IS Zooms: 70-200f4L IS or 70-300 DO IS?

[jnevin]

Selling my 70-200f4L to buy an IS zoom. The 70-200f4L IS and 70-300 DO IS are priced at around the same level. I really think I would make use of the comapct size and extra reach of the DO. I understand that the IQ of the DO isn't up to L standard according to some reviewers. Others, however, seem to be very happy with it. What to forum users think?
BTW the 70-200f2.8 non-IS is available at around the same price but the lens is far too heavy for casual use.

[Ephemeral]

From what I've seen the 70-200 F4 IS provides the better image quality of the two. However, the 70-300 DO is much smaller and therefore much more inconspicuous.

If it was me choosing between the two, I'd go for the 70-200 because I want the quality, and I don't need the extra reach.

[mrfourcows]

i say go safe and get the 7-2 f/4 IS. its longer, ay, but it also has more advantages such as weather sealing, internal zooming, larger aperture and also a better IS system.

[Double Negative]

The 70-200mm will likely give you better, more predictable images - but the 70-300mm is a fantastic travel lens due to its size (though it's not as light as it looks).

[Andrew Pratt]

Look at the 70-300 USM IS instead of th DO. Its half the price (same as your 70-200L)

[Fobby_Monkey]

I also heard the 70-300 is sharper then the DO version.

for myself.. i went with the 7-2 F4 IS. It's even sharper then the 2.8 IS

[jnevin]

Any 70-300 DO supporters out there?

[bungee]

Missed this one so here's my two penny worth.

70-300 is a great travel lens but needs some PP to get maximum results. When that's done it's as sharp as a tack. Canon themselves tout it as having L quality optics. It's not as contrasty as an L lens which can give the impression of not being as sharp, yet for digital photography this may not be such a bad thing. I quote from http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php...."when shooting digital, a very contrasted lens is not always desirable as the sensor response is linear as opposed to film which compresses extreme shadows and highlights in a nice "S" curve. My 17-40 L has very contrasted UD glass, and sometimes gives me hardly usable RAW files with saturated highlights and poorly detailed shadows...

With the 30D you can create a recipe in Canon's DPP software and apply it automatically in camera when the DO lens is used (or so I understand). That would limit the amount of PP you need to do.

The 3rd generation IS is VERY impressive with the addition of panning mode (stabilises only the vertical) and tripod sensing (cancels vibrations).

This lens is not for everyone. There is a great write up and decision tree here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224053

Incidentally I love using this lens and am thinking of gluing it to my 400D.:lol:

I hope this helps. Here are a couple of shots from this lens

[ggw2000]

Missed this one so here's my two penny worth.

70-300 is a great travel lens but needs some PP to get maximum results. When that's done it's as sharp as a tack. Canon themselves tout it as having L quality optics. It's not as contrasty as an L lens which can give the impression of not being as sharp, yet for digital photography this may not be such a bad thing. I quote from http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php...."when shooting digital, a very contrasted lens is not always desirable as the sensor response is linear as opposed to film which compresses extreme shadows and highlights in a nice "S" curve. My 17-40 L has very contrasted UD glass, and sometimes gives me hardly usable RAW files with saturated highlights and poorly detailed shadows...

With the 30D you can create a recipe in Canon's DPP software and apply it automatically in camera when the DO lens is used (or so I understand). That would limit the amount of PP you need to do.

The 3rd generation IS is VERY impressive with the addition of panning mode (stabilises only the vertical) and tripod sensing (cancels vibrations).

