Canon EF DO 4,5-5,6/70-300 IS

[sami_lahtinen]

How would you compare the picture quality from Non-L lens: Canon EF DO 4,5-

5,6/70-300 IS

 

to L-series zooms (say 70-200 L f4)?

 

WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE Canon EF DO 70-300 LENS AS A GENERAL PURPOSE ZOOM?

 

 

I HAVE THE eos 400D (XTi) BODY

 

Thanks

[William Michael]

>>> WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE Canon EF DO 70-300 LENS AS A GENERAL PURPOSE ZOOM? I HAVE THE eos 400D (XTi) BODY <<<

 

No, not for `general purpose`: this lens is too long and too slow (aperture).

 

But if your `general purpose` means shooting medium distant and mostly still objects in sunlight, then the lens would be quite fine.

 

WW

[zigzag]

With both these lenses, using the minimum focal length on your 400D, the effective focal length is going to be 112mm which is more 'zoom' than what is generally regarded as 'general purpose'. As always it depends on what type of photography you envisage using it for. <br><br>

 

The 70-200mm L f/4 is constant f/4, is it is still f/4 at the long end which means it has a 1 stop advantage over the 70-300 IS but of course the DO lens has a longer focal length and IS. This DO lens is twice the price of the equivalent non DO lens and just a little bit more expensive than the 70-200mm f/4 L IS, which now includes IS and f/4 at the long end.<br><br>

 

I have the 70-200mm f/4 (non IS) and find it excellent but miss the IS. The DO I don't own and can't comment on. I see that the 70-200mm f/2.8, non IS is cheaper than the 70-300mm DO, IS and this is the one I would lean towards if I was buying (unless I could afford the f/2.8, including IS). <br<br>

 

Take a look at the lens reviews at http://www.photozone.de to compare them.

[cgo]

Have a look at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">PhotoZone Reviews</a>

[mars c]

"WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE Canon EF DO 70-300 LENS AS A GENERAL PURPOSE ZOOM? "

 

I WOONNNNT.

 

I cant imagine that lens to be a general purpose lens, It simply is too tele.

[jakobl]

I have the EF DO 4,5-5,6/70-300 IS for allmost two years now and recently bought the 70-200 L f4 IS.<br>

<p>With the DO you can make good pictures as long as the sun is shining and you put it to f7.1. Really many of my pictures taken with this lens are simply not sharp. On the other hand the 70-200 L f4 IS is excellent in sharpness, contrast and colours. The only point for the DO is the size. If you need a lense that fits into a small bag the DO is a good tele zoom otherwise the 70-200 L f4 IS is superior in allmost every aspect (of course its shorter).</p>

<p>By the way I agree that its no general purpose zoom.<br>

For that I would recommend the 24-105 L IS F4.</p>Greetings Jakob

[phule]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml

[tommyinca]

I use this lens since the 1st month it came up. Paid $1300 for it too, ouch! I wouldn't call this lens general purpose. It is more like a specialized "short" compact 70-300 tele. For that you pay $500 more then the non-DO version. So specialized that no one else make a lens like this one.

 

If you plan to compare this lens with 100% pixel crop plus minimal sharpening on camera JPEG format to the 70-200/4L, don't. Save yourself some trouble and money and buy the 70-200 plus a 1.4X TC and keep the changes. The 70-300DO however is capable of taking good pictures. For some reasons, it take sharpening better then other lens. This lens compare better at print level with real life subjects instead of chart or brick wall. Still don't expect it to be better than the 70-200.

 

There is also a little "big bonus" with this lens. Its 58mm filters and the CA correction DO optics for some reason made it fairly compatible with Olympus' B300 1.7X front tele-converter (using a stop down ring). With it you get a 120-510 f8 or so zoom. Note: Don't even think about compare IQ to the 500/4 but this is an valid option comparing to digi-scopeing. You lose AF and some contrast/sharpness but retain IS. I tried the Olympus on other lens and the corner CA is horrific but with this lens, it can be tame with PS. It is a much faster and portable set up than digi-scopeing

[tommyinca]

Add info, With the B300, you would want to use a 1.6x body. With a full frame like 5d, a small corner needs to be crop out due to the step down ring cause a little bit of vigitnet.

[sergio_raynal]

While this lens is not the optically best option compared to the 70-200 F/2.8, it is an

outstanding tele-zoom once you factor in some of its other outstanding attributes, i.e.:

size, weight and stealth (non-white). In other words, it is an excellent lens for traveling.

 

Now, if you compare it to the new 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS, the latter is optically just as good

and cheaper. But the DO has Full Time Manual focus, non-rotating front element and

faster autofocus.

 

At $1,100+ it is an expensive lens, but you may consider a Refurbished or used for $900

from Adorama. After much research I went this way and am totally satisfaied wit the DO

lens.

 

Just be aware that the design of this lens is very different from conventional, so you must

have some different considerations when using it. The following link goes deeply into

how to use it at it's best. <http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php>

 

Regards, Sergio

[sergio_raynal]

Re. my previous posting.

 

If the link doesn't work look for some characters that may appear after .php and remove

them.

[mendel_leisk]

The "DO" in Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS stands for "Diffractive Optics". Due to this the lens can produce concentric circle patterns in out-of-focus highlights, and a duffuse glow around bright edges. Very compact though.

 

Here's another review:

 

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