[AQ]

As far as I can see ther are no Pixalo member reviews for this lens. There are several on the web and a couple coment that the lens is quite soft at 300 mm.

Has any one got one of these and if so what do they think about it.

[Rob Barron]

I have never owned that lens Anthra but I have a friend who had one and I must say I didn't see any softness at either end. It might be that if used at the extreme apertures it could display a touch of softness I guess but I have seen too many great shots from it to believe it is anything out of the ordinary, even for a quality lens. I know this isn't an L series lens but it is still a high quality bit of kit.

My only question would be in comparing it to something like the 100-400mm L series which you'd get for a couple of hundred quid more. This is still IS and has the best quality glass and of course an extra 100mm of reach.

If you have a budget of about the £600 mark then go for the DO lens, if you can save up and go a touch more, I'd go for the bigger lens which I have and wouldn't swap for anything!

Cheers,
Rob

[stepheno]

There are two 70-300 lens. One is the DO which has been reported as a bit soft at 300. The non-DO I have had and would say it is a cracking lens, stonking value for money. I never had an issue with softness.

[silkstone]

As stepheno says, unless there is a really good reason for wanting the DO version, and I can't think what that would be, the standard (and cheaper) 70-300 IS is extremely good and seems to make more sense.

[brian wright22]

Originally Posted by silkstone

As stepheno says, unless there is a really good reason for wanting the DO version, and I can't think what that would be, the standard (and cheaper) 70-300 IS is extremely good and seems to make more sense.

The DO lens may be attractive due to its reduced length?
Brian

[ray]

Ive got one and i think it's great
OOOPS Sorry should have read it proper no i havn't my apologies

[AQ]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

My only question would be in comparing it to something like the 100-400mm L series which you'd get for a couple of hundred quid more. This is still IS and has the best quality glass and of course an extra 100mm of reach.

It is the size / weight of the 70 - 200 that is putting me off and I would probably want a tele-converter to go with it so the cost adds up as well. I will probably have to wait for one more month to get whatever I chose so I have lots of time to get even more confused . I guess I need to find somewhere I can try both out.

[AQ]

Originally Posted by brian wright22

The DO lens may be attractive due to its reduced length?
Brian

Yes and its non rotating front end.

[dandan]

Actually I do have one of these lenses, I brought it to take on a cruise with me because it was small and easy to take on and off the ship in tenders or whatever, also the fact that it didn't rotate, made it easy for a beginner like me to use a polarising filter. It also fitted in well with my 17- 85 lens and the fact that it had two IS modes made it ideal on a moving base like a ship.

I am sorry that I do not feel Knowledgeable enough to write a review, but i would say that the above were more important in my thinking than the technical data, as I was confident the lens would be better than I was.

By and large I was happy with our performance in a lot of rough and difficult situations from Sunrises, Cloudy dawns and Storms at sea to Deserts with either amazingly clear light or shimmering heat hazes. Mountain tops, wildlife and City streets were also tackled.

Hope that helps