Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses

DD wrote:

As far as your suggestion that the sensor in your D2X over heated,
causing colour shifts, I think you are full of it. What were you doing?
Was it the weather or the frequency of exposures that caused it to
"overheat"? That's an insane claim if ever I heard one.

Doug's basic problem is that he doesn't know much about photography, but
thinks he does, and tends to blame the equipment for his own failures.

--
Jeremy |

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:

I've been posting on usenet since *long* before I ever heard the
phrases "top posting" and "bottom posting". I've seen many who appear
to consider "bottom posting" to mean leaving the entire quoted history
and then tossing in their comments at the extreme bottom, I figured that
we needed a term which was more descriptive. (Perhaps "interleaved
posting" would be a better term, and less likely to result in the
above-noted behavior.

"Bottom posting" is a poor description for what we're talking about. I
think a good distinction would be between "top posting" and "posting
properly".

:-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:40:27 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:
The convention of "bottom posting" goes WAAAAY back to probably before you
ever owned a modem or even computer.

snip lots of great stuff...


JR
I almost did not open this thread given the subject line. These things
are usually silly rants and flame wars.

JR's post, however, is genuinely interesting and informative.

Thanks!

Leonard

Joseph

I think you have come in for some unfair comments from some on this group,
well done for accepting it in good grace.

Now I note you exchanged the 16-35 for another lens which was more
saticfactory. Can you share with us which lens that was please.


Lester

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
First I wish to thank all those who provided helpful and well-meant
responses to my original post.

This week I took my camera to the original reseller and tested it against
a
few other similar lenses. The 24mm lens is what it is. It simply isn't a
match for the Nikkor 28mm equivalent I use for night photography without
flash. This lens wasn't honestly my biggest concern as I can learn to live
with this difference in performance.

The biggest of my concerns was the 16-25mm zoom producing images with edge
distortion that had NOTHING to do with post processing or sharpening. I am
referring to huge, unacceptable geometric distortion around the edges.

After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better. Do I think the performance is
the same ? NO. I still think the Nikkor 17-35mm is a better lens but the
difference now is really negligible.

Since some have questioned the reason why I didn't take more time to test
the lens, my concerns related to (1) the time since the date of purchase
as
I wanted to exchange the lens at the reseller instead of allowing more
time
to pass and have to send it to Canon for repair and (2) the fact that the
problem with distortion I reported here wasn't (as I very clearly stated)
anything that could be enhanced by post processing or sharpening but
rather
some serious geometrical distortion beyond anything fixable in Photoshop.

This week I tested another one of Canon's lenses while at the reseller.
The
135mm f/2.0 lens I had mentioned which is something I intend to use for
portraits (facial photos primarily). This is among one of the best lenses
I
have used and just about one of the sharpest too.

My opinion was not a biased one and did not intend to spark the debate
Canon
x Nikon. I have been a Nikon user for a long time but switched to Canon
when
I realized it made better digital SLRs. My opinion of the two companies is
based on my personal experiences and I feel that while Canon makes better
cameras (electronics), Nikon makes better lenses (optics). However, I am
very happy with my camera and now with the lenses as well. They serve my
their primary purpose and are also excellent as something I can use for
photography outside of my work environment.

As one last comment I wish to thank again those who responded with helpful
and courteous messages to my original post. It is unfortunate to see that
these actually represent a small group of people. If there is one thing I
learned about using newsgroups is the censorship is a necessary thing.
Humans in general still haven't learned how to live in a truly democratic
environment where they know their limits and exercise their freedom of
speech with responsibility towards other peoples' rights. Newsgroups such
as
this could be such a great place for the exchange of information and
knowledge. Such technology would have been a dream 30 to 40 years ago and
I
am willing to bet that those who lived in those times would have given
everything for the opportunity to have access to such a vehicle of
information exchange. And yet, what I see here most is a group of stupid
and
unnecessarily aggressive individuals who attack others for no apparent
reason just to use this forum as a pastime or as some form of therapy.

Such a shame that something with such potential just happens to be used in
such a wasteful and irresponsible manner !

Best regards to all those who responded with helpful replies.

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/10/05 5:28 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


Greg, for god sake get off your high horse.

