse for the stabilizer, noisy and less effective than the current ones. In these respects, the gap with 70-300 II is usm is considerable, since the nano usm unit is very fast, and works better with the dual pixel cmos, especially in movies; the stabilizer of 70-300 is II is quieter and much more effective. In short, unless collector's interests, I would not recommend such an optic: the 70-300 is II is on average higher in all respects, and is new to the figure to which you can find a used 70-300 DO, in a store. In my case, however, the clutter factor was the key point (I own both a 70-200 f4 is and a 100-400 II, but in some cases they are excessively cumbersome and flashy), and I found a specimen of 70-300 DO at a very low price, causing autofocus problems , then resolved with the replacement of the engine usm (150 euros). |
 | sent on 05 Settembre 2019 Pros: Compactness, weight, focal range, stabilization, AF Cons: Image quality, stabilizer a little uncertain, price from new. Opinion: It is a difficult lens, it certainly disappoints lovers of sharpness, however the practicality due to compactness is priceless. I would like to say that the price he had from new was a real theft, despite the great technology behind it.... fresnel lens as a diffractive optical element, USM, IS... On the used market it is reasonably priced, for which the disbursement is valid on average. Do not expect the yield of the various 70-200 canons, nor even the nano USM 70-300.... the diffractive version is much worse... but it is a damn comfortable goal, for quiet outings, and moreover it does not risk giving in the eye ... my specimen has a somewhat ballerina front, both in an extracted and internal position.... The stabilizer doesn't convince me... I am very noisy like others, but I always tend to stay in safety times anyway, because, although it works perfectly, I do not think it is very effective, at least on my specimen. Situations in which phenomena of strange internal reflexes occur (I believe due to the diffractive element), are often also not very critical, making the lens even more difficult. Often you realize the ruined photo only after viewing it and not during the composition. I'm still studying it and asking.... let's say I'd like to recommend it but with reservations... I who am a lover of sharpness I suffer in front of the results obtained with this goal, but possessing as an alternative only a 70-200 2.8 and several 200mm manual, I can say that between taking home a not perfect photo and not taking it home because for clutter problems you preferred to leave the zoomon at home, I prefer the first solution. I will try to update the review with some other impression as soon as possible. |
 | sent on 18 Aprile 2019 Pros: Size, weight, inconspicuous, yield between 100 and 250 mm comparable to the 70/200 f4L Cons: Unbalanced, hard zumata guinea Opinion: I agree with everything that is said in weaving the praises of an unjustly mistreated view. Surely the 70/300 L is a little better but for weight, color and size it makes it difficult to seize moments in discretion. The 70/200 f4 is also less discreet. The 70/300 Is is much less performing to me. I am very satisfied and currently use it on Sony A7II and A7RII without any yield problem even with 42 Mpx. The stabilizer is great |
 | sent on 27 Ottobre 2018 Pros: Size, RING USM, STABILIZED Cons: Unbalanced forward, tendency to leak, slight counterlight loss of contrast Opinion: Bought from England to €350 on FF and APS-H I have not found all the problems of sharpness that you read around (will be a well-managed copy...!). Excellent focal range and is quietly in the backpack, it is not white and you notice little, fast and precise focus without uncertainties and the stabilizer is very effective. Excellent sharpness at F8 a little softer to TA, zero chromatic aberrations. I thought a lot before taking it and read a thousand reviews but in the end despite the doubts was excellent and much better expectations, at 300 and TA there is certainly better but overall has never given me unusable images, indeed. Real ones in a slight drop in contrast against light due to the construction DO but the lens hood helps a lot and the fact that for the weight of the front element the barrel tends to leak if pointed downward. |
  | sent on 17 Giugno 2017 Pros: Those reported by everyone, length weight discretion and construction Cons: At least in my model the zoom is rather hard because of the lens output, slightly unbalanced forward, new price. Opinion: Starting with the assumption that it is now out of production and around the price of the used is definitely interesting, and from the fact that I owned 70-300 L-70-300 is and 70-200 F4 smooth. The 70-300 L is better, but I sold it because it was always at home for weight and its lack of discretion. The 70-300 is what you buy ... a good start to start and have fun. True comparison I'm going to do it with the 70-200 F4 that is smooth or little changes in my opinion because it is in this price range that is the used. RnOra for street use, how often have you "scared" Someone because you had the whitewash? I have several ... even those who wanted to be photographed were posing and the result was a photo to be thrown ... with this objective they will not notice you and they will not matter to you ... what i like ... rnIn Mountain how many times for the weight you left at home the 70-300 l i have so many ... rn Now we come to the comparison with the 70-200 F4: less objective lens and this one knows, between 70 and100 mm sticker a lot more ... between 100-200 are preteent are the same.rn soft 200-thread at the most open focal, well from F8 up.rn sharpness and here's my astonishment ... the DO is Definitely clearer to all the vowels of comparison from F8 up. Definitely and sorry for my length, if you take photographs of the day, travel and count weight is a professional goal to have, if instead look for a blade for good nights and You want to catch the hair at 250m you buy more ... rnAh ps: i do not know why but on apsc is extremely less clear and disapproved.rn |
