70-300mm - differences

<p>Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens $519<br />Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens $1229<br />Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Lens $1599<br /><br />I know the L series has better optics. But what does the "DO" mean? And if they are all 70-300, why is only one designated as "Telephoto?" Aren't they all telephoto? And why is the "DO" one so much shorter?<br>

Thank you very much in advance,<br>

Sue Deutscher, Denver</p>

<p>Diffractive Optics. It's got special lenses in it that allow the lens to be very short and compact for its focal length. Those who need such a lens really like it.<br>

The EF 70-300mm IS is the update of the original IS lens, the EF 75-300mm IS.</p>

<p>There are, perhaps, still two others in this range - the USM and not USM, unstabilized EF 75-300mm lenses that sell for around $150.</p>

<p>DO means "Diffractive Optics" which you can read a bit about here:<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount</p>

<p>DO elements allow the lens to be shorter. There are trade-offs, of course.<br /> You can read more about the 70-300 DO here:<br /> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml</p>

<p>These are all telephoto zoom lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>thank you so much!</p>

<p>DO explanation link: http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/do_lens.html</p>

<p>DO is a waste of space (literally) as it is heavier than the non-L. The L is 3 times the cost of the non-L, it's better but is it 3x better?</p>

<p>I was wondering that, too. I'm trying to decide whether to upgrade in the body or the lens. There is a lot to research. The only L lens I have right now is the 35 prime and I love it. I'm thinking I'll upgrade with a lens, and trying to decide which 70-300 to get.</p>

<p>Just to muddy the waters more, I'd add the Tamron 70-300mm VC lens. Based on early reviews it appears to be a strong competitor vs. the least expensive Canon equivalent. It is priced slightly lower. Features a few perks, like a non-rotating front element, an included lens hood (the Canon hood is extra), and it supports full-time-manual focus.</p>

<p>I love my 70-200 Tamron and was thinking of selling it if I get a 70-300. My 70-200 has taken some very sharp shots.</p>

<p>Sue, can you confirm what camera you have? If it is an APS-C sensor size (aka crop factor) body then the choice widens with the Canon 55-250 IS. This is cheaper and pretty much the same level as the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM but is designed to work with the smaller sensor size DSLR's in the Canon range.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS on the Canon 5D body. This is a full frame body so it would not wotk with the 55-250 mentioned above. So I think for my money the choices are :</p>

<p>Canon 55-250 f4-5.6 IS (for APS-C sensor sized bodys eg 500D, 60D etc) - good sharpness at a bargain price. Good reviews.<br /> Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM - good sharpness but a bit more expensive. Works on any Canon DSLR. Also good reviews which I found with my example of this lens.<br /> Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS USM - supposedly better sharpness and contrast then the others and better build quality - but then so it should be at that price. Works on any Canon DSLR. Even better reviews.<br /> You can find reviews at :</p>

<p>www.photozone.de</p>

<p>www.fredmiranda.com</p>

<p>and many other places</p>

<p>thank you very much!<br>

Unfortunately, I do not have a full frame. I have a 450D, XSi. I am debating whether to upgrade to a 5D or 7D, or get a better lens. Opinions as to whether it is better for me to get a better body or better lens next purchase would be much appreciated.<br>

I am not a professional, but a very enthusiastic, passionate hobbyist. I do not do much printing but post on flickr and shoot a variety of subjects. I love taking photos of the grandkids, pets and scenery in Colorado. I like a little street photography and fooling with green screens. Like everyone, I want the best image I can get.<br>

flickr ID is hbwphbwp - zenfolio is http://suedeutscher.zenfolio.com/<br>

the lenses I have right now are:<br>

canon prime 35 mm 1.4 L<br />tamron 10-24 3.5<br />tamron 70-200 2.8<br />canon 50 mm macro 2.5<br />canon 50 mm<br>

Any suggestions on next body or lens is appreciated, Sue</p>

<p>Colin, I'm thinking that instead of getting the Canon 55-250 IS, I would probably do better to go ahead and get the 5D. Even though it's just my hobby, I'm lusting after a full frame. I think I will have to make do with the lenses I have then for another year before I get the 70-300. But I sure want that full frame. I'm hoping I don't get crappy images with the lenses I have. what to do, what to do. But I think I'd rather get the full frame than get lenses that go with my XSi, and then find out they are not good enough for a full frame.<br>

thank you everyone!</p>

<p>I got a 5D to reanimate an old Nikkor 35mm perspective-control lens that was too long to be of use on an APS-C body, and I very much like the camera.<br>

However, the 7D is a very fine camera, and if it had been out when I was buying, I might very well have gone with it instead of the older 5D. So think about it a long time. You'll lose your Tamron 10-24, for example, which won't fit on a 5D. If you get a 5D you need to get a so-called "full-frame" ultrawide like the Sigma 12-24 or 15-30 if you want to get back to ultrawide.</p>

