Canon EF 70-300mm DO IS USM - any good?
Discussion
Hi, wondering if anyone has experience with this lens? Seem to be obtainable for ~£700-£800 and I love the small size of the thing for the focal length, good IS and fast focus. It's to replace a now broken Canon 100-300 EF lens on my 550D, and will be used at rallies and Le Mans.
From reading reviews I do worry about flare and the halo effect though, esp. as I quite often end up taking shots into the light? Anyone find this a problem in real life?
£800 is my top budget for a replacement lens, and I want the zoom to cover at least 100-300 (160-480 equiv on my 550). I want it to be reasonably light too.
From reading reviews I do worry about flare and the halo effect though, esp. as I quite often end up taking shots into the light? Anyone find this a problem in real life?
£800 is my top budget for a replacement lens, and I want the zoom to cover at least 100-300 (160-480 equiv on my 550). I want it to be reasonably light too.
moribund said:
Hi, wondering if anyone has experience with this lens? Seem to be obtainable for ~£700-£800 and I love the small size of the thing for the focal length, good IS and fast focus. It's to replace a now broken Canon 100-300 EF lens on my 550D, and will be used at rallies and Le Mans.
From reading reviews I do worry about flare and the halo effect though, esp. as I quite often end up taking shots into the light? Anyone find this a problem in real life?
£800 is my top budget for a replacement lens, and I want the zoom to cover at least 100-300 (160-480 equiv on my 550). I want it to be reasonably light too.
I bought one used a couple of years ago. Heavily used - ex journalist I was told.From reading reviews I do worry about flare and the halo effect though, esp. as I quite often end up taking shots into the light? Anyone find this a problem in real life?
£800 is my top budget for a replacement lens, and I want the zoom to cover at least 100-300 (160-480 equiv on my 550). I want it to be reasonably light too.
There a lot to like about it and you can find (or could a few months ago) quite a few on eBay for around £500 to 600. Mostly they looked like they had hardly seen any work - as it the case with many lenses it seems.
Mine needed a service late last year and I had noticed a focusing problem developing at the long end. Came back better in many ways (smoother zoom action - to be expected considering its history) but with further focussing issues, so back it went. Apparently something else was broken and went unnoticed in post service testing. Now it seems to be far better than it ever was and I reckoned it was pretty good when I got it.
I've used it for motorsport action on a 400D and it was fine. There are some 'buts' but there always will be.
It's compact (when not zoomed out) but not that light - there is a lot of glass in there. I don't find it a problem and indeed it gives a more balanced feel in my view. But for a lensd of its size it ain't light.
At the long end it's f5.6. On a 400D the focus speed and accuracy is OK and works well enough but it's match for the really fast stuff. On the other hand you would need to go over your budget, probably, to get anything definitively quicker.
I have not noticed much problem with flare but he DO system can produce slightly ethereal looking edges for a white subject on a dark background. Sort of wispy whiteness just at the edge - not unpleasant actually. That said the newly calibrated and serviced performance does not seem to show that feature so I suspect that my example may have been in need of attention from when I first got it but the need was not entirely obvious. I did buy a lens hood for it and it does seem to help a little with contrast in some light conditions, although its main objective was for keeping drizzle and rain away from the lens.
It has been my main lens for the last couple of years although I found I stuck with a 70-200 +2x and a 24-105 at Donington the weekend before last. To be honest in part that was due to the amount of dust flying around and some poor light late in the afternoon. I was not keen to swap lenses due to dust and the 70-200 +2x still gave me f5.6 anyway.
So - I like it. Also make a great portrait lens. On the other hand I have also seen some excellent results from the more recent 70-300 lenses in the lower price brackets though I have not tried one myself.
Don't know where you are but if anywhere near me (M1 J24 area) I will be happy to meet up so you can try it out.
Thanks very much for taking the time to reply - just the sort of real-life hands-on report I was hoping for. Thanks for the offer too, I'm up in Wakefield so a bit too far I'm afraid.
What you've said tallies with online reviews from when it first came out, but it's great to hear from someone who uses it for the same things I will be doing. I don't suppose you've got any pics online?
What you've said tallies with online reviews from when it first came out, but it's great to hear from someone who uses it for the same things I will be doing. I don't suppose you've got any pics online?
moribund said:
Thanks very much for taking the time to reply - just the sort of real-life hands-on report I was hoping for. Thanks for the offer too, I'm up in Wakefield so a bit too far I'm afraid.
What you've said tallies with online reviews from when it first came out, but it's great to hear from someone who uses it for the same things I will be doing. I don't suppose you've got any pics online?
