Canon Image Stabilization, DO, Lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wright, Nov 14, 2004.

  1. Wright

    Wright Guest

    I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite a bit
    of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have almost no
    experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am now considering
    the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit pricy so, first is IS
    worth the extra money and second, is DO worth the extra money?
    I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find myself
    shooting with long lenses handheld.
    Chuck
     
    Wright, Nov 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wright

    SleeperMan Guest

    Wright wrote:
    > I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite
    > a bit of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have
    > almost no experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am
    > now considering the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit
    > pricy so, first is IS worth the extra money and second, is DO worth
    > the extra money?
    > I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find
    > myself shooting with long lenses handheld.
    > Chuck


    I have no experience with DO, but i have Canon S1 IS for some time now and
    IS function is a must for me from the time i bought it. IF you say that you
    shoot often from hand, you'll soon encounter with low light condition and
    wanted to use bigger zoom. In this case IS is the way to go. It really
    hepls. So, IS part of it is definitely worthed.
     
    SleeperMan, Nov 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <BDBCFB72.D22D%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com>,
    Wright <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

    > I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite a bit
    > of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have almost no
    > experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am now considering
    > the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit pricy so, first is IS
    > worth the extra money and second, is DO worth the extra money?
    > I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find myself
    > shooting with long lenses handheld.
    > Chuck
    >


    It's probably the best telephoto for handheld shooting.

    Pros:
    + Ultra compact
    + Lightweight
    + Usable handheld down to ~ 1/3 sec.
    + Sharp
    + Fast AF

    Cons:
    - Lens slides when tilted
    - IS drains the battery
    - Expensive
    - Foggy DOF
    - Expensive


    I bought it because it's excellent for carrying around. It's light and
    I don't need a tripod. I've taken good pictures in situations where I
    didn't think it was possible to use a telephoto.

    My only gripe is that things slightly out of the focus plane turn foggy.
    It doesn't produce a normal looking blur, but instead sharp detail
    inside of a large diameter haze. My guess is that the DOF varies
    greatly with the light path through the lens. Your camera must have
    very good focusing accuracy or you'll get terrible photos.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Nov 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Wright

    SleeperMan Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article <BDBCFB72.D22D%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com>,
    > Wright <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite
    >> a bit of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have
    >> almost no experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I
    >> am now considering the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a
    >> bit pricy so, first is IS worth the extra money and second, is DO
    >> worth the extra money?
    >> I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often
    >> find myself shooting with long lenses handheld.
    >> Chuck
    >>

    >
    > It's probably the best telephoto for handheld shooting.
    >
    > Pros:
    > + Ultra compact
    > + Lightweight
    > + Usable handheld down to ~ 1/3 sec.
    > + Sharp
    > + Fast AF
    >
    > Cons:
    > - Lens slides when tilted
    > - IS drains the battery


    Interesting...i never experienced any shorter battery life in my S1 and i
    have often set it on. Or maybe IS in 20D model is better, since it's more
    expensive model...?
     
    SleeperMan, Nov 14, 2004
    #4
  5. "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <BDBCFB72.D22D%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com>,
    > Wright <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite a
    >> bit
    >> of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have almost no
    >> experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am now
    >> considering
    >> the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit pricy so, first is IS
    >> worth the extra money and second, is DO worth the extra money?
    >> I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find
    >> myself
    >> shooting with long lenses handheld.
    >> Chuck
    >>

    >
    > It's probably the best telephoto for handheld shooting.
    >
    > Pros:
    > + Ultra compact
    > + Lightweight
    > + Usable handheld down to ~ 1/3 sec.
    > + Sharp
    > + Fast AF
    >
    > Cons:
    > - Lens slides when tilted
    > - IS drains the battery
    > - Expensive
    > - Foggy DOF
    > - Expensive


    I have used a Canon 75-300 IS lens for one year. It's nice not to have to
    carry around a tripod! If you agree about the tripod, then yes it is worth
    the extra money.

