Who Owns the 70-300 DO IS

[steibeldj]

MDJAK,

And enyone else out there. How does this lens compare to my 75-300 IS? I like the reach of the 300mm. Who has both? (has not sold the 75-300 IS yet that is.:) )
BTW: I did do a quick search before posting. Didn't see anyone that had first hand experience with both. Also, as always, I would love to see some side by side comparo's.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's much better than the 75-300mm IS and well it should be at nearly three times the cost,..

However,. the 100-400mmL IS is even "more betterrer" than the 70-300mm then the 70-300mm is "beterrer" than the 75-300mm...

And the price differnce there is minor to say the least,..

The 70-200mm f/4,. less than half the cost is also significantly "more betterrer" than the DO... ;)

[Belmondo]

I bought the 75-300IS at the same time I bought my first 10D. I was prety unimpressed with it, and found it to be generally soft. The 70-300 DO is worlds better, but as CDS has already said, it's also worlds more expensive.

The primary benefit to the DO is the size. If you're not bothered by the shear size of the 100-400, it's a much better lens for the money, but it is BIG.

[steibeldj]

I did a quick web search to see the 70-200 4L. You are right about price. I was hoping not to attract that much attention though. Is the diffration in the DO optics what makes up for longer barrel length? I wonder if we are looking at first pass type technology that will be much better in the comming year due to prosumer money?

[Belmondo]

Hard to say. At this time, Canon only has two lenses that use diffractive optics. I guess we'll have to wait and see what their commitment is to the technology in the future.

[viknijjar]

i just got a copy of this lens, i'll let you know how it is =)

[Webster]

The 70-300 DO IS is a bit sharper than the 75-300 IS, but it has a VERY shallow DOF. Must be something to do with that diffraction magic. It certainly is not as sharp as an L lens, but as I tend to soften rather than sharpen pictures after taking them, that doesn't bother me a bit, and I LOVE the size and weight.

[MDJAK]

Steib, I just saw your post. I don't have experience with the other lens you asked about, but I have now shot close to 200 pics with the 70-300 DO and it is a fine lens. I have absolutley no complaints. While it may be slightly soft at 300, unless one is printing huge pictures it would not be noticeable.


The DO has also been quite improved since it originally came out.
See here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml

Also, if you go to the home page of the above site, and then go to his recent trip to Bangladesh, you'll see most of his shots were taken with this lens.

BTW, I got the 24-70 F2.8 Canon today. Can't wait to play with that. (Just sold my 20D and the 28-135 so I had a big hole to fill)

[davidwegs]

I had it until recently. I jsut sold it to use primes. It's as near the image quality (in most cases) of an 'L' series as you can get in a slow aperture zoom. IMO.

Great for traveling.

[MDJAK]

David, can I ask, ballpark, how much you sold it for?


And the main reason I got it is for travel. I don't want to walk around with my 70-200 F2.8IS around my neck all day. I mean, I want to but I'd have worse posture than I already do.

[steibeldj]

MDJAK,

Still waiting for my 24-70L. Now I'm thinking about the 70-300mm range. My 75-300IS is good, but the 70-300 DO looks stealthy. My schtick is candid shots. (no I am not a private eye) I'm hoping you all move to 'L' glass you'll drop the DO for $800 bucks or so.

[poke]

I don't want to walk around with my 70-200 F2.8IS around my neck all day.

Your back gets used to it. I had mine glued to my 10D all of Jan while I travelled europe. :lol:

[Jesper]

The 70-300 DO IS is a bit sharper than the 75-300 IS, but it has a VERY shallow DOF. Must be something to do with that diffraction magic. It certainly is not as sharp as an L lens, but as I tend to soften rather than sharpen pictures after taking them, that doesn't bother me a bit, and I LOVE the size and weight.
The depth-of-field of a lens does not have anything to do with which kind of technology (DO or not) is used. The DOF only depends on focal length and aperture. So the 70-300 DO does not have a shallower DOF than any other lens set at the same focal length and aperture.

I have the 70-300 DO (but not the 75-300 IS). I like it because it is small, inconspicuous and relatively light. Sure, the 100-400 L is most likely a better lens and it's only a little bit more expensive than the 70-300 DO, but ofcourse the 100-400 L is big, white and heavy.

So, it depends on what you want to use your lens for. For me, the 100-400 L is not an option because it's much too big, heavy and conspicuous to walk around with in a city.

The 70-300 DO is not as sharp as my other lenses (17-40 L, 50 f/1.8, 28-135) - especially at the long end (300mm) I'm sometimes disappointed by the lack of sharpness.