This lens is not for everyone. There is a great write up and decision tree here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224053

Incidentally I love using this lens and am thinking of gluing it to my 400D.:lol:

I hope this helps. Here are a couple of shots from this lens


I have both lenses and they serve a different pupose. The F4 IS is an incredibly sharp lens and the colors/contrast is really super. Even slapping on a Canon 1.4x TC doesn't reduce it's characteristics much. The only problem is that it is white and longer in length. But an advantage is that it doesn't extend when zoomed and is weather sealed as noted.
The DO is a great travel lens. As noted above it does need help with contrast in post. If you do PP on your pics then this is not a problem. I have found that on mine it's best sharpness is at F8 or above. A lot of folks don't seem to like it because of the needed post or are going by "hearsay" as happens alot in forums.
I have compared both of these on my 30D.
Gerry

[nicksan]

While the 70-200 f4IS is bigger than the 70-300 DO, it's still very "bagg-able".

If you want uncompromising IQ, then go with the 70-200.
If you need the extra reach, you can always use a 1.4x extender.

[ggw2000]

Here is a link to some pics I took with the DO when I first got it last June. They were taken with an XT with no PP. The ones that say "RAW to JPG" might have some PP (don't remember). They are nothing special but just general around the house pics that may give you a something to look at :) .. Gerry

http://imageevent.com/crazycritter/70300mmdo?z=3&l=0&c=3&n=1&m=-1&w=4&x=0&p=3

[bungee]

Here is a link to some pics I took with the DO when I first got it last June. They were taken with an XT with no PP. The ones that say "RAW to JPG" might have some PP (don't remember). They are nothing special but just general around the house pics that may give you a something to look at :) .. Gerry

http://imageevent.com/crazycritter/70300mmdo?z=3&l=0&c=3&n=1&m=-1&w=4&x=0&p=3

Love the hummingbird shots.

I find this lens incredibly versatile and being so light and compact it is my favourite walk around lens. From 5am to 8am on Sunday I walked around London with the camera/lens attached to a Gitzo 1157 CF tripod with light-weight ball head all carried neatly in one hand. That's 2.5kg all up.

A couple more pics....

[Lightstream]

The DO is a very capable lens in the right hands.. meaning those who will take the time to work with it in post and get optimum quality from it. I've worked with the DO before but lazy ole me who hates PP and shoots JPEG likes the results from the 724 IS better. Takes a TC, even a Kenko TC, without missing a beat, and it is reasonably small. I like the smoother feel of the zoom ring, takes less effort to move and has a linear 'feel' throughout, unlike the DO which is heavier at some points and lighter at others. But really these are the small things. To other people, the size and black color of the DO (plus its 'stealth' capabilities) are very much prized. The weight of both lenses is very similar, so we can take that out of the equation. The 724ISL is long, the DO is fat. The L has a focus limiter (important to me when tracking in AI Servo at longer working distances), the DO does not. The L is weather sealed, the DO is not. The L is constant aperture, but the DO does not require you to fumble with a teleconverter that must be manually installed and removed.

Which is important to you? I've tried to lay out a balanced picture but at the end of the day only you can decide what criteria are important.

[calicokat]

I'd go with the L for looks :eek:

[Prydain]

I have DO and like it a lot. Bought it because of size and inconspicuous nature. Don't use a UV filter on it but keep a CP on. Definitely use a hood but keep it inverted most of the time when walking around. Like the zoom lock but have 'over-riddin' it on an occasion or two with no ill effects. Use it with a Kenko 1.4X TC and in good light it does well. The Kenko appears to be a good match from IQ standpoint.

Haven't done much PP, but have seen positive results; plan to do more as I make more use of it. Definitely a learning curve, but well worth the effort.

Where the cost kind of gauled me a bit, I expect the R&D costs have got to be played off somewhere. Cyberdyne does have one for sale at this time. Certainly don't see these come up very often used.

Mel

[Leorooster]

I have the DO. It's a great travel / walk-about lens as mentioned above. With a bit of PP work, images taken with the DO fly. I owned the 70-200 (no-IS), but it's just not easy to walk around with it in NYC :rolleyes: The 70-200 and the DO are just two different lenses for different needs, IMHO.