    However, my observations are a little different than the above. It's still
    a large lens and on the heavy side. No way is mine usable at 1/3 sec (but,
    I am shaky). Sharp, well I'll just say that it is acceptable. Fast AF; no
    way as mine hunts a lot because it's easily confused and often runs all the
    way to the extreme focus limit and then returns to the correct focus point.
    I am using it with a 300D and perhaps the camera is to blame? Battery drain
    has not been an issue with my shooting. Foggy DOF? I am not sure what the
    poster meant.
     
    Charles Schuler, Nov 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Wright

    Jim Townsend Guest

    SleeperMan wrote:

    > Kevin McMurtrie wrote:


    >> Cons:
    >> - Lens slides when tilted
    >> - IS drains the battery

    >
    > Interesting...i never experienced any shorter battery life in my S1 and i
    > have often set it on. Or maybe IS in 20D model is better, since it's more
    > expensive model...?


    The Canon EOS image stabilized lenses have beefy 'innards'. They
    do use a lot of power compared to the fixed lens cameras.

    With my EF 100-400 lens, I can hear and *feel* the IS cut in when
    it gets activated with the shutter half press. With my old fixed
    lens Pro90IS camera it was almost impossible to tell.

    To the original poster.. Yes.. IS is worth it :)
     
    Jim Townsend, Nov 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Wright

    Clyde Torres Guest

    "Wright" <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
    news:BDBCFB72.D22D%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com...
    > I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite a bit
    > of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have almost no
    > experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am now

    considering
    > the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit pricy so, first is IS
    > worth the extra money and second, is DO worth the extra money?
    > I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find

    myself
    > shooting with long lenses handheld.
    > Chuck


    Chuck, I have a 20D also, along with the 17-85mm USM IS lens. IS is great,
    but I've never heard of DO. What is DO?

    Clyde Torres
     
    Clyde Torres, Nov 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Wright

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Clyde Torres"

    >IS is great, but I've never heard of DO. What is DO?


    "Diffractive Optics" ... allows the lens to be much shorter and lighter ...
    Canon brought out the 400 mm f/4 IS DO several years ago, claiming it was 26%
    shorter and 36% lighter than a non-DO 400 f/4 ...

    http://www.canon.com/do-info/
     
    Bill Hilton, Nov 14, 2004
    #8
  9. SleeperMan wrote:

    >>- IS drains the battery


    See the thread about canon power consumption. IS is a
    small effect. Below is text from the original poster.
    It looks like AF is the battery drain, not IS.
    To me IS is way worth it. For example, all my
    wildlife photos are with IS: http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger

    wrote:
    > (Tried to post this yesterday. It's not in google, so once again...)
    >
    > Here are some current measurements of a Canon 10D. The power supply
    > was a single, full-charge, 3rd party BP-511, 8.2V. Various
    > operations:
    >
    > off 0mA (probably something in the microamp area)
    >
    > idle 98mA
    >
    > active 406mA (shutter half-press; exposuring ongoing)
    > 388mA (no shutter button contact)
    > 421mA IS only \
    > 672mA IS + AF > shutter half-pressed
    > 665mA AF only /
    >
    > AF measurements are "peak".
    >
    > imaging 1150mA (peak - _very_ brief)
    >
    > editing 250mA/315mA \ LCD bright
    > 233mA |
    > 214mA >
    > 195mA |
    > 186mA/250mA / LCD dim
    >
    > writing 150mA (with bursts of 220mA)
    >
    > bulb 345mA (holding the shutter open in 'bulb' exposure)
    >
    > The lens was an EF 500/4, but others (EF 20/2.8, EF 300/4) didn't
    > change much. Note the relatively low impact of using IS, and the
    > large impact of the AFing (the lens was racking from close to
    > infinity). Also note the low image write current.
    >
    > Peak current of 1.15A was measured during a 9 "raw" frame pipeline
    > fill/drain episode. This peak was unaffected by IS or AF, suggesting
    > that it is still an underestimate (unlikely given the Fluke meter I
    > was using), or that AF (the larger of the two) is briefly disabled
    > during mirro flip, shutter open, etc. Note that the act of taking a
    > picture should demand a fair amount of energy given how fast these
    > moving parts are moving.
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Wright

    Wright Guest

    On 11/14/04 4:44 PM, in article
    , "Bill Hilton"
    <> wrote:

    >> From: "Clyde Torres"

    >
    >> IS is great, but I've never heard of DO. What is DO?