From time to time (actually, most of the time) humans are inclined to do
things that others (I hesitate to use the word "professionals" because
professionals are as professionals do, and I often don't see a lot of
professional behaviour here) wouldn't. Christ - I've made just about
every
basic mistake possible in photography - including buying things with
expectations that the reality didn't stack up against. It doesn't bother
me
to admit it and to ask for help - it doesn't bother others (such as the
OP)
either. Perhaps some of the things we ask might seem stupid - perhaps
because of what was written or the way it was written it might even look
like a troll to you - but that doesn't mean it is.

For what it's worth, I've exchanged a couple of private eMails with the
OP -
and if based on nothing else, I can attest to the man's sincerity.

How about cutting us a little slack?

jean wrote:
Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small to
carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take leisure,
unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO lens and the new
70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided mixed results. Some say
the DO is actually a great lens for what it is meant to do. The major
drawback is the flaring but this seem to happen only in situation where

the

subject is backlit and light is coming head on through the lens. The other
lens have also received some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that
image quality is actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost twice

as

much. The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1) the
slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and the

(2)

fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring which can be a
problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer attached. Although the DO
is more compact and has better focusing (reviews compare the speed of the
focusing mechanism to that found in the best L lens), I would tend to

favor

image quality as the most important quality. Do you have any input or
suggestions you can share with me on these two lenses ?


I had a 70-300 DO but returned it, I could never get a sharp picture with
that lens on my 10D. I bought a 300mm f4 IS and a 1.4X teleconverter and I
am much happier with the pictures I take with those. I also have a 75-300
f4,5-5,6 IS which I carry when cycling (my 70-200 f2,8 is just too heavy and
BIG) which gives acceptable results (much better than the DO at any rate).
I don't know if the DO lens was alergic to my camera but I did not see any
really sharp pics when I searched for pictures taken with that lens on Pbase
(http://www.pbase.com/)

Jean



I have the 70-300 DO lens. I shot the following pictures with it. If
interested, click on LARGE and see details of the pictures. IIRC, these
shots were distant shots at 300mm, hand held using a 20D camera.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3591751

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3591796

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3591847

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3591804

I like the lens and though I don't use it as often as other lenses, I
don't think I would give it up. I'm presently considering getting the
400 f4 DO IS lens.

Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:
Colin:

Thanks again for the tips.

I really like your suggestions and like both lens as well.

The one I've had my eyes own is the 24-105mm but was quite disappointed with
the problems and Canon's recall because of the flaring issues. Hopefully
this lens will be out soon with the design revised and without the problems.
The one thing about this lens I find appealing over the 24-70mm f/2.8 you
mention is the extended range that makes it such a versatile lens to carry.
If I were to go to a place and could only take one lens I think this would
probably be the ideal lens to carry.

The 70-200mm lens is a great lens judging from all the reviews I've read so
far. The problem is the size and weigth. This is not the kind of lens one
can carry everywhere. In case I am to travel and carry this lens with me I
better start doing some serious bodybuilding

I've been told that the 70-200mm f/4 is actually quite a nice lens while
much smaller and lighter. Here is the US the demand seem to be such for this
lens that it is on backorder at BH Photo which is the largest reseller in
the country. The only drawbacks are the aperture (f/4 versus F/2.8 on the
lens you suggested) and the lack of IS which can be handy in many
situations.

Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small to
carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take leisure,
unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO lens and the new
70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided mixed results. Some say
the DO is actually a great lens for what it is meant to do. The major
drawback is the flaring but this seem to happen only in situation where the
subject is backlit and light is coming head on through the lens. The other
lens have also received some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that
image quality is actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost twice as
much. The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1) the
slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and the (2)
fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring which can be a
problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer attached. Although the DO
is more compact and has better focusing (reviews compare the speed of the
focusing mechanism to that found in the best L lens), I would tend to favor
image quality as the most important quality. Do you have any input or
suggestions you can share with me on these two lenses ?

In case anyone else wants to share opinions or point to sites that actually
offer information from real tests conducted on lenses I would greatly
appreciate it. There was a post in one of the newsgroups a few days ago
about a web site linked to www.imaging-resource.com that was dedicated to
the evaluation of lenses and used a very strict technical/scientific
protocol to test lenses. Does anyone know the address to this site or other
similar with tests and serious reviews on lenses ? I've tried Rob Galbraigth
and Fred Miranda but all I can find are posts placed by users and not real
technical tests.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for the great suggestions, Colin. I am going to stop at my
local reseller over the weekend and take a closer look at both lenses you
suggested.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

On 11/10/05 8:13 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


Joseph,

For what it's worth, if you're ever in the market for a couple of
general-purpose lenses, I'd be happy to recomment the Canon 24-70 F2.8L USM
and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM.

