70-300 DO lens has been around for a while now... the verdict?

[taner]

Hi there

<p>

EF 400/5.6L (or EF 300/4L IS) vs 70-300 IS DO?

<p>

That is my dilemma. All I have at the moment: 50/1.8 and 17-40/4L with

an XT/350D.

<p>

The DO lens has been around for a while now. I have read a few

reviews, but they are quite undecided if you ask me. The 'out of focus

areas issues', the 'highlights issues', 'lack of accutance based

sharpness', etc.

<p>

Price unfortunately is the first consideration for me. Size and weight

matter too. However, I do not mind carrying my Manfrotto 190ProB/055CL

- 488RC2 combo. I have a monopod too.

<p>

I would greatly appreciatesome feedback from people who have been

using this lens. I am interested in prints - large ones too (8x12 my

favorite size these days, well within the limits of the XT if you ask

me). If you happen to own one of the other lenses I am interested in,

and care to reflect on them comparatively - even better!

<p>

I like tele-compression! This one with the lousy EF 100-300/4.5-5.6

<p><img

src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/IMG_3231_1.jpg"></p>

<p>

Thank You very much.

[taner]

That was a 'Canadian' Bay Watch moment...

[jim_b5]

I have the 70-300 DO lens and like the quality, size and feel of the lense. It's a great walk-around or travel lense (I travel with the 17-40, 28-135 and 70-300 DO) As far as flaws or limitations are concerned, I've never felt that the lense prevented me from getting an interesting shot.

 

Is the 70-300 DO the best value in telephoto lenses? No. The 70-300 IS will take just as good pictures and costs less than half what the DO lense goes for. I got a good deal on my 70-300 DO and a great price for my 75-300 IS lense when I sold it for the DO, but I seriously doubt I would spend almost C$2000, with tax, for the 70-300 DO if I didn't somehow get a break on the price.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Must have been mid-summer; she's not wearing a parka.</p>

 

<p>I haven't used this, or the 70-300 non-DO lens; I went straight from the 100-300 USM to the 300/4L IS USM. But based on what I've read of the two 70-300s, I think you should be considering both, and possibly leaning towards the non-DO lens unless you need the compactness of the DO. That's its main selling feature. The non-DO lens is, by all accounts, a significant upgrade on the 75-300s and your 100-300 in terms of optics. Of course, the mechanical features of the non-DO are inferior to those of the DO (and your 100-300).</p>

[marknagel]

You may also want to consider the 100-400L. I have no complaints about it. Very sharp, IS, more reach.

 

Mark

[lovcom_photo]

I don't do DO anymore...I prefer the 100-400L.

[eos 10 fan]

Some well done reviews here (including both 70-300s)

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

--

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

'lack of accutance based sharpness'

 

<P>I've noticed that about the DO lens right from the start.It seems to give excellent sharpness but not in way of other modern lenses which tend to exadurate contrast at certain lines/mm.

<P>In that way it's allmost the opposite to most cheapo modern zooms which have very good accutance -for the price- but average resolution

<P>If the low contrast/accutance thing is something you don't like i recommend you look hard at the new 70-300IS .This model seems to give crisp high contrast,saturated images with very good sharpness

[gary_ferguson1]

I own a 70-300 DO lens, and I used to use the 100-400. Both lenses are okay optically when stopped down, but neither is an outstanding performer that can wow you like virtually all of Canon's prime lenses in this focal range. Wide open both lenses are moderately soft in the centres, and very soft out in the corners. In terms of performance I can't see any significant difference between them, which is pretty much what the MTF curves would predict.

 

The 70-300 really scores because it's incredibly light and portable, where as the 100-400 is a bit of a brute, especially when it's tromboned out to the 400mm end. If you're looking for a travel lens go for the 70-300, if you're trying to squeeze every last drop of quality from a tripod mounted shot then use the 300 4.0, or the 200 2.8L in conjunction with the 400 5.6L.

[bellavance]

It's my "Air Travel" Telephoto Lens. Not as sharp as the 70-200/2.8 or even the 100-400, but small and light does it for me.

 

Michael Reichmann has one and also seems to like it.

 

Pierre

[jim_larson1]

But. . .Reichman raves about everything with a Canon label on it (then again. . .so do I).

 

I agree with the above comments. I too think that the 70-300/NON-DO IS would be the logical choice.

 

I think you need one zoom in the telephoto range. Either the 70-300/IS or one of the 70-200/L lenses would be a logical choice. The 70-200/4L is very good on the budget.

 

As for 400/5.6L vs 300/4L-IS. . . .to me this sounds like a no brainer. You want the image stabilization of the 300/4L. Later, you can add a 1.4TC to the 300/4L and have an effective 420/5.6L-IS.

 

My "dream kit" would include a 70-200/4L, 1.4TC, and 300/4L-IS. (I have the first two). I have been tempted to *add* the 70-300/IS and 200/2.8L to this list. (I am a gear hog).

[vincent_j_m]

Agreed, it is compact, black and fast to focus, but at that price, I'd get a 70-300IS and a couple of primes. Personally I would not get the DO, it's a waste of money.

[john_bacon_shone]

How useful the DO is depends on how important having a lightweight and capable zoom is to

you. If weight does not matter or price is critical, then there are better choices, but this is a

useful option, in my experience.

 

John

[jespdj]

I had the 70-300 DO and sold it. The image quality was disappointing. I now have an EF 200 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC, which is much sharper and gives much better colours and contrast, and is a lot faster at f/2.8.

<p><i>EF 400/5.6L (or EF 300/4L IS) vs 70-300 IS DO?</i>

<p>You are comparing L primes against a consumer zoom? No question, the L primes win easily when looking at image quality.

<p><i>Price unfortunately is the first consideration for me. Size and weight matter too.</i>

<p>If price is your first consideration, do NOT get the 70-300 DO. It is much too expensive for what it is. Did you have a look at the new 70-300 IS (non-DO)? It gets a lot of good reviews, it's a lot cheaper than the DO and only a little bit larger. The 70-300 IS is MUCH better value for money than the DO.

<p>Also, you mention size and weight. Forget about the 300 f/4 L IS and the 400 f/5.6 L if you want a small lens that's easy to carry around all day...