Canon 70-300 f4-5,6 IS USM or DO IS USM ?

<p>Is it sensible to upgrade an old 75-300 f4-5,6 III USM to one of the above mentioned ? Is the DO really worth the extra cost over the other one and can anyone comment on his or her expertise with these lenses?<br>

(I have been using the 75-300 a lot in the past when traveling light, and like the compactness and the light weight. I know it is not the most exquisite lens, but it has provided me with a lot of very decent travel photo's, and I think it is a good walk around /travel light lens option, certainly in some areas of the world. I am an amateur and use a 50D, and already own a 100-400L IS USM telezoom which I use for wildlife). I would be grateful for your comments.</p>

<p>I have the 70-300 DO, and love it for it's compact size and the quality of the pictures. That said, I bought the 18-200, and since purchasing it, I use that as my travel lens. For a walk around lens, the 70mm just is not wide enough. </p>

<p>If you're looking for lightweight, be sure to check out 55-250/4-5.6 IS. </p>

<p>If you're interested in a superzoom the Tamron 18-270 gets nice reviews.</p>

<p>If you want top quality but smaller than the 100-400 the 70-200/F4 IS is great.</p>

<p>The 70-300 IS (non DO) is smaller again and pretty good.</p>

<p>If you still want smaller and don't mind plastic fantastic the 55-250/IS is pretty good.</p>

<p>If you want small and tough and a zoom the 70-300 DO is pretty good but less good than the non-DO version.</p>

<p>By the way, primes in that range are also small and offer great IQ. (Think 135/2)</p>

<p>I think that the DO business in general hasn't panned out as well as Canon had hoped when they started it. From everything I've read, the main advantage of the DO version of this focal length is its size and compactness as DeLoyd says. Reviews have tended to emphasize its sensitivity to flare (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/201-canon-ef-70-300mm-f45-56-usm-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1">link</a> ), but it is otherwise considered very fine. It is an older design, however, so you might do better to look at something newer in the L line, or even the little 55-250 mentioned.</p>

<p>I have to agree with every item from Matthijs. The only one I have no personal experience with is the DO mentioned, but each of the others is excellent. I have personally landed on using the Tamron 18-270. It gives me that wide view you really need with a crop camera, but also provides the room to move in should you see something deserving a closer view. It is a very good lens. I love the 70-200 L, but again--70 is a tad too tight for a lot of vacation shots. When I'm traveling I notice what camera a person may be using, and I recently saw quite a few Tamron lenses on both Canon and Nikons. Their verson of IS by the way, works very well. </p>

<p>70-300 IS is definitely an upgrade on the 75-300 IS lens. If you are O.K with your current lens you'll be happy with the 70-300 IS. The focal range overlaps a lot with your 100-400 though.</p>

<p>I have the DO lens. I got one second hand from KEH. The first copy was horribly soft (unusably soft) at the long end, much worse than the EF-S 55-250. It also had weird stiffness to the focus ring, unlike any other USM lens I have used. So I sent it back. Sadly KEH technicians "could not duplicate the problem" and seem to have put this lens straight back into circulation.</p>

<p>The second copy is much better. In terms of IQ it is comparable to the EF-S 55-250 and non-DO EF 70-300. Its usable wide open and reaches its sharpness peak at f8 and f11. It is L quality IQ wise at the short end but a bit below it at the long end. Colours are very good and there is no CA that I can see. FTM focus works as it should.</p>

<p>The DO lens can produce odd patterned bokeh at times. I haven't experienced much in the way of flare problems with it, but it can suffer from low contrast in contra-light situations.</p>

<p>In comparison to cheaper lenses such as the non-DO 70-300 and 55-250, the thing to like about it are its ring USM, FTM, non-rotating front element, non extending front element when focussing. These features and its small size give it a fun factor in use that I didn't get from the old 75-300 IS which I used to own.</p>

<p>If you are after a cheap, small lens and can live with the build quality, then the EF-S 55-250 is optically as good, about the same length and much lighter to carry. In my judgement its stabiliser is actually a little better than the DO lens. And I am going to keep mine.</p>

<p>Why I went for the DO lens? I wanted FF capability, ring USM and wanted something smaller and stealthier than the non-DO 70-300 lens. The 100-400L was out of the question for me size wise for my needs, and consequently I was prepared to sacrifice a little optical quality. </p>

<p>The DO lens does have a genuine fun factor IMO due to its combination of features and size. Its size means that it is a lens you will never worry about taking with you. Though it is actually a little heavier than the non DO lens. It was worth it to me. </p>

<p>There do seem to be very mixed reviews about this lens, and given I have used two copies with markedly different IQ, I suspect that there must be more variability with Canon quality control with this lens than others.</p>

 

<p>I have the DO lens and bought it for it's compactness. However, I am not sure it is any lighter than other lenses in that range. Just occaisionaly it produces a strange background blur but otherwisw I am very pleased with it.</p>

<p>Review of the DO and how to use it at www.fovegraphy.com and also at www.luminous-landscape.com . I find the DO useful for travel (lengthwise), but for nature cannot be compared with 100-400. I believe performance probably not much different from non-DO.</p>

<p>Thank you all very much for your thoughts and comments. I am still in doubt, and tend to buy the non-DO version. I will have to sleep it over.<br>

Best regards.</p>