Together they cover a wide range, and are capable of producing very sharp
images.

Cheers,

CC



I have the 24-105 L, 70-200 F4 L, and the 70-300 DO IS lenses. I haven't
yet experienced any problems with these lenses. Canon has said the DO
lens is L lens quality, it just has a diffractive lens which takes it
out of the L class lenses. (shrug) As I said before, I haven't
experienced any problems concerning quality with this lens. The 24-105
F4 lens is supposed to have flaring problems, which I haven't seen ....
yet. I've been told 24-105 F4 L lenses below UT1000 (mine is UT 0700)
are supposed to be defective. I haven't seen such in my lens but I do
intend to have Canon check out the lens later this month.

The 20-200 F4 L lens is a winner and IMO, as good as the 70-200 F2.8 IS
lens, it's just a tad slower and not IS. I can spend a day carrying this
lens whereas, a day spent carrying the 70-200 F2.8 IS lens on one of my
cameras left me mumbling some not too pleasant words.

The 70-300 DO IS lens is doing well with me and AFAIC, it's a keeper
lens. I don't use it as often as I do my other lenses but I have yet to
find fault with it so that I would consider getting rid of it. In fact,
this lens has just about convinced me to get the 400 F4 DO lens.

FWIW, I use 20D and 1DMKll cameras with these lenses.

Lester Wareham wrote:
Joseph

I think you have come in for some unfair comments from some on this group,
well done for accepting it in good grace.

Now I note you exchanged the 16-35 for another lens which was more
saticfactory. Can you share with us which lens that was please.


I guess top-posters can't comprehend simple English.

Greg

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .



After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better.

It sounds to me like he EXCHANGED it for another Canon 16-35.

"Skip M" a écrit dans le message de
news:FaBdf.491$7B.454@fed1read02...
"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
jean wrote:
Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small
to carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take
leisure, unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO
lens and the new 70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided
mixed results. Some say the DO is actually a great lens for what it
is meant to do. The major drawback is the flaring but this seem to
happen only in situation where the subject is backlit and light is
coming head on through the lens. The other lens have also received
some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that image quality is
actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost twice as much.
The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1) the
slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and
the (2) fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring
which can be a problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer
attached. Although the DO is more compact and has better focusing
(reviews compare the speed of the focusing mechanism to that found
in the best L lens), I would tend to favor image quality as the most
important quality. Do you have any input or suggestions you can
share with me on these two lenses ?

I had a 70-300 DO but returned it, I could never get a sharp picture
with that lens on my 10D. I bought a 300mm f4 IS and a 1.4X
teleconverter and I am much happier with the pictures I take with
those. I also have a 75-300 f4,5-5,6 IS which I carry when cycling
(my 70-200 f2,8 is just too heavy and BIG) which gives acceptable
results (much better than the DO at any rate). I don't know if the DO
lens was alergic to my camera but I did not see any really sharp pics
when I searched for pictures taken with that lens on Pbase
(http://www.pbase.com/)

Jean

There are a number of 70-300 IS DO images on this page:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/E144C248FA9D5D6
Look at the shots following the moon. I agree there is not much in the
way
of "really sharp", but some are not that bad for a non-L hand-held 300mm
lens. I've said before, and repeat: seems to me I'd have been better off
with the 300mm f4 IS, and may yet get there.



That wouldn't be so bad if the lens weren't in the "L" class, as far as
price goes. When it was announced, the implication was that it was an "L"
equivalent, just that the DO elements made it a separate class of lens.
I
haven't seen anything that would support that notion, the images done with
that lens that I've seen are nothing special, even when compared to non
"L"
zooms in that range. In fact, the new 70-300 IS, to my eyes, out does it
at
a much lower price point.


I would agree, at the price it was selling for, it was really not worth
keeping. I did have a look at the other Canon DO lens (400mm f4) and this
one looks like it delivers the goods, at over $4000, it should!

Jean

nick c wrote:
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:

Colin:

Thanks again for the tips.

I really like your suggestions and like both lens as well.

