70-300mm DO IS .....really that bad?

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens Review

 

this one

 

 

I have read reviews and watched videos assessment of this lens and everyone says avoid because the sharpness is not good at all and contrast is poor. I dont know about contrast, but I have seen videos of poor sharpness at a 100% crop on a 5d series.

 

However, I will only be shooting film with this lens on my eos 620. In that camera I use XP2 primarily and occasionally some cheap color film like superia etc. I have better lens for slides and more expensive color negative film, and use a different camera for that as well. I generally don't care about sharpness with these films that much as am mostly shooting for that film "mood" whatever that is. This gets tossed in my backpack every day and stays with me. XP2 has decent contrast and good sharpness I think, and often I will use filters even on top of this.

 

Things I like:

Very small for what it is

IS

Build quality seems great and its heavy. I dont mind that its heavier

 

 

Most every reviewer says avoid this lens after they zoom in and do the 100% crops, but honestly, I will be sharing scans on Instagram or if I do optically print it probably wont be anything more than 8x10.

 

 

So my question is, this is obviously a special lens because of the construction and element. But besides the small size, is there any other benefit optically to this lens? Colors? Micro-contrast (is that even real)? Low Flare/abberations/distortion?

 

If anyone has this and uses it on film, do tell!

I had a 70-300 DO lens soon after it was first produced and liked for it's compactness and it's light weight. I never found any issues as far as contrast etc. but I did notice a strange bokeh in those out of focus areas. Most of the time it was hardly noticeable.

Maybe you should take a look instead at the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM, for which the same reviewer gives very good comments.

 

I bought it last year and am very satisfied.

There are variations to this lens with some claiming they are not that bad and while that might be true, I spent an entire day shooting with a variation of the 70-300 mm and it was one of the worst and memorable experiences I ever had. I was shocked that a company like Canon would ever put such a lens on the market. Edited February 8, 2019 by hjoseph7

There are variations to this lens with some claiming they are not that bad and while that might be true, I spent an entire day shooting with a variation of the 70-300 mm and it was one of the worst and memorable experiences I ever had. I was shocked that a company like Canon would ever put such a lens on the market.

 

 

Wow.

 

Ok, noted. So if it was that bad, what is the point of The fresnel design then? Are there no other advantages than just being smaller?

So if it was that bad, what is the point of The fresnel design then? Are there no other advantages than just being smaller?

 

DO allows the design to be more compact and lighter weight, with fewer elements to achieve a given level of correction of chromatic aberration. However, there are drawbacks of lower contrast, more flare, less pleasant out of focus rendering and perhaps not quite as high sharpness as the best optics. It's a tradeoff. More recent DO lenses such as the 400/4 DO II have a good reputation, though, and it's likely that more DO lenses are in the development pipeline.

Yes DO optics and zooms do not seem to make very happy combinations. For primes it is (now) another story.

Wow.

 

Ok, noted. So if it was that bad, what is the point of The fresnel design then? Are there no other advantages than just being smaller?

No, actually the design is not that bad. It's not the sturdiest lens in the world, but the build quality is not bad. I was assigned this lens during a sports photo shoot several years ago. The other 2 photographers had to lug the Canon 400 mm f2.8 lens around, so I was kind of glad that they gave me the 70-300 mm which is relatively light(all plastic). This would allow me to move around and take more personal and close-up shots(sans-tripod).

Unfortunately, when we compared our pictures at the end of the shoot, it was like night and day. The colors and contrast were just not there on the 70-300 mm. Also, it could not handle haze very well. Some pictures looked like 'cut-out cartoons' rather pictures, I'm not sure how to explain it ? Not all the pictures came out bad, but the percentage of keepers was pretty low.

Edited February 9, 2019 by hjoseph7

No, actually the design is not that bad. It's not the sturdiest lens in the world, but the build quality is not bad. I was assigned this lens during a sports photo shoot several years ago. The other 2 photographers had to lug the Canon 400 mm f2.8 lens around, so I was kind of glad that they gave me the 70-300 mm which is relatively light(all plastic). This would allow me to move around and take more personal and close-up shots(sans-tripod).

Unfortunately, when we compared our pictures at the end of the shoot, it was like night and day. The colors and contrast were just not there on the 70-300 mm. Also, it could not handle haze very well. Some pictures looked like 'cut-out cartoons' rather pictures, I'm not sure how to explain it ? Not all the pictures came out bad, but the percentage of keepers was pretty low.

 

 

Maybe a polarized warming filter would help that.....? Keep in mind I shoot film.

 

 

But, you know, I think I have probably heard enough haha.

Sorry I an bit late to the party but I would not give up on this lens yet. It is nice to have a full-frame lens of this reach that is so compact. I have 40" photos on my walls that are crystal sharp with beautiful color. The lens new is overpriced but you can pick up great deals on Fred Miranda for 1/2 the cost. This is a specialist lens though and there are certain things you need to do to get the best out of it, I think this article describes it best:

 

EF 70-300 DO IS USM Tips and Tricks (Fovea)

Judging by the test site. The original Canon EF 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM is one of those "sleeper" lenses, that is extremely good for what it is, and very cheap. Also much lighter than it's current alternatives. It easily competes with all the 70-300, and 100-300 lenses. Unfortunately IS, in the modern lenses degrades image quality substantially. The only one of these zooms that beats it at more focal lengths/apertures is the 70-300 L IS, but I would take the 70-200/4 L or 70-200/4 L IS over this lens everyday.

Just to note that the lens was not really intended for everyday use. It was a 'special' for people who really needed a compact lens. Time has passed it by.

 

Sometimes special purposes make the compromises bearable (as with most f/1.2 lenses)

 

DO lenses are another case.