    >
    > "Diffractive Optics" ... allows the lens to be much shorter and lighter ...
    > Canon brought out the 400 mm f/4 IS DO several years ago, claiming it was 26%
    > shorter and 36% lighter than a non-DO 400 f/4 ...
    >
    > http://www.canon.com/do-info/
    >
    >

    The poster, above, provided information and a link that fully explains DO.
    Additionally, here is another link that pictures how amazingly small the
    70-300 DO IS lens is:
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/
    It looks like a 'long' lens that would be easy to take along, even when
    traveling light. However, as one person has already pointed out, there
    appear to be some differences in the photos taken by this lens vs. a non DO
    lens. While sharpness can be excellent, apparently out of focus areas look
    somewhat different than that produced by other lenses. That, along with my
    question about the IS function, is why I was interested in some comments
    from this group.
    Chuck
     
    Wright, Nov 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Wright

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    wrote:

    >See the thread about canon power consumption. IS is a
    >small effect. Below is text from the original poster.
    >It looks like AF is the battery drain, not IS.


    The test was only done with one IS lens, was it not?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Wright

    steve Guest

    IMHO that is a lot of money to pay for a f/4.5-5.6 lens. But then again
    it depends on what you are shooting.

    Steve

    Wright wrote:

    > I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite a bit
    > of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have almost no
    > experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am now considering
    > the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit pricy so, first is IS
    > worth the extra money and second, is DO worth the extra money?
    > I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find myself
    > shooting with long lenses handheld.
    > Chuck
    >
    >
     
    steve, Nov 15, 2004
    #12
  13. wrote:

    > In message <>,
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>See the thread about canon power consumption. IS is a
    >>small effect. Below is text from the original poster.
    >>It looks like AF is the battery drain, not IS.

    >
    >
    > The test was only done with one IS lens, was it not?


    Yes, but a big lens (500mm f/4). One would expect
    IS to cause less drain on smaller lenses.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Wright

    jean Guest

    DO would not be an issue if the old 75-300 f4,5-5,6 IS Canon zoom had a
    better focussing motor. I had the old lens (75-300) and took many nice
    pictures with it. The thing I disliked the most was it's slow focussing.
    The new DO lens has a much faster focussing motor and FTM (full time manual)
    focus. It is better than the old lens, if your budget can accomodate it, go
    for it.

    Image Stabilisation IS the way to go for a telephoto.

    Jean

    "Wright" <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> a écrit dans le message de
    news:BDBCFB72.D22D%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com...
    > I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite a bit
    > of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have almost no
    > experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am now

    considering
    > the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit pricy so, first is IS
    > worth the extra money and second, is DO worth the extra money?
    > I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find

    myself
    > shooting with long lenses handheld.
    > Chuck
    >
    >
     
    jean, Nov 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Wright

    Don dunlap Guest

    "jean" <look_for@my_email.org> wrote in message
    news:1VWld.16$...
    > DO would not be an issue if the old 75-300 f4,5-5,6 IS Canon zoom had a
    > better focussing motor. I had the old lens (75-300) and took many nice
    > pictures with it. The thing I disliked the most was it's slow focussing.
    > The new DO lens has a much faster focussing motor and FTM (full time
    > manual)
    > focus. It is better than the old lens, if your budget can accomodate it,
    > go
    > for it.
    >
    > Image Stabilisation IS the way to go for a telephoto.
    >
    > Jean
    >


    I currently have an old 75-300 lens and it is very slow to focus. I am
    trying to get some action photos of my puppies and I can't get it to focus
    when selecting continuous shooting mode. I have ordered the 28-135 IS lens
    and am looking forward to gettin it. It's not a 300mm but it should focus
    better.

