Thoughts on EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS

[twertman]

<p>I am considering this lens. I am finding most of the criticism read so far to be puzzling. I have read the lens is a poor performer in low light. At f/4.5-5.6 was it intended to be good in low light? I've seen it compared to the 300 f/2.8. Hardly apples to apples as the cost comparison should reveal. It clearly beat out the 75-300 in all photo comparisons and since it costs 2x as much it very well should. Flare and halo under certain lighting conditions are the 2 most legitimate concerns IMO. Careful planning should be able to avoid those conditions. Lastly no lens is perfect and no lens does it all. So it seems to me that the pros of compactness, travel capabilities, fast AF, all around general purpose walk around lens capabilities with IS outweigh the cons I have read. Interestingly many of the negatives are coming from people who admittedly do not own the lens. But owners seem to be pleased in general. I recently sold a 300 f/4L because it was hardly on my body. An all purpose zoom w/ 300 capability would be on my body much more. For those who actually own this lens am I being logical or not? BTW I am thinking used vs. new to better justify the cons of this lens.</p>

[garymoncur]

<p>Your points are all carefully considered and well thought out and your views balancing cost/quality/usability are spot on. I think you have asked and answered your own questions here. Go get the lens and enjoy your photography and dont get too bogged down with pixel peeper reviews and no I dont own either of the lenses. Consider what you need/want, buy what you can afford and have fun isn't that what photography as a hobby is all about?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The DO lenses were designed to make the package smaller and more portable. If you need that, it is worth the price. Otherwise, you need to look, not at the old EF 75-300 IS, but at its replacement the EF 70-300mm IS (not the DO version).<br>

The last I checked I think they were supplying the lens hood (ET-65B) with the DO lens.</p>

<p>As Gary says, you've done the homework on it.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Very few people had a positive opinion of the 75~300IS, which is presumably the lens with which you are comparing the 70~300DO IS. A more relevant comparison is with the successor of the 75~300IS, namely the non-DO 70~300IS, which is still current. That lens has been well received in terms of optical quality, and certainly avoids the two issues that affect DO lenses, namely onion-ring out-of-focus highlights and low contrast. It is in a budget-style mounting (no focus scale, rotating front element, non-ring USM) and deserves better. It is longer than the DO lens (when both are closed up) but lighter and slimmer.</p>

<p>For the sort of silly money that the DO lens now costs, you could nearly buy a 70~200/4L IS and an Extender 1.4× II, which is what I have in that range. OK, it's a bit heavier and quite a bit bigger, but if you want something that really delivers top optical performance it's the way to go.</p>

[adam_gifford]

<p>If money was no object, for a black, compact travel lens I'd get the DO. I'd rather have a ring-usm lens, than a micromotor-USM that the non-do has.<br>

But, money is an issue, so the non-DO was what i purchased. I though it was a very good value at ~$500. I can live without ring-usm for half the price.<br>

Ive been pretty happy with the optical quality of my 70-300 non-do.</p>

 

[rddelliott]

<p> The 70-300 DO is one of my most used lenses. I do not own the non-DO version so I cannot comment. Most of the detractors in my opinion probably have not used the lens. My copy is very sharp but does require slightly different post processing. The lens can be found used for $850 and come up on FM from time to time. I would not hesitate to buy this lens for the reasons you have suggested. You might find this website interesting. http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I have the 70-300 non-DO and am very impressed with it in relation to its cost. Several reviews say that its quality up to 200mm rivals the 70-200 f4 lenses, with differences being at the edges and corners. Above 200mm the quality starts to fall off a bit. Its focus tracking works very well once locked on but AF - I am talking here about birds and other fast-moving subjects.<br>

I have not used the DO version but it is supposed to be slightly better quality, smaller and, as mentioned, has the ring-USM giving faster AF. But I don't particularly like 'onion ring' highlights so, given I am happy with the lens I have, I have no burning desire for the DO lens and I would rather sacrifice the extra 100mm and get the f4L IS.</p>

