Opinions? EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

[metsuyan]

Does anyone have any useful opinions/experience with this lense?
I was thinking of getting it do to it's compact nature for a zoom telephoto and was wondering about its quality.

Also what is the "diffractive optics" all about?

Thanks for your help...

[jerrypeisen]

Read this entire article. I have one and I like it very much.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

Jerry

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

I have one as well, great lens.

Owl hunting last week and attached a few pictures in
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56878

Out again tomorrow.

Great lens for hiking.

[Nic]

I also have one and it the "standard" lens on my MkII

[zipart]

there were some postings about this lens six days ago on the board. the original person who posted hated the lens but others loved it. i suggest you look at that thread.
i just looked at the 75-300 f4.0-5.6 USM IS, the EF 70-300 F4.5-5.6 DO IS and the lovely L lens 28-300. i had all three of them on the counter at the camera store this morning. i ruled the last one out because of size and cost. it is huge. i am sure it is terrific but i don't want to carry it. i took a few shots with the other two in the store. they both have a nice feel but i could not tell much about the quality because there wasn't much to take photos of in the store. i am leaning toward the DO simply because of its size. i have read a lot on various camera boards about this lens. over all, people seem to be pleased with it. one complaint has been that is a little slow. i know this isn''t much help. all i can suggest is do your homework and to see if this lens is the right one for you. what i would like to see is a real good comparison between the the EF 70-300 DO and the EF 75-300 USM IS as far is image quality. (the sales person couldn't answer that question) the DO costs about $1200 and the other one around $400. for the cost of the DO it would be nice if the quality impoved over the other lens and not just size.
one other thing i read, is that these smaller more compact lenses are going to be the wave of the future in lenses.

judy

[MrChad]

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

This review scared me away from the lens, that and I couldn't imagine a lens slower then my 75-300 IS, I mean f4 on the short side was bad enough bur f4.5?! For $1100+?

[zipart]

i found this review and comparison of lenses of several lenses:

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

zip

[John_T]

Don't forget that the DO has IS which compensates a lot for speed, especially for low shutter speed shots. The 70-300 DO IS is valuable if you need all it's attributes, size, weight, focal range and IS. This is what makes it unique. It is a lens that will get you the shot in all kinds of situations. I've gotten quite useable low light shots at ISO 3200 and shutterspeeds down to 1/4s hand held. Once you have learned to make the most of it's sweet spots, it is a great lens.

If you have a Drebel or 20D, couple the 70-300 DO IS with an EF-S 17-85 IS for an all bases covered, light and compact walkabout and travel kit.

[zipart]

i just got my outdoor photographer magazine. there is a good article on the DO lens. zip

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

70-300 DO IS USM

Full extension, AF, in motion with IS setting 2 (pan) hand-held.

PS used to treat, crop and size.

[WestFalcon]

Can anyone tell me why one should buy this DO lens when you can get the 100-300 F5.6 L lens for about $350? The optics are probably the same quality and the IS lens may focus a bit faster.But, is the IS worth $800? At the long end, both are F5.6. I'm not sure the L lens isn't the better buy of the two expecially if funding is of any importance to you.

[Olegis]

The real plus of the DO lens is its size and weight - people will never notice that such a small lens is in fact a real zoom monster. Lenses that long are usually quite big (and the high-quality ones are pretty heavy, too). But, I still think that this lens is WAY overpriced - come on, Canon, give it to us at half a price and you'll sell it like donuts !

Here are some reviews on this lens :
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/70-300do.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=218&cpage=2&sort=&perpage=15&cat=27

[Jesper]

Can anyone tell me why one should buy this DO lens when you can get the 100-300 F5.6 L lens for about $350?As far as I know, Canon's 100-300 is not an L; there is a 100-400 L.

Why I got the DO lens: Because when I'm going on holiday (going to India next Sunday! 8) ) I cannot imagine myself lugging around a big, fat, heavy, conspicuous white lens all the time.

[nosquare2003]

As far as I know, Canon's 100-300 is not an L; there is a 100-400 L.

Why I got the DO lens: Because when I'm going on holiday (going to India next Sunday! 8) ) I cannot imagine myself lugging around a big, fat, heavy, conspicuous white lens all the time.

The 100-300/5.6L is an old lens while I have one.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html