70-300mm DO IS USM Zoom - Comments Please

Hi Members

I am in need of a fairly general purpose lens wich exhibits good definition. I am seriously considering the 70-300mm DO IS USM for portability - but the reports seem to say it lacks definition.

I can appreciate it may not be as good as the L series - but is it better than the bog standard consumer lenses - and how much?

Should I go for it or give it a miss?

I have just picked up a second hand 28-70mm Macro Zoom. It is excellent - I shall not be using my kit lens much since I found this.

Thanks for any replies with first hand experience.

Ray

I have the 70-300DO and the 100-400 L both have IS. the DO is very small and light compared to the 100-400. there in is its biggest advantage. The sharpness of the DO is not up to L standards, but is not bad, it is superior to the lower cost 70-300 zooms. The images from the DO respond very well to Photoshop treatment, and in some cases, after aharpening and contrast adj. is very comprable to shots from the L. but it is not an L. The IS is very quick and Build quality is very good. It does not attract near the attention the big white lens does and again is easy to pack around all day. All that said, when I want the best images I do carry the 100-400, even though it is big and a bit heavy. If I am trying to be inconspicuos, use the DO.

Thanks Pal

I still am undecided - I don't want to lug a great big monster around - but having just tried the 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 USM zoom (which I thought might be the answer to the maidens prayer) and finding it damn nigh useless due to CA and lack of sharpness I am a bit wary about jumping in - It looks like I will have to carry at least two decent lenses around to give me versatility and quality. Anyone got any suggestions please. Oh, and I ain't just won the lottery but I might just invest a few shillings more than I ought to.

I too have been struggling with the same question. Since I want one to take on my bike, size matters.
I know that the 100-400 L IS produces slightly better images than the 70-300 DO IS, but it is sooo big. The DO is almost as costly as the L.
The DO is much more costly than the venerable Canon EF 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS but the DO is much smaller and slightly better in image quality at the extreme ends of its' range.
Also to consider is the Tamron AF 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD which is slightly less expensive than the 75-300 IS and smaller than the DO. The Tamron's image quality diminishes at the extreme ends compared to the DO but it more than holds its' own when operating in its' sweet spot of f11.
Check out the comparisons here.
I have the Tamron and my wife has the Canon 75-300 IS. They are both OK and work well within their limits and are good values. Having said that I still want a 100-400 L but not to carry on my bike. If money were not an object I would also go with the DO for bike travel. In the real world or until I hit the lottery I will be happy with my Tamron on my bike.
Just what you needed, more confusion.

Now that I've had some sleep I dreamed about the "Perfect World" solution where we could set aside the laws of physics and economics.
Here we would have a lens with the image quality of an L prime but with the size, weight, convenience and cost of the Tamron zoom.
We would also have nickel beer (Firestone Double Barrel), dime cigars (Cuban), and 20 cent gasoline

Skip Souza wrote:
Now that I've had some sleep I dreamed about the "Perfect World" solution where we could set aside the laws of physics and economics.
Here we would have a lens with the image quality of an L prime but with the size, weight, convenience and cost of the Tamron zoom.
We would also have nickel beer (Firestone Double Barrel), dime cigars (Cuban), and 20 cent gasoline

I'm in!

My avatar was shot with the 70-300 DO

Along with several owl and woodpecker pictures posted earlier, seach under postings with my name.

I use this lens alot. The size and reach are good, and I have very littele issue with the sharpness, except at full reach, and then it is easily treated in PS7.

Nice size, good optics, easy operation. Great lens.

i posted a thread that contains 2 pics taken with this lens so check it out, i like it a lot

Ray,

Check out this article, it is a review of the 70-300 DO and shows sample images comparing it to other lenses (e.g. the Canon 70-200/2.8L).

Also check out Luminous landscapes' report on the trip to Bangladesh ... obviously it was Michael Reichmans lens of choice on the 1DsII for that trip.

Best regards,
Andy

The 70-300 DO seems to be one of those lenses that is high in resolution but abit low in contrast.
Or more properly -low in contrast at the spatial frequencies that our eyes see best.

I'd be interested in comparing one with similar lenses and playing with the files in photoshop

I was new to the DSLR when I bought my 20D, so I bought the 70-300 DO. I am very happy with it. I have gotten some really great pictures and a few that were not so great but I am sure that was operator error! Here is a couple of pictures that I took last week at the zoo.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

70-300 DO is an excellent lens. people who knock it have their expectations set too high.

DO is relatively new technology, in couple of generations from now, these lens will rock!

This is a lens that has intrigued me due to its size. Its definately not a 70-200L, but it is still a very nice lens, based on what I've seen of the images people make with it. It sits a notch above the typical copy of normal 75-300 and 100-300 zooms, but shy of the 100-400. The compact size is what makes it a worthwhile additon to a collection, if you need something small and long.

BTW, Nicky, your images didn't show in the post, but I did copy/paste the properties and they are quite nice.

Thanks Tom. That is weird, when I look at the post on my system, the pictures are there.I guess I need to try another host site maybe?? Could you tell me what is there? Is it the hyperlink to the pictures or are they litte red x's?? Appreciate it.
Nick

Tom is gone. Just little red x's.