<p>Regarding the low light performance, many cameras need lenses of f5.6 or wider for autofocus to work reliably so above 200mm [the non-DO] will tend to hunt. I don't think the DO version will be any better.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Very few people had a positive opinion of the 75~300IS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true, but it wasn't a complete bow-wow either. I have one that I bought a month or so before the new one came out. It has served me well enough that I have not upgraded it to the undoubtedly better 70-300. No wonder I got such a good deal on it though! ;)</p>

[twertman]

<p>Thanks Robert for the "owners point of view". The website link you provided is very helpful.<br>

To the other suggestions: I also own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS w/1.4 Ext. and use it almost exclusively for my son's hockey and daughter's Lacrosse with a monopod. Great IQ but not something I want to carry on vacation. I actually sold the 70-300 non DO to get it because indoor hockey rinks are poorly lit and the f/2.8 works very well. My walk around now is a 5D with the 24-105 f/4L IS and is a great lens but leaves a little more reach desireable at times. Combined with the 70-300 DO I would have a easy to carry kit covering just about anything for travel. So far nothing has convinced me otherwise.</p>

 

[phule]

<p>[[Go get the lens and enjoy your photography and dont get too bogged down with pixel peeper reviews]]</p>

<p>Well said! :)</p>

[davidhay]

<p>I wrote the reviews of this lens on Photo.net.<br>

<a href="../equipment/canon/70-300do/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/</a><br>

<a href="../equipment/canon/70-300do_2/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/</a><br>

I read them again today and still feel the points I made were valid. I have since sold my DO lens and bought the 70-300 IS which is half the price and sharper at 300mm at f5.6.</p>

[twertman]

<p>Controversial lens for sure. I know looking at photos on the tube is not the best test, but there are tons of images that look really good. The bad ones are used to represent negative issues that can't be denied. I still see more pros than cons which I think is normal for any lens.</p>

[rddelliott]

<p>Tom:<br>

One of the things I always do to give any lens a chance is send it to Canon Service to have it calibrated. My 70-300DO improved significantly after calibration. I feel sometimes Canon manufacturing is a little sloppy with their QC. My 24-70 new was way out of calibration from the factory. My 5D II and my 1D Mark IV are also calibrated. There is one currently on FM for sale. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/919592</p>

[twertman]

<p>Robert,<br>

How much has a service call cost you in the past? I assume you absorbed the shipping too.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Tom</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>I feel sometimes Canon manufacturing is a little sloppy with their QC.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is one of those lazy comments that seems to get a lot of airplay. A company like Canon will have their QC procedures and will follow them - when manufacturing high-tech products a poor QC procedure is one very quick way to ruin. Whether you agree with the tolerances that Canon define in their QC is a different question and the millions of satisfied customers suggests that they are 'good enough'.</p>

[rddelliott]

<p>Tom:<br>

I am a CPS member and Canon pays my shipping to and from the service center. I do not know the cost of service as i have all of my equipment checked either under warranty or with clean and check certificates.<br>

Mike:<br>

My reason for that comment is that over 50% of my brand new equipment requires adjustment by Canon Service. Not "a lazy comment" based on my experience.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Robert, do you have any shots done in a controlled environment before and after the adjustments to show the effect?</p>

[rddelliott]

<p>Matthias:<br>

I did not keep any photos of before and after. I sent both the 1D mark III and my 70-300 DO at the same time. There was a definite improvement upon their return from Canon Service. I now have a Mark IV and a 5DII and the lens performs equally well on both bodies.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>No, this is indeed not a low-light lens, but that's obvious with an opening of 4.5-5.6.<br>

The two main issues are its tendency to flare in backlit situations (as mentioned before) and quite pronounced pincushion distortion at the long end.</p>

<p>On the plus side it has excellent IS and the AF is very fast. And I appreciate its compact size and solid build – there's just nothing comparable if you're looking for a compact hiking kit. As to image quality, I've taken shots of the same subject with the 70-300 DO and the 100 macro for comparison, and it's impossible to tell the difference. The DO lens actually does quite impressive close-ups, not as close as the 100 macro, but with much more working distance.</p>