You'll really want to be looking at something full size. I'll gather some pertinent samples, including some recent 'after service and calibration' shots, and make up a zip file. Might not get that done until Monday or Tuesday though. I'll PM with details when done.What you've said tallies with online reviews from when it first came out, but it's great to hear from someone who uses it for the same things I will be doing. I don't suppose you've got any pics online?
ETA. And yes the reviews I read from the web are, IMO, pretty close to how it is although the newly calibrated performance seems better than reported - perhaps a smidgen soft at 1:1 and 300mm and less than infinity for subject distance but I am not entirely sure about that yet. It may be unfair of me mentally comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII !
At full list price it's not really an attractive proposition but if you can buy at your budget figure I would say its decent value. At the eBay prices I mentioned, and if little used, it's definitely worth a punt.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 26th March 23:29
LongQ said:
Ah. So you have heard that England is about to be annexed by our friends from out east?
Heh - maybe, but a more prosaic explanation would be that I have got you confused with somebody else! OP - sorry, back on topic I don't have the 70-300 DO but the non-DO version is excellent and a chap at work has the DO and is delighted with it
dibbly dobbler said:
LongQ said:
Ah. So you have heard that England is about to be annexed by our friends from out east?
Heh - maybe, but a more prosaic explanation would be that I have got you confused with somebody else! OP - sorry, back on topic I don't have the 70-300 DO but the non-DO version is excellent and a chap at work has the DO and is delighted with it
looking for a new Zoom, this on the list, but as ever I'm useless on the lens abbreviations
didn't you have the Sigma 500 as well DD?
Pvapour said:
DO, non DO?
looking for a new Zoom, this on the list, but as ever I'm useless on the lens abbreviations
didn't you have the Sigma 500 as well DD?
DO = Diffractive Optics. Basically a short, fat version of the real thing looking for a new Zoom, this on the list, but as ever I'm useless on the lens abbreviations
didn't you have the Sigma 500 as well DD?
I thought about a Sigma 500, then bought a 100-400, then sold it and bought a 70-300. That's the end of it (for now
). dibbly dobbler said:
Pvapour said:
DO, non DO?
looking for a new Zoom, this on the list, but as ever I'm useless on the lens abbreviations
didn't you have the Sigma 500 as well DD?
DO = Diffractive Optics. Basically a short, fat version of the real thing looking for a new Zoom, this on the list, but as ever I'm useless on the lens abbreviations
didn't you have the Sigma 500 as well DD?
I thought about a Sigma 500, then bought a 100-400, then sold it and bought a 70-300. That's the end of it (for now
). 
may suit me well then 
why the reverse turn on the 400? I rented one from jessops whilst I was in London to see how a pro lens compared, had a wander round London Zoo with it to see how I got on, not that impressed tbo, but then not had a go with many other zooms apart from my slated 18-270 Tam.
like the idea of the compact zoom, if I were to look at a fleabay special, do you know if it has been updated at some point? meaning I should look for the 'new improve' version?
I would love the further reach of a 400 & 500 mind as it'll be mainly for wildlife, I guess a 2x could be put on the 300 though, have you tried that?
Pvapour said:
may suit me well then why the reverse turn on the 400? I rented one from jessops whilst I was in London to see how a pro lens compared, had a wander round London Zoo with it to see how I got on, not that impressed tbo, but then not had a go with many other zooms apart from my slated 18-270 Tam.
like the idea of the compact zoom, if I were to look at a fleabay special, do you know if it has been updated at some point? meaning I should look for the 'new improve' version?
I would love the further reach of a 400 & 500 mind as it'll be mainly for wildlife, I guess a 2x could be put on the 300 though, have you tried that?
I'm no expert on the 70-300 DO - I do know it is pretty expensive though in comparison to the regular 70-300 (which I now have). So to me you would really have to want the smaller size a lot for it to be worthwhile (the DO is also heavier despite being smaller). I've been really pleased with the results from the regular 70-300 f4-5.6, it's not that big or heavy and it reasonably priced
Mmm, the non-DO lens sounds quite good value. I hadn't realised it was a new lens.
One review of the non-DO lens includes this: "The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens is in an interesting position in Canon's lineup - sharing the basic optical specs of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Although it is 1.5" shorter, the DO actually weighs 5.4 oz more and costs significantly more. The DO is better built and has Ring USM, but is not impressive to me optically."
DD - do you use yours for motorsport at all? I'd like to know if the AF is up to it.
One review of the non-DO lens includes this: "The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens is in an interesting position in Canon's lineup - sharing the basic optical specs of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Although it is 1.5" shorter, the DO actually weighs 5.4 oz more and costs significantly more. The DO is better built and has Ring USM, but is not impressive to me optically."
DD - do you use yours for motorsport at all? I'd like to know if the AF is up to it.