 | sent on 03 Febbraio 2017 Pros: Weight, size, handling, making fast, stable fire Cons: Focus sui generis, you have to close from F8 to F11 Opinion: We have to use it, use it and use it. After a hundred shots you can not tune into this kind of optics. The behavior of a difrattivo motorcycle is different from a lens "classic", 300 is softer, but in post production system, up to 250 I find it very good. Backlit suffers a little more of the harrier 70/300, but still the best 70/300 travel. Weighs less than 24/105, it has closed 10 cm, and honestly to make 30x40 prints has nothing to envy its concorrenti.rnho bought and sold everything, but I keep it, with all its faults, not least the focus that's not really Leica indeed is the opposite style. But when you have the sun behind him, well you're happy to have him. It will be because the "Sunday photographers" not healthy to use it, it will be because it is short and does "FIGO", the fact is that it is used at a ridiculous price. Good for those who buy it !!! |
 | sent on 02 Febbraio 2017 Pros: Size, weight, stabilizato, charge as used. Cons: Price from new, backlit. Opinion: Bought used in spain on EBAY for little more than one hundred Euros as spare parts, made in canon repair center for another two hundred euro, now own it for a year, I can only give an opinion fovorevole, Legero, where he is still an optical professional 70 -300mm with a weight of less than 800gr (720gr) .For those who like me in the past fifty, i guarantee that move to different shoulders kg atrezzatura, becomes a problema.Non that i can give you a more favorable opinion for this progettto technicians canon , Whereas it is' still present in the list 2000.Non I found all these defects listed by the master of casa.Ps (shot with Canon since 1970) .vorei agiungere finally, the advantage of having an external thread of only 58mm !! This helps to bring along even less weight, the joint diameter of these filters, without having to buy a set aposito normally generous and costly diameter, for people like me who uses brand filters niponiche! Hello DA Piero63. |
 | sent on 24 Maggio 2016 Pros: Size, compactness, Af, L series, stabilization Cons: from new price Opinion: Using this lens for a few years, I'm no expert, but it is the goal that gave me the most satisfaction. I always carried with me allowing me to take pictures with other paintings that I could not shoot (simply because I would not have been able to bring them with me because of the size). I have not encountered problems of sharpness or contrast so serious as to be deemed irrecoverable in post production. Perhaps my judgment would have been different if I had paid 1700 Euros but, having gotten used to 650 € I think it was a great deal. |
  | sent on 08 Maggio 2016 Pros: compactness, build quality, good AF and stabilizer Cons: very poor image quality, exaggerated price Opinion: The 70-300 DO is one of the few to use diffractive optical lenses, which give the opportunity to significantly reduce weight and bulk, was at the expense (at least in this goal) image quality. From a construction point of view it is equivalent to the optical L series: sturdy, USM autofocus type 'ring-type USM' (the fastest), image stabilization and a green ring that distinguishes it from the L series, which instead have the ring red. The dimensions are very small, it is just 10 cm long against the other 13-14 70-300 and more than 17 of the 70-200 f / 4; It weighs just 720g despite the robust construction. Unfortunately the image quality is very poor: the sharpness is poor, as well as the contrast; the limits of this perspective were already clearly visible on the SLR a few years ago (I had tried on the Canon 20D), and certainly would not recommend it on the current sensors, very dense and 'demanding' in terms ofthe optical quality. All this is coupled with a shocking price of around 1500 euro, a figure with which you can buy much higher optical. I do not recommend this. |
 | sent on 21 Novembre 2014 Pros: Size, color rendering, excellent out of focus, good sharpness at all focal lengths, but only on FF stabilization; AF speed, reflexes against the resistance; soundness of L-series Cons: A little heavy, the quality fell significantly when mounted on APSC, high price Opinion: I have this lens era analogica.A that time gave me a lot of satisfaction for the good quality and the size .It 'handy to have in your pocket a 70 300-stabilized good qualità.rnPassato to digital (the first professional were APSC)' s i forgot the closet, until the purchase of the first FF (EOS 5) rnCon the FF and I rediscovered the species in the report always carry it in preference to its portability to even the most renowned optical |
 | sent on 16 Marzo 2014 Pros: How many of you many times to leave home a Tele xchè bulky and heavy as to make it unusable? RnBè the Canon EF 70-300 DO IS USM is pretty much how long the 17-40 f/4L wide angle, Easy to carry and always on the Stock Exchange . Focusing fast, image quality levels of the series L.rnHo noticed that needs to be shut down a couple of stops to get good sharpness, but this is not a problem because you raise your iso Macchina.rn Cons: Price a little high in the new ..... Opinion: If like me you want to experiment, this view is found Deale used to have in the bag a nice Tele Zoom 70-300 of excellent quality and the size ridotte.rnHa focus only one of its kind and the only DO technology the world to be equipped with a diffractive optical element. The introduction of a 3-layer diffractive optical element not only makes the lens lighter, but also ensures superb image quality. :-) Rnrnrn |
 | sent on 13 Marzo 2014 Pros: Dimensions and weight very contained, making it a target for hunting irreplaceable photographic rambling, hiking and all those situations where weight and / or size is crucial; reduced diameter filters, stabilizer exceptionally effective, quick focus, very sturdy construction, excellent even if not amazing sharpness, good detail rendition and pleasing bokeh. Cons: Price indeed high, in particular light conditions the colors can be a bit '"cold". Opinion: The real Achilles' heel of this lens is the price, definitely determined, as well as the accuracy of construction and the materials used, its specific design, I have not found the phenomena of "flare" neither particular problems for what concerns the internal reflections . rnih Ultimately, in my opinion, if you do not have big budget problems and you prefer the compact lenses is definitely worth considering. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