    Don Dunlap
    > "Wright" <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:BDBCFB72.D22D%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com...
    >> I am a new owner of a Canon 20D - previously had a 10D so have quite a
    >> bit
    >> of previous experience with Canon digital. However, I have almost no
    >> experience with the DO or image stabilization lenses. I am now

    > considering
    >> the EF 70-300mm DO IS-USM lens. This lens is a bit pricy so, first is IS
    >> worth the extra money and second, is DO worth the extra money?
    >> I will add that while I have both a tripod and a monopod I often find

    > myself
    >> shooting with long lenses handheld.
    >> Chuck
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Don dunlap, Nov 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Wright

    Guest

    Bill Hilton <> wrote:
    >>From: "Clyde Torres"


    >>IS is great, but I've never heard of DO. What is DO?


    > "Diffractive Optics" ... allows the lens to be much shorter and lighter ...
    > Canon brought out the 400 mm f/4 IS DO several years ago, claiming it was 26%
    > shorter and 36% lighter than a non-DO 400 f/4 ...


    > http://www.canon.com/do-info/


    A shorter explanation:

    A diffractive element (AKA a "zone plate") functions as a lens, but it
    has strong *negative* chromatic aberration. By using a diffractive
    element and some refractive elements it's possible to cancel chromatic
    aberration without using a lot of heavy (and expensive) fluorite
    glass.

    Andrew.
     
    , Nov 15, 2004
    #16
  17. Wright

    Skip M Guest

    "Don dunlap" <> wrote in message
    news:3a7e1$41987a70$452343b6$...
    >
    > "jean" <look_for@my_email.org> wrote in message
    > news:1VWld.16$...
    >> DO would not be an issue if the old 75-300 f4,5-5,6 IS Canon zoom had a
    >> better focussing motor. I had the old lens (75-300) and took many nice
    >> pictures with it. The thing I disliked the most was it's slow focussing.
    >> The new DO lens has a much faster focussing motor and FTM (full time
    >> manual)
    >> focus. It is better than the old lens, if your budget can accomodate it,
    >> go
    >> for it.
    >>
    >> Image Stabilisation IS the way to go for a telephoto.
    >>
    >> Jean
    >>

    >
    > I currently have an old 75-300 lens and it is very slow to focus. I am
    > trying to get some action photos of my puppies and I can't get it to focus
    > when selecting continuous shooting mode. I have ordered the 28-135 IS
    > lens and am looking forward to gettin it. It's not a 300mm but it should
    > focus better.
    >
    > Don Dunlap



    An underappreciated lens is the 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM, it has true ring USM
    as opposed to the micromotor USM of the 75-300, so it's faster, has full
    time manual and its front element doesn't rotate. The optics may, or may
    not, be slightly better, depending on who you talk to, but they are at least
    equal. My wife has this lens, and we've found it very nice.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Wright

    MarkH Guest

    "Don dunlap" <> wrote in
    news:3a7e1$41987a70$452343b6$:

    > I currently have an old 75-300 lens and it is very slow to focus. I
    > am trying to get some action photos of my puppies and I can't get it
    > to focus when selecting continuous shooting mode. I have ordered the
    > 28-135 IS lens and am looking forward to gettin it. It's not a 300mm
    > but it should focus better.


    It does!

    I have the 28-135 IS and the 75-300 III USM, the 28-135 does focus faster
    and is much less likely to go off in a 'hunting trip' with the focus. I
    don't really like the 75-300 but it does give me more telephoto and I have
    gotten some good pics with it, but once I can afford a better telephoto I
    will sell that lens off.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
     
    MarkH, Nov 15, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James E Kropp

    Re: Appropriate Use of Image Stabilization

    James E Kropp, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    486
    John Navas
    Aug 2, 2003
  2. JJVandJMB

    Which cameras have image stabilization??

    JJVandJMB, Oct 20, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,037
    Jupiter
    Oct 22, 2003
  3. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,936
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  4. Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,243
  5. Wally
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    635
    PeterN
    Oct 20, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page