Pvapour said:
dibbly dobbler said:
Pvapour said:
DO, non DO?
looking for a new Zoom, this on the list, but as ever I'm useless on the lens abbreviations
didn't you have the Sigma 500 as well DD?
DO = Diffractive Optics. Basically a short, fat version of the real thing looking for a new Zoom, this on the list, but as ever I'm useless on the lens abbreviations
didn't you have the Sigma 500 as well DD?
I thought about a Sigma 500, then bought a 100-400, then sold it and bought a 70-300. That's the end of it (for now
). may suit me well then why the reverse turn on the 400? I rented one from jessops whilst I was in London to see how a pro lens compared, had a wander round London Zoo with it to see how I got on, not that impressed tbo, but then not had a go with many other zooms apart from my slated 18-270 Tam.
like the idea of the compact zoom, if I were to look at a fleabay special, do you know if it has been updated at some point? meaning I should look for the 'new improve' version?
I would love the further reach of a 400 & 500 mind as it'll be mainly for wildlife, I guess a 2x could be put on the 300 though, have you tried that?
AFAIK the DO lenses (There is a 400 prime as well) have not been updated in terms of specification since launch although there were some rumours about potentially variable build quality for the very earliest lenses. I would doubt that is still a problem but if buying used if you allow a sum for a possible service (about £160) in your price acceptance level you can have the thing serviced and re-calibrated anyway shouold you feel the need. The DOs are, effectively, L spec builds but carry a green ring colour rather than red. One other benefit is they are not white!
I forget who asked (and can't see without messing around in the middle of the edit) but to the best of my knowledge the DO lenses are not compatible with extenders. I can't recall if I have tried the combination but I think probably not since the EOS extenders are intended for use with specific lenses.
moribund said:
Mmm, the non-DO lens sounds quite good value. I hadn't realised it was a new lens.
One review of the non-DO lens includes this: "The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens is in an interesting position in Canon's lineup - sharing the basic optical specs of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Although it is 1.5" shorter, the DO actually weighs 5.4 oz more and costs significantly more. The DO is better built and has Ring USM, but is not impressive to me optically."
DD - do you use yours for motorsport at all? I'd like to know if the AF is up to it.
Stephen - sorry I don't have much of any use to you if it's motorsport you're after. I've only had it a month or two and have done a few moon shots and a few birds (feathered variety). I'm sure there's plenty to read about it online or perhaps LQ san will be along later to help One review of the non-DO lens includes this: "The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens is in an interesting position in Canon's lineup - sharing the basic optical specs of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Although it is 1.5" shorter, the DO actually weighs 5.4 oz more and costs significantly more. The DO is better built and has Ring USM, but is not impressive to me optically."
DD - do you use yours for motorsport at all? I'd like to know if the AF is up to it.
As I said above, to warrant the extra cost and weight you'd really have to want the compact size a lot...
moribund said:
Mmm, the non-DO lens sounds quite good value. I hadn't realised it was a new lens.
One review of the non-DO lens includes this: "The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens is in an interesting position in Canon's lineup - sharing the basic optical specs of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Although it is 1.5" shorter, the DO actually weighs 5.4 oz more and costs significantly more. The DO is better built and has Ring USM, but is not impressive to me optically."
DD - do you use yours for motorsport at all? I'd like to know if the AF is up to it.
I've used the non-DO lens for motorsports quite a lot: One review of the non-DO lens includes this: "The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens is in an interesting position in Canon's lineup - sharing the basic optical specs of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Although it is 1.5" shorter, the DO actually weighs 5.4 oz more and costs significantly more. The DO is better built and has Ring USM, but is not impressive to me optically."
DD - do you use yours for motorsport at all? I'd like to know if the AF is up to it.
( loads more on my site)
TBH i'd say the AF isn't fast enough if you want to use it mainly for motorsports. The array of 70-200s and the 100-400 are better bets.
Never used the DO lens so can't comments on that, always had the impression it was a slightly niche choice for people who needed more compact kit? - like if you were travelling, etc.
Hope this helps
Thanks again. Looks like you managed those shots OK on it :-) I guess the AF speed is relative, I had a decent hit rate on the lens this is replacing, a non-IS Canon 100-300 4.5-5.6 which seems to be widely regarded as slow focusing.
Got to say I'm leaning towards the non-DO lens now...
Some examples of my pics with the 100-300 before I dropped it:
IMG_6372 by giveitfish, on Flickr
IMG_4926 by giveitfish, on Flickr
Got to say I'm leaning towards the non-DO lens now...
Some examples of my pics with the 100-300 before I dropped it:
IMG_6372 by giveitfish, on Flickr
IMG_4926 by giveitfish, on Flickr
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff