Compare 70-300 DOIS with 70-300 IS lens

Hi,

Could any expert give me some advice as to if the 70-300 DO IS Lens is

worth the extra cost over the 70-300 IS if one is not interested in size and

weight.

Is the end result any better in one or the other

I bought the 70-300 DO IS with my 5D and have been quite disappointed with it - I ultimately swapped it for a 100-400L lens. The lens does NOT warrant the $1000 price tag. It was quite soft, esp. between 200-300. My advice would be to stay away from it and get the regular 70-300 OR get the new 70-200 IS lens - I hear it is outstanding.

I dont have the DO version , But I learned and saw that the background blur it produce looks dirty. And I 've read that the non DO version is sharper, so I bought the latter, and I'm quiet happy with it. But I will replace it with a 70-200 4L ISU after I solve all the problems in my life first :-)

 

If you dont mind the build quality of the non DO version, I think you'll gonna be happy with it. I find it good enough optically. But of course the L lens are sharper.

Some good review here:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/

 

Be sure to scroll down for Bob Atkins' judgment.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml

 

I bought the current non-DO version after considering these and other reviews. I love it. The DO version is wonderfully compact but seems to have flare problems under some conditions. DO is a promising technology -- I hope Canon can work out the kinks.

 

Oops! See you ask for an expert -- Oh well, as Judge Carswell once noted, dummies need a spokesman too.

I considered 70-300 DO, 70-300 IS and 70-200/f4 IS + 1.4X, I finally go for the third option.

 

If your photo situation have time for you to switch between 70-200 and 98-280 (after adding 1.4X), then this is the best solution. 70-200/f4 IS itself is a very sharp lens, equals to my 200/f2.8 prime. Its performance still holds very well after adding 1.4X, and is better than both 70-300 at 300mm.

The photo.net article was written before the new 70-300 IS was released, I believe. The DO isn't lighter than the non-DO, just shorter. The non-DO is the better performer by a meaningful but not huge margin. The DO makes sense if size is extremely important.

I'm currently using the new 70-200f/4 L IS. This is one of the best zooms ever made. But it is not necessarily better than the 70-300 IS above 200 with the 1.4 TC. I have not made a direct comparison.

The new 70-300 IS is a special lens and an extremely good value. So the short answer I would give it to start with that lens. It's one half the price of the alternatives. If you find you are mostly shooting 200mm and below and really like that range, upgrade to the 70-200.

If you go with the DO lens, two point. 1)Shading is critically important and 2) Don't use a protective filter. People who understand the lens special needs to protect against stray light get excellent results. People who throw on a UV filter and shoot away like any other lens get many low contrast images.