[ekt]

Here is a little review I did on the DO I got about a week ago. I like it alot. There is definitely a need to do pp to get the best out of the image. Its compactness and stealthiness was a deciding factor for me.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=310446

[bungee]

I have DO and like it a lot. Bought it because of size and inconspicuous nature. Don't use a UV filter on it but keep a CP on. Definitely use a hood but keep it inverted most of the time when walking around. Like the zoom lock but have 'over-riddin' it on an occasion or two with no ill effects. Use it with a Kenko 1.4X TC and in good light it does well. The Kenko appears to be a good match from IQ standpoint.

Haven't done much PP, but have seen positive results; plan to do more as I make more use of it. Definitely a learning curve, but well worth the effort.

Where the cost kind of gauled me a bit, I expect the R&D costs have got to be played off somewhere. Cyberdyne does have one for sale at this time. Certainly don't see these come up very often used.

Mel

CP ? What's that ? :confused:

[Prydain]

CP ? What's that ? :confused:

Circular Polarizer


Mel

[bungee]

Never was much good with acronyms. Tks

[ScottE]

If I needed top image quality, a wide aperture and image stabilization and lens bulk and weight was not a concern, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be my choice.

If I needed a compact lens with longer telephoto capablility, the 70-300 DO fills a unique place in a kit for travel or backpacking

The 70-200 f/4 is a compromise between those two extremes. It is a little large for a compact travel kit and is not a fast for low light photography. Often autofocus usually works better with an f/2.8 lens so it is not quite as good for sports.

[bungee]

There is an erroneous assumption that the DO lens doesn't produce top quality images. This is based on some of the early reviewers not understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this lens or the proper PP required to bring out the best in the images. More considered or more thorough reviewers rate it very highly indeed.

Don't use a UV filter and do a micro-contrast adjustment - this lens is not contrasty like some L lenses - and the end results are excellent. The images come out pin sharp and CA is virtually eliminated by the Diffractive Optics. Canon themselves rate the 70-300 DO lens as having L quality optics. This is no more than what would be expected of a professional standard lens.

As for the IS - this lens has 3rd generation IS with panning modes and tripod detection. Its AF is fast, accurate and silent. For many photo journalists this lens has become a must have for the travel bag.

The 70-300 DO lens is aimed at those who need a compact lens with excellent optical quality and are not prepared to compromise. The price reflects this. As a travel lens it has no peer.

Attached image & crop of original taken on 400D @ f/5.6 (wide open) 1/320 sec 160mm. Sorry these are 44 & 48 KB catalogue images as I'm too lazy to re-process them.

[mrfourcows]

say bungee, have you ever used the 70-300mm IS USM (non-DO) before? if so, what are your views as compared to the DO model?

[jgjulio]

I love my DO. The size is right. With a little PP the photos come out so sharp that they will cut you!

[Buttkicker]

My very good friend has a DO Lens and I have used it a few times and would definatly NOT buy one - the image quality is just not good enough

the 50mm cheapo prime is far sharper - as is every Lens in my collection
the only good I can say about it is that it is great for traveling etc
but that is not a necessity for me.

I want outright quality and the DO although nice.. its not in the same League as the others mentioned in this thread, it is way overpriced and does not hold its value compared to other L Lenses
my 2p
Chris

[ScottE]

My very good friend has a DO Lens and I have used it a few times and would definatly NOT buy one - the image quality is just not good enough

the 50mm cheapo prime is far sharper - as is every Lens in my collection
the only good I can say about it is that it is great for traveling etc
but that is not a necessity for me.

I want outright quality and the DO although nice.. its not in the same League as the others mentioned in this thread, it is way overpriced and does not hold its value compared to other L Lenses
my 2p
Chris

If outright quality is your only criteria you are not going to use any zoom lens. As a matter of fact you are not going to use any 35 mm based camera system because superior image quality is always available with medium and large format camera systems.

