Canon 70-300 DO IS USM OR 70-200 F.4 USM LENS

Hi, Have now bought the 400 f5.6 L Lens from Kerso (great seller) for bird photography and am now going to trade in my 100-400 IS USM Lens for either a 70-300 DO IS USM Lens or 70-200 f4 as a travel lens. I really like the 100-400 IS USM Lens I have but it is too big and heavy to carry around on holidays etc. I really like the sound of the 70-300 DO IS USM but am worried about reports of its softness in various forums, I do like sharp pictures and I know that the 70-200 f4 is sharp but it is not as long a zoom. How would it compare to the 70-300 DO IS USM if it had a kenko 1.4x extender added to make up the length? Would I loose image quality ? I am prepared to wait for the 70-200 f4 IS USM if that is going to be a lot better than the current 70-200 f4 USM but at the end of the day am looking for image quality. I do play around with photoshop and can use the levels and unsharp mask if the 70-300 DO IS USM is a bit soft but is it really that simple to rectify or do you have to be an expert in photography and photoshop to master this lens? Has anyone got either of these lenses that can help me make a final decision?

Sue H wrote in post #2043966
Hi, Have now bought the 400 f5.6 L Lens from Kerso (great seller) for bird photography and am now going to trade in my 100-400 IS USM Lens for either a 70-300 DO IS USM Lens or 70-200 f4 as a travel lens. I really like the 100-400 IS USM Lens I have but it is too big and heavy to carry around on holidays etc. I really like the sound of the 70-300 DO IS USM but am worried about reports of its softness in various forums, I do like sharp pictures and I know that the 70-200 f4 is sharp but it is not as long a zoom. How would it compare to the 70-300 DO IS USM if it had a kenko 1.4x extender added to make up the length? Would I loose image quality ? I am prepared to wait for the 70-200 f4 IS USM if that is going to be a lot better than the current 70-200 f4 USM but at the end of the day am looking for image quality. I do play around with photoshop and can use the levels and unsharp mask if the 70-300 DO IS USM is a bit soft but is it really that simple to rectify or do you have to be an expert in photography and photoshop to master this lens? Has anyone got either of these lenses that can help me make a final decision?

i've heard alot of reports saying this lens can be soft, but with a little sharpening i've seen it produce stunning results. It does have odd bokeh though, have you checked out the FM reviews section? I think they have that lens reviewed there.

70-300 DO IS, I think that the 'soft' is more slightly lower contrast. Not sure, but the data is there and photoshop pops it up, no problem. My wife loves the lens for its lower mass and IS. Easy handling lens. That said, the 70-200 L f4 is definitly sharper and constant f4. Longer too! And 100mm short on the long end. Do you have a Canon 1.4x ? I do not have the 70-200, but seems to me that may be as sharp. (getting longer yet) (the 1.4x works well with my 300 2.8L) My friend has the newer 70-300 IS and it is longer and not as fat as the 70-300DO, a bit less weight and cheaper. Similar performance optically, according to him. (I think the DO has the edge in resolution) Much different than the older 75-300 IS, that he considered inadequate for him. The DO is a notably better build (IMHO) but he is happy with the less expensive lens. I would consider the new 70-200 f4.0 IS and carry the 1.4 extender if it were me. (for tele I actually use the 100-400 L IS, but that is not smaller or lighter, very versitile though, as you know)

Baybud, thanks for your reply I assume you mean Fred Miranda, yes it scored 7.8 in the ratings and some good comments on it also it is in the top '10 lenses' (sticky) at the beginning of this forum. Unfortunately where I live I cant try it out and sometimes forums can make you even more confused! Have been able to try the 70-200 f.4 in a shop and liked that but would rather have a longer zoom and not sure how much image quality you would loose adding a 1.4x Kenko against the 70-300 DO IS USM. Thanks again Sue

cc10d, Thanks for reply. Decisions, decisions! Yes I agree the DO is a better build to the IS. I did consider that lens initially but with them being recalled etc it has put me off. I like your idea of the 70-200 with the 1.4x in the pocket idea though.I have a Kenko 1.4x 300 Pro which works fine on my 100-400 IS. I darent go back into our local Jessops again and ask if I can try it with a converter on though! Havent heard a bad word about the 70-200 f.4. Perhaps I will wait until the IS version comes out but sometimes you need to snap something quick and with the 70-300 the zoom is there but to have to delve in your pocket and fit the 1.4x on and then miss the shot well I dont know! You say your wife loves the 70-300 DO have you tried it too ? Wondered how you would say it compares to the 100 - 400 IS in image quality at the end of the day.Thanks again Sue

Sue H wrote in post #2044242
Wondered how you would say it compares to the 100 - 400 IS in image quality at the end of the day.Thanks again Sue

Sue, I have the 7-3IS and the 1-4IS and have used the 7-3DO. Optically the 7-3 lenses are close. The 1-4IS is better than both at 300mm f5.6 -- sharper and more punch.

FWIW...

http://the-digital-picture.com …O-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://the-digital-picture.com ….0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Sue sorry to be so late checking back in, for me, I still carry the 100-400 !! Yeh its heavier, more noticable, etc. But it takes pictures ! The DO is nice and if I were to try to pack light. I certainly would consider it. In my opinion, the 100-400 has a noticable uptick is overall, picture quality. ( On a recent Alalska Cruise, we used the DO for our tele. Keeping lugage minimal. It worked )

For travel, I think I'd prefer the 70-300 either the IS or the DO IS version for less conspicuous color, smaller size, and weight.

Hi Sue...I have the DO. Am questioning it for use to shoot birds in flight, but have used it for travel and shooting birds and animals that are moving but not flying. those pictures are fantastic. it is light, small, fast to focus. I am contmeplating another lens (probably the 100-400 to shoot birds in flight, but I cannot imagine traveling with anything other than the DO.

DeLoyd

We created a 70-300 DO sticky here:
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=2081235&p​ostcount=1
There is a "decision tree" near then end.
Jack