70 - 300 is Vs. 70 - 300 is DO

[simus]

Hi, I own the newer 70-300 is lens and i agree with who say it is a very good one. Does anybody know

how does this lens perform, in terms of the optic quality, compared to the 70 - 300 is DO version ?

 

thanks for looking/answering,

 

Antonio

[alexander_illich]

From what I hear there is a fair about of flare evident in the DO version of the lens, however,

if size/weight is really an issue, the flare may not that be that big of a problem.

 

Sincerely,

Alex I

[ronald_biggar]

The 70-300 DO lens is amazing. I sell Closeup photos of flowers,

usually 13 by 19 using a canon printer. The quality is fantastic.

I seldom use my 50mm macro lens anymore since the DO lens does as well

at about 12 feet.

[brucecyr]

Comparing these tests:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_4556do_is/index.htm

 

suggests the non-DO might be a tad sharper, especially at the borders. But both look pretty good to my eye.

 

Canon has done a tele (400 f4.0) and a zoom with DO, and while they're both good neither is a world beater. So maybe they need to tweak the technology before wider adoption.

[mark u]

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

[bobatkins]

There's not enough difference in optical quality to justify the large price difference.

 

The DO lens is smaller, lighter, and has a ring USM motor, faster focusing and full time manual focusing. That's essentially what you are paying for - ergonomics rather than optics.

 

Optically, I'd say that they are pretty similar and both are pretty good. I reviewed the non-DO version here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

 

The DO lens can suffer a little from flare when used wide open and shooting into the light.

[jeff_nolten]

Several people have said the 70-300 DO is lighter. Canon's specifications list the 70-300 as

22.2 oz while the 70-300 DO as 25.4 oz. Is this wrong?

[joseph_mccusker]

I think the weight numbers are correct. The DO is very compact when the zoom is fully retracted but nonetheless pretty heavy.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

The 70-300 DO probably feels lighter because it's physical length is shorter and balances on the camera body better. But yes, the non-DO version is actually lighter.

 

//Chuck

[simus]

Thank you for your help. Your answer meets what I expected. In effect, with less money you

have outstandig quality if you can live without the other features.

As for the weight I do not know which is lighter anyway the 70-300 IS is very light despite its

dimension.

 

Antonio

[bobatkins]

I was wrong about the weight. Though the DO lens is 1.7" shorter when fully retracted, it's actually about 3oz heavier.

[mendel_leisk]

Just from what I've read, the DO lens has some characteristics inherent in it's design, which may or may not be acceptable to you. Here's another review, which discusses this and gives samples:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[xavier_henri]

If you accept some post-processing, the DO is a great lens. Here are some <A HREF="http://

www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php">Tips and Tricks</A>.

<P>Xavier.

[bobatkins]

I guess the real question is whether it's worth twice the cost of the 70-300/4-5.6IS.

 

The DO lens is about the same price as the 300/4L IS, so if you're looking for absolute image quality at 300mm, there's not much of a contest there!

 

The only real advantages of the DO lens are size and a ring USM motor. Whether they're worth $600 is certainly debatable.

[simus]

Bob, that was exactly my point. Just to know if the money I'd spend more on the DO justifiy the lens quality or the others features.

Thanks to you all,

 

Ciao,

Antonio

[joe_robinson2]

Ronald mentioned that he shot flowers at about 12' with the DO, so I might say something overlooked on the 300f/4LIS is the fact that it will close focus to about 4' working distance or about +/-5' from the sensor for some very good closeups, flowers, butterflys Etc.-JoeR

[ronald_biggar]

The minimum working distance is 4.6 feet on the DO lens. I was pointing out the sharp detail at 12 feet. When I converted to digital

I went with the 17-40L, 502.5 macro and the 70-300 DO. I'm very satisfied with all of these lenses. I used to shoot Leitz and Hasselblad lenses.