Image quality is always a compromise with other factors such as cost, convenience, portability and speed of use. The compromise that is best is going to depend on the needs of the user.

[Buttkicker]

Image quality is always a compromise with other factors such as cost, convenience, portability and speed of use. The compromise that is best is going to depend on the needs of the user

I agree, but my 70-200f4 is sharper than the DO and half the price - hence I would never buy the DO under any circumstance

[mrfourcows]

I love my DO. The size is right. With a little PP the photos come out so sharp that they will cut you!

julio, any samples?

[JohnJ80]

Image quality is always a compromise with other factors such as cost, convenience, portability and speed of use. The compromise that is best is going to depend on the needs of the user

I agree, but my 70-200f4 is sharper than the DO and half the price - hence I would never buy the DO under any circumstance

Amen. the 70-200 f/4L IS just might be the best tele zoom that Canon makes. On top of that it is light and small. I have a hard time understanding how a relatively modest size difference makes up for all that.

Look at the photozone tests of both lenses. They are not even close - big differences in sharpness.

J

[bungee]

Amen. the 70-200 f/4L IS just might be the best tele zoom that Canon makes. On top of that it is light and small. I have a hard time understanding how a relatively modest size difference makes up for all that.

Look at the photozone tests of both lenses. They are not even close - big differences in sharpness.

J

The size difference between the DO and the 70-200 f/4L is actually quite marked. As stated earlier in this thread, the DO is great if you need light,small,inconspicuous,range and performance for travel, but you do need to learn how to pp correctly to get optimum results. Those who meet these criteria and take the time to learn the lens - and it takes more than a few days - love it.

[gasrocks]

Get the 70-200/4 IS and a 1.4x. Great quaity, nice size and weight.

[JohnJ80]

The size difference between the DO and the 70-200 f/4L is actually quite marked. As stated earlier in this thread, the DO is great if you need light,small,inconspicuous,range and performance for travel, but you do need to learn how to pp correctly to get optimum results. Those who meet these criteria and take the time to learn the lens - and it takes more than a few days - love it.

The lens is not sharp in comparison. Putting "sharpness" in via post processing does not make up for the overall lack of sharpness on this lens. If you accept this, then you buy this lens solely for the size and appearance.



J.

[ScottE]

The lens is not sharp in comparison. Putting "sharpness" in via post processing does not make up for the overall lack of sharpness on this lens. If you accept this, then you buy this lens solely for the size and appearance.
J.

What do you base this statement on John? The 70-300 DO may not be quite as sharp as the 70-200, but my copy is a reasonably sharp lens. I could make a good looing 13x19 inch print out of this picture, if my printer had not died. I might make a 16x20 if I get an Epson 3800 to replace it.

Scott

[Buttkicker]

Scott
Your example does not exactly jump of the page with the viewers going WOW... I hate getting into debates like this when people have spent a lot of money on there respective kits etc
but the fact remains that the DO is not in the same class as any of the L lenses
the only thing that really matters is that if you are happy with what your Lens does for you... great,
but after having used one pretty often, I would not get one, or advise any one of my friends to Buy one
it just is not worth the money, and it is not cheap
Chris

[JohnJ80]

What do you base this statement on John? The 70-300 DO may not be quite as sharp as the 70-200, but my copy is a reasonably sharp lens. I could make a good looing 13x19 inch print out of this picture, if my printer had not died. I might make a 16x20 if I get an Epson 3800 to replace it.

Scott

See the photozone reviews and look at the MTF charts:
for the 70-300:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_4556do_is/index.htm
for the 70-200 f/4L IS
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm

The best of the 70-300's MTF is not even better than the worst of the 70-200. These two lenses are in not in the same class when it comes to sharpness.

If you don't have detail in the initial capture, no amount of post processing is going to put it in. It will bring up edges etc... but this is not the same as putting the original detail into the image.

Whether the end product after all that work is a nice image or not is a an art question. That being said, it is easier to start with lots of detail and get rid of it than to try an add it through post processing.

