Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 DO IS USM vs Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM

Is there an article in this forum comparing Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6

DO IS USM to Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM? Currently I have the

second lens. The question is ... Does the "DO" make much difference

for the difference in the price between the two lens?

 

Thanks,

 

Frederick

It is Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 DO IS USM. There were many discussion treads on this comparison and few reviews. You can do a search. Basically, DO is better, much compact, and much more expensive. But if the money is not the issue, then I recommend it!

William Castleman has a review like that. I own the DO for almost a year now. I keep it in my grab and go bag mainly for the range between 150 to 300 (The 70-200L stay home unless I know I will be using it, e.g: indoor sport). The DO's size and overall performance is it strength.

 

The DO is not cheap nor will it match optical performance of

- 85 f1.8 & L

- 135L

- 70-200L

- 300L.

 

It will be cool if someone make a lens like that.

 

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm

The DO lens is sharper up to 200mm and is shorter, but heavier. Autofocus and IS are much better. The downside is that it has poorer sharpness at f5.6 (and f8) at 300mm and is prone to colour flare when shooting into the light. Given the big difference in price you may not think the advantages worth the money.

 

There are 2 articles in Photo.net where I compared these lenses in more detail.

Yeah,

 

The pluses of this lens are light weight, small size, image stabilization, and optical performance compared to the 75-300 and 100-300 lenses (which range from $150-$425).

 

Downsides are cost (over $1000), small aperture, and poor optical quality compared to the cheaper 70-200/4L ($575) and the comparably priced 70-200/2.8L and 100-400/L-IS (both in the $1100 range)

 

If you want a quality lens that is reasonably portable, then this is a viable choice. The 70-200/4L is cheaper and has superior optics (even with a 1.4TC), but lacks image stabilization and is physically larger (ie, stands out more in a crowd).

 

The 70-200/2.8L and 100-400/L-IS are both superior optically, but are downright huge.

Did you look at this thread from only a couple of days ago?

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ASn0

<p> Have a look <a href="http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml">here</a>. HTH. </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>