<p>Sue, I went from the Canon 300D (Ye Olde Rebel) to the full frame 5D and did not regret it. The full frame 5D is larger and heavier than the 7D etc. I then bought a 450D for astro-photography but found that even though it was smaller and lighter I almost always took the 5D out with me.</p>

<p>So I quite understand if you discard the 55-250 and just consider the ful frame lenses. I have been very pleased with te non-L version and have been surprised how good it is. It is also relatively small and light - and black too. No standing out in the crowd. The main problem I find with the non-L 70-300 is that the 200-300 range tends to have quite a noticeable drop in contrast making the longer part of the range a little murky. In good light it doesn't notice too much but if the light is low or it is misty then the murky look appears.<br /> You understand that is the worst I can throw at it nad otherwise I think it is a very good lens. I am now trying to decide whether (money aside) whether going to the white L version would be worth it given that the L is heavier and whiter. <br /> Here is a shot of some puffins which show how sharp the (non-L) Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM lens is. The lower bit is the full frame as I took it and the top bit shows how well it can stand cropping.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is an example of the murkiness I am talking about. It only appears in less than perfect light at 300 mm or so. The background should be misty but looks murky. If I were to go for the L version it would be to get rid of the 300mm in poor light murk and to gain a marginal improvemnt in sharpness. Against that I would have to set the increased weight, whiteness (why can't canon make L lenses with a BLACK option?) and of course the slighly eye-watering price. I haven't decided yet so can't help you that last step - just set out my own thoughts.</p><div></div>

<p>This has all been extremely helpful! Though I started this thread about lenses, I have gone back and forth for weeks whether to upgrade lens-wise or body-wise. Thanks to the many helpful people here, I have officially decided on the body, the 5D. I can always upgrade lenses as time goes by.<br>

Colin, the puffin example nailed it. Also, I have been studying for hours the photos on this site and flickr, and those with the full frame have that zing I am looking for.<br>

Just one more question (I think) to JDM von Weinberg, please. You say "the Tamron 10-24, for example, which won't fit on a 5D." Yikes! Do you mean it physically won't fit, or it won't work for some reason on a full frame? If the "connectors" are still all the same and the other lenses still fit, why wouldn't that one? Any help is very much appreciated, thank you.<br>

And I found the camera store here has the 5D for the same price as online, so either Thursday or Friday, I'm jumping in! Now I just need a way to calm down so I'll be able to sleep.</p>

Sue, good choice IMO. You will enjoy using a dual-format setup (APS-C + full-frame).

<p>Thank you! It was tough choosing between a better body or better lens. I think in the long run I'll be happier with a full frame. And I have a lot to learn. I have no idea what a dual-format is, but it sounds like I can choose between the two. Don't know why I'd go back but I think I'll be reading here a lot.</p>

<p>Oh heck, here's a plug for a post by someone I know on eBay guides for the older and cheaper 70-300mm class of lenses for Canon : <a href="http://reviews.ebay.com/Canon-EF-70-300mm-Range-Zooms_W0QQugidZ10000000001516026">http://reviews.ebay.com/Canon-EF-70-300mm-Range-Zooms_W0QQugidZ10000000001516026</a></p>

<p>This is only useful if you do not fall into the trap of buying a Nikon (Friends don't let friends buy Nikon)</p>

<p>I think "dual format" is a 'bad' Nikon idea to jab Canon int he eye for having an EF-S class of lenses.</p>

<p>As for</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You say "the Tamron 10-24, for example, which won't fit on a 5D." Yikes! Do you mean it physically won't fit, or it won't work for some reason on a full frame? If the "connectors" are still all the same and the other lenses still fit, why wouldn't that one? Any help is very much appreciated, thank you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Tamron, if it's the one I know about, is what Tamron calls a Di-II lens - meaning "digital only" which in turn means only what Nikon calls DX or Canon and others call APS-C sensors. I think that the Tamron may actually mount on a so-called "full-frame" (=35mm sensor) but its field of view will <strong>not</strong> cover the entire sensor area (called <em>vignetting</em>).<br>

I personally have the Sigma 10-20mm lens which will mount on my 5D, but here is the best you can hope for at the longest 20mm focal length:</p>

<div></div>

<p>In regards to the Tamron 10-24, it will start to cover full frame by about 14mm and up. Since the lens produces images with soft corners on a crop frame camera (decent when stopped down), I can only imagine that the corners are most likely worse on full frame - though I don't know from direct experience. Hope this helps. </p>

<p>Thank you. I also read that an EF-S will hit the mirror in a full frame.</p>

<p>Perhaps, but the Tamron 10-24 that you have, as well as the example someone posted from the sigma 10-20, are not ef-s mount lenses. They use an ef mount (full frame) but are designed for crop frame cameras; that is why they will mount on a full frame body, while canon ef-s mount lenses will not. <br>

Unfortunately I do not know if your lens would hit the mirror of a 5d or similar camera - but I am sure it is easy to find with a little research on google. Good luck.</p>