The quality of the image from the 70-200 f/4L IS considerably better than for the 70-300.

J

[ScottE]

See the photozone reviews and look at the MTF charts:
for the 70-300:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_4556do_is/index.htm
for the 70-200 f/4L IS
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm

The best of the 70-300's MTF is not even better than the worst of the 70-200. These two lenses are in not in the same class when it comes to sharpness.

If you don't have detail in the initial capture, no amount of post processing is going to put it in. It will bring up edges etc... but this is not the same as putting the original detail into the image.

Whether the end product after all that work is a nice image or not is a an art question. That being said, it is easier to start with lots of detail and get rid of it than to try an add it through post processing.

The quality of the image from the 70-200 f/4L IS considerably better than for the 70-300.

J

MTFs do not measure real life lens performance. They are just a measure of contrast on a black and white target, which is something I never shoot. The only important factor to me is whether or not I can get a sharp enlargement, and the DO is capable of that if I do my job. (Not since I quit biathlon about 20 years ago.) I agree that it is not quite as sharp as my 70-200/2.8, but the image quality is similar to a 100-400 L.

The DO lens is sharp enough for real life use and is much more compact to carry when travelling, which is the reason you would choose this lens over a 70-200.

[JohnJ80]

Last time I checked the ability to reproduce contrast and the ability to resolve detail are two of the most important characteristics of a lens.

The comparison is between the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 70-300 DO. There is little doubt that the 70-200 f/4L IS is a much better lens for image quality.

If you buy your lenses for size and color of the lens then the 70-300 is for you. On this we agree.

If you buy them for image quality, then there really is little question which is the better lens and by how much - in that case one should by the 70-200 f/4L IS.

J.

[gdl357]

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/73v72f4is

[JohnJ80]

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/73v72f4is

I believe that is not the DO version, it is the non-DO version. Different lens.

J

[gdl357]

I believe that is not the DO version, it is the non-DO version. Different lens.

J

Oops. HA
Soz, I don't know much about non-L lens.

All I can say is I just picked up the 70-200 4L IS (and got rid of my non IS copy) and have used it on some 30+ shots of ducks with my Kenko 1.4x and I could not be happier with this combo. IS copy is sharper.

I cannot believe how sharp my pics are with the TC.

When I purchase a lens, I look for build quality above all. Not to impressed with the non "L" lens Canon makes. All my lens were Sigma including my flashes. Build quality is why I come over to Canon "L".

[JohnJ80]

plus you get typically high image quality too.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is arguably Canon's tele zoom right now.

J.

[bungee]

See also http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm which highlights that the DO lens is weakest at 300mm but performs very well in resolution (LP/mm) tests otherwise. Indeed Canon themselves claim the DO lens performance is L quality.

In discussing sharpness it's important to remember that there are two components of sharpness, resolution and acutance (contrast of near or adjacent pixels). Resolution cannot be improved in pp but acutance can through sharpening tools. This may be why the DO lens responds so well to micro-contrast adjustment. Resolution is an actual measurment of fine detail while sharpness is how 'sharp' an image LOOKS. You can have a high resolution low contrast image that will look a softer than a lower resolution, higher contrast image.

In the end though the buying decision between these two lenses comes down to size. The 70-300 DO lens is nearly half the size of the 70-200 f/4 L IS. If that ticks your box then it's the lens for you, otherwise I'd buy the 70-200. I've grabbed many sneaky shots with the DO lens that I simply would not have been able to take had I approached my subject with a big white(ish) lens. What's more I feel comfortable walking around with it all day and couldn't imagine a more useful lens to travel with.

I'm not doubting the 70-200 f/4 L IS ability. I believe it is a superb lens and optically better than the 70-300 DO. Heck, it's optically better than a lot of very good lenses :lol: but that's only one factor in choosing a lens. It all depends on the job at hand.