The one I've had my eyes own is the 24-105mm but was quite
disappointed with
the problems and Canon's recall because of the flaring issues. Hopefully
this lens will be out soon with the design revised and without the
problems.
The one thing about this lens I find appealing over the 24-70mm f/2.8 you
mention is the extended range that makes it such a versatile lens to
carry.
If I were to go to a place and could only take one lens I think this
would
probably be the ideal lens to carry.

The 70-200mm lens is a great lens judging from all the reviews I've
read so
far. The problem is the size and weigth. This is not the kind of lens one
can carry everywhere. In case I am to travel and carry this lens with
me I
better start doing some serious bodybuilding

I've been told that the 70-200mm f/4 is actually quite a nice lens while
much smaller and lighter. Here is the US the demand seem to be such
for this
lens that it is on backorder at BH Photo which is the largest reseller in
the country. The only drawbacks are the aperture (f/4 versus F/2.8 on the
lens you suggested) and the lack of IS which can be handy in many
situations.

Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small to
carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take leisure,
unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO lens and the
new
70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided mixed results. Some
say
the DO is actually a great lens for what it is meant to do. The major
drawback is the flaring but this seem to happen only in situation
where the
subject is backlit and light is coming head on through the lens. The
other
lens have also received some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that
image quality is actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost
twice as
much. The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1) the
slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and
the (2)
fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring which can be a
problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer attached. Although
the DO
is more compact and has better focusing (reviews compare the speed of the
focusing mechanism to that found in the best L lens), I would tend to
favor
image quality as the most important quality. Do you have any input or
suggestions you can share with me on these two lenses ?

In case anyone else wants to share opinions or point to sites that
actually
offer information from real tests conducted on lenses I would greatly
appreciate it. There was a post in one of the newsgroups a few days ago
about a web site linked to www.imaging-resource.com that was dedicated to
the evaluation of lenses and used a very strict technical/scientific
protocol to test lenses. Does anyone know the address to this site or
other
similar with tests and serious reviews on lenses ? I've tried Rob
Galbraigth
and Fred Miranda but all I can find are posts placed by users and not
real
technical tests.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for the great suggestions, Colin. I am going to stop
at my
local reseller over the weekend and take a closer look at both lenses you
suggested.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

On 11/10/05 8:13 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


Joseph,

For what it's worth, if you're ever in the market for a couple of
general-purpose lenses, I'd be happy to recomment the Canon 24-70
F2.8L USM
and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM.

Together they cover a wide range, and are capable of producing very
sharp
images.

Cheers,

CC




I have the 24-105 L, 70-200 F4 L, and the 70-300 DO IS lenses. I haven't
yet experienced any problems with these lenses. Canon has said the DO
lens is L lens quality, it just has a diffractive lens which takes it
out of the L class lenses. (shrug) As I said before, I haven't
experienced any problems concerning quality with this lens. The 24-105
F4 lens is supposed to have flaring problems, which I haven't seen ....
yet. I've been told 24-105 F4 L lenses below UT1000 (mine is UT 0700)
are supposed to be defective. I haven't seen such in my lens but I do
intend to have Canon check out the lens later this month.

The 20-200 F4 L lens is a winner and IMO, as good as the 70-200 F2.8 IS
lens, it's just a tad slower and not IS. I can spend a day carrying this
lens whereas, a day spent carrying the 70-200 F2.8 IS lens on one of my
cameras left me mumbling some not too pleasant words.

The 70-300 DO IS lens is doing well with me and AFAIC, it's a keeper
lens. I don't use it as often as I do my other lenses but I have yet to
find fault with it so that I would consider getting rid of it. In fact,
this lens has just about convinced me to get the 400 F4 DO lens.

FWIW, I use 20D and 1DMKll cameras with these lenses.



I deleted some older pictures shot with the 70-300 DO lens and replaced
them with shots I took yesterday. All the shots except the parking
meters were at the 300mm length, hand held using the IS system. The
parking meters were shot at 70mm not using the IS system. The day was
overcast.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder....lder_id=459158

"nick c" a écrit dans le message de
...
nick c wrote:
Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:

Colin:

Thanks again for the tips.

I really like your suggestions and like both lens as well.

The one I've had my eyes own is the 24-105mm but was quite
disappointed with
the problems and Canon's recall because of the flaring issues.
Hopefully
this lens will be out soon with the design revised and without the
problems.
The one thing about this lens I find appealing over the 24-70mm f/2.8
you
mention is the extended range that makes it such a versatile lens to
carry.
If I were to go to a place and could only take one lens I think this
would
probably be the ideal lens to carry.

The 70-200mm lens is a great lens judging from all the reviews I've
read so
far. The problem is the size and weigth. This is not the kind of lens
one
can carry everywhere. In case I am to travel and carry this lens with
me I
better start doing some serious bodybuilding

I've been told that the 70-200mm f/4 is actually quite a nice lens
while
much smaller and lighter. Here is the US the demand seem to be such
for this
lens that it is on backorder at BH Photo which is the largest reseller
in
the country. The only drawbacks are the aperture (f/4 versus F/2.8 on
the
lens you suggested) and the lack of IS which can be handy in many
situations.

Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small to
carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take leisure,
unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO lens and the
new
70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided mixed results. Some
say
the DO is actually a great lens for what it is meant to do. The major
drawback is the flaring but this seem to happen only in situation
where the
subject is backlit and light is coming head on through the lens. The
other
lens have also received some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that
image quality is actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost
twice as
much. The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1)
the
slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and
the (2)
fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring which can be a
problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer attached. Although
the DO
is more compact and has better focusing (reviews compare the speed of
the
focusing mechanism to that found in the best L lens), I would tend to
favor
image quality as the most important quality. Do you have any input or
suggestions you can share with me on these two lenses ?

In case anyone else wants to share opinions or point to sites that
actually
offer information from real tests conducted on lenses I would greatly
appreciate it. There was a post in one of the newsgroups a few days ago
about a web site linked to www.imaging-resource.com that was dedicated
to
the evaluation of lenses and used a very strict technical/scientific
protocol to test lenses. Does anyone know the address to this site or
other
similar with tests and serious reviews on lenses ? I've tried Rob
Galbraigth
and Fred Miranda but all I can find are posts placed by users and not
real
technical tests.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for the great suggestions, Colin. I am going to stop
at my
local reseller over the weekend and take a closer look at both lenses
you
suggested.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

On 11/10/05 8:13 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


Joseph,

For what it's worth, if you're ever in the market for a couple of
general-purpose lenses, I'd be happy to recomment the Canon 24-70
F2.8L USM
and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM.

Together they cover a wide range, and are capable of producing very
sharp
images.

Cheers,

CC




I have the 24-105 L, 70-200 F4 L, and the 70-300 DO IS lenses. I haven't
yet experienced any problems with these lenses. Canon has said the DO
lens is L lens quality, it just has a diffractive lens which takes it
out of the L class lenses. (shrug) As I said before, I haven't
experienced any problems concerning quality with this lens. The 24-105
F4 lens is supposed to have flaring problems, which I haven't seen ....
yet. I've been told 24-105 F4 L lenses below UT1000 (mine is UT 0700)
are supposed to be defective. I haven't seen such in my lens but I do
intend to have Canon check out the lens later this month.

The 20-200 F4 L lens is a winner and IMO, as good as the 70-200 F2.8 IS
lens, it's just a tad slower and not IS. I can spend a day carrying this
lens whereas, a day spent carrying the 70-200 F2.8 IS lens on one of my
cameras left me mumbling some not too pleasant words.

The 70-300 DO IS lens is doing well with me and AFAIC, it's a keeper
lens. I don't use it as often as I do my other lenses but I have yet to
find fault with it so that I would consider getting rid of it. In fact,
this lens has just about convinced me to get the 400 F4 DO lens.

FWIW, I use 20D and 1DMKll cameras with these lenses.



I deleted some older pictures shot with the 70-300 DO lens and replaced
them with shots I took yesterday. All the shots except the parking
meters were at the 300mm length, hand held using the IS system. The
parking meters were shot at 70mm not using the IS system. The day was
overcast.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder....lder_id=459158

I guess everyone has a different idea of what a sharp picture should be,
here is the best shot I could manage to find with the 70-300DO (warning
large file) http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/image/46862834/original compare
this to the others in the gallery and you will see a vivid difference.
IMOHO, the 70-300DO is not worth what Canon asks for it. I must add that
Canon was gracious enough to take it back for a full refund, this is
customer satisfaction! With my refund, I bought a 300 f4 L IS and I am very
very happy with it, fast, sharp and couple with a 1.4X teleconverter a very
good pair.

As always, YMMV and in the case of the 70-300DO it looks like there is a lot
of variance (is that a word?)

Jean