I took a quick look over at the PBase for pictures made with the lens
and it did not seem that horrible.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70-300_45-56_do_is_usm
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Until today I didn't know the 400 DO even existed although it
> apparently
> preceded the 70-300. The bad bokeh images I saw were from the 70-300.
> They were much worse than mirror donuts and were so ugly I made a
> mental
> note never to buy a lens with DO in the list of acronyms. Not much
> worry about that anyhow given the price.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Moose wrote:
>
>> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> They also have a 70-300 DO lens. I saw some shots from that and
>>> considered it the world's worst bokeh. There were concentric
>>> circles
>>> visible in the bokeh from the diffraction grating.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I saw that is some samples from the 400mm DO. So I was surprised
>> to see
>> Michael Reichmann's review of the 70-300 DO
>> <http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml>.
>>
>> Although it doesn't say so in that review, he liked it so much
>> that he
>> bought one and seems to use it a lot. I first became aware of his
>> review
>> when reading another piece on his site illustrated with shots with
>> his
>> own 70-300. I believe he said he is happily using it in his pro work.
>>
>> Moose
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|