70-300 DO lens

[richard_martin10]

Hello all, I've surfed around and found some info on this lens, I was hoping to get some fresh input from users of this

optic regarding sharpness, color, and contrast. How does it compare to some of your other lenses, etc. I've also

read that newer copies are much better than older ones because Canon has silently tweaked them up a bit. Thanks

in advance for your help.

[becks_panno]

Richard here is a link which may answer some of your questions.

 

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

[sattler123]

Richard, I would not bother paying extra for the DO! I used to own that lens and really was not happy with it - the (lack) of IQ does not warrant the increased price IMHO. I sold that lens and bought the 100-400 instead - what a difference. Even the very reasonably priced 70-300 (non DO version) is a better value than the DO.

[martin-s]

<p>I’ve had mine for over a year and I’m very happy with it. It’s the perfect lens to take hiking since it’s very

compact. AF is fast and the IS is excellent, build quality is excellent, too.</p>

 

<p>I’ve got a very recent copy and I’m pleased with its IQ although I believe it’s not on par with the L zooms.

It has a comparatively short minimum distance and performs very well for close-up shots. As mentioned in the

article linked above, it is very sensitive to backlighting and you might encounter strong flare under certain

circumstances. It’s soft wide open, but stopping it down by just one f-stop improves things massively. There is

visible pincushion distortion at the long end which can be a problem if there are any straight lines close to the

frame borders such as the horizon. It also exhibits visible vignetting at the long end, even stopped down, but

that is easy to correct in software.</p>

 

<p>There’s <a

href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml">another article</a> at the <i>Luminous

Landscape</i> which sums up my impressions quite well.</p>

 

<p>Personally I’m very pleased with mine. It’s got a great range, excellent AF and IS, all contained in an extremely

compact package – that’s hard to beat.</p>

[colin carron]

UInless you need the compact size I can't see why you don'yt go for the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM.

 

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review

 

In all the tests / reviews I have seen this marginally beats the DO lens and is a lot cheaper.

 

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/201-canon-ef-70-300mm-f45-56-usm-is-lab-test-report--review

[richard_martin10]

My lenses right now are a 70-200 2.8, a 400 5.6 and a 70-300 IS. I shoot mostly auto racing and after dragging around all this equipment at the last event I went to I'm thinking about making some big changes. The 70-300 IS is a pretty good optic but it lags a bit on focusing on fast moving cars. I only get about 50% keepers compared to about 80% on the L lenses. Everything about the DO lens is appealing but the mixed reviews I've read about image quality is the thing that concerns me. Short of buying one and trying it, I'm looking to the forum for some fresh input. A lot of what I've read around the internet is old info, newer reviews seem more positive so thats why I'm asking!

[martin-s]

Racing photography sure is another issue. I use mine for landscape/nature, so I can't comment. Is there any chance you could try one out before making the decision?

 

Perhaps the better option would be to trade in your 400 5.6 and a 70-300 IS and get the 100-400 L – more reach/flexibility – and keep your fast 70-200 2.8?

[matthias_meixner2]

What's wrong with your 70-200? Maybe you could try an 1.4x teleconverter to get a longer reach and still get excellent IQ.

[richard_martin10]

There is nothing wrong with either of the L lenses I'm currently using other then they weigh a ton! Dragging them around a race circuit all day for 3 days in a row is getting a bit tiresome, just looking for other possible alternatives to my current load of glass. If the DO has decent enough IQ then I would go with it and swap out the 70-200 2.8 for the F4 IS version as I never shoot in daylight at 2.8 and never use it at low light situations. The 100-400 is not an option as it is heavier then either of my 2 current L lenses, and I don't want to use a monopod as it doesn't suit my shooting style. Perhaps the F4 IS and 1.4 extender is a better combo but that is a different question to the forum members!

[photographicsafaris]

The 70-300 DOis is a fantastic lens, particularly so for walkies, however it does have a shortcoming:

You will get circular out of focus shapes on any highlights in the background, it is a sort of similar effect to

using a mirror lens. This may or may not grate you, but it is not too distracting.

 

Sooner or later it is going to find its way into my arsenal but first a new laptop.

 

I dont believe any of the 75-300 and 70-300 IMAGE STABILIZED series (without DO) match this lens in terms of

image quality. Certainly not from when I used one a few years ago. I was toying with one instead of the 100-400

but found that the extra reach was a better bet for me. What really surprised me was the detail it rendered, it

really was stunning, however (on a 300D) it produced a heavy amount of CA on the back of a swan set against dark

water. (only one test shot) Not an issue with Film.

 

Also I dont believe that canon "silently" upgraded their lens to reduce this bokeh issue. That sounds like utter

bollocks to me as everything is very well published and secrets are not kept, particularly when things are

reviewed and rated. imagine having a lens reviewed and rated as having a shortfall, then you correct it and dont

address this review... Yah right

 

Your decision to swap out the 2.8 for the f4IS and use a 1.4 is not a great one... keep the 2.8 (Unless its a

sore back thing) I have a 70-200f4 and use it occasionally with the 1.4 but For Motorsports the 70-300 DOis is a

better bet as is the 100-400 again... for Motorsports.

 

Cheers G

[xavier_henri]

Richard, rather newer copies being optimized, I believe that users have learned the specifics of Diffractive Optics... I mean that they have

good resolution, but do lack of contrast in some situations. This would have been a real problem in film times but can now be post-

processed with very good results if you expose to the right.

<P>Have a look at my <A HREF="http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php">tips and tricks</A> page.

<P>Here is the lens at its worse (300mm, f/5.6) and post-processed adequately ; full size image and 100% crop.

<A HREF="http://www.fovegraphy.com/Scratch/E001-7865withCrop">http://www.fovegraphy.com/Scratch/E001-7865withCrop</A><div></div>