Malandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 16 Posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
I am still undecided as to what lens to buy to complement my Canon 20D with 17-85mm lens.
And yes, I have read all the previous discussions but have found no mention of the
EF 70-300 F4.5/5.6 DO IS USM
This is significantly cheaper and smaller than
EF 28-300 F3.5/5.6 L IS USM
A drawback may be that it seems that the 1.4x converter requires an aperature of F4 or better to maintain auto focus.
Would any one have any experience in using the DO lens or care to comment please.
Malcolm.
My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1605 times:
For travel or situations when you don't want to draw attention to yourself with a big lens the 70-300 DO seems like a nice lens, although a bit on the expensive side.
Johndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
A quote from a Canon forum....
I had high hopes for this lens.... small, not white and very manageable. Am I satified though - NO ! The images I have had from this lens have been poor at all focal lengths, soft and lacking in contrast. It has been very disapointing. I really wanted to like it. It is an ideal travel lens and marketed as 'near' L quality. Well, it isn't near the quality of any of my L lenses..... I have compared it to the 28-300, 100-400 and 70-200 - all of which are in a different league! To be fair they are all huge, heavy and white whereas the 70-300 DO is light by comparison, very compact and black. The trouble is the cost of this DO lens puts it up there with them and not say towards the 75-300 IS.
The size and colour make me want to keep it but I will probably sell it - the image quality just isn't up to the standard I want and am used to.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
Hi Malcolm,
I use the 70-300 DO IS Canon lens. I have found the quality of the images it produces to be fantastic! Very sharp at all focal lengths, except maybe a tiny tiny bit soft at the full 300mm. You'll also get 3 stops over a non-IS lens. The size is ideal, but even at only 800g, it still feels like a bit of a weight around your neck.
It's not cheap either, but it's cheaper than equivalent true L glass, and if you shop around on the net, you'll get a £200 discount over a highstreet store.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
I was thinking of the 28-300, which I seem to think is about £1700, which is double the cost of the 70-300 DO.
Even the 70-200 is about £1300, off the top of my head.
For "near" L glass quality, without spending a fortune, I really can't fault it. The size is an advantage too, though wouldn't have been the major persuading factor when I bought it.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
You have to consider that when you are using a telephoto or a tele zoom lens, you are likely to carry some weight.
Usually light alternatives are consumer lenses. There are exceptions like the Canon 70-200 F4. Many people get great results with these light and cheaper consumer lenses as well. I think if you know your equipment well, specially the limitations of such cheaper lenses, you can get good results.
Some people like the 70-300 DO and some don't. But since you are not carrying your camera gear all day with you like as it was you wallet, weight shouldn't be a big issue. Of course, this is in theory
Malandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 16 Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
Thanks for all your replies.
On the question of price, the current 7dayshop listings show
28-300 £1499
70-200 £1159
100-400 £1039
70-300 DO £769
So on price the DO lens is relatively inexpensive, is approximately half the weight, but the experiences quoted above are conflicting.
From all I have read in this and other threads, those A.netters who are Canon users, continually extol the virtues of the L IS series lenses, based of course on their results.
To be honest neither size nor price are that important to me, I just want to buy the best first time and not have any regrets later.
I also want to be able to use a 1.4x converter, and as I said above, this appears to only be effective on autofocus with a F4 or better lens and only the 28-300 and 70-200 meet this objective.
Thanks again, I'll have to sleep on it!
Malcolm.
My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Malcolm,
At the end of the day, if budget isn't an issue, go with the Canon L glass. The quality aint gonna be rivalled. For me personally, the expense of say the 28-300 L IS couldn't be justified at this moment in time, so I opted for the DO IS lens. I was looking for a "big" lens anyway, not something that covered pretty much the whole range.
What I can say is that I'm very satisfied with the DO lens and the results it produces are of outstanding quality. I cannot understand someone saying it is soft. I don't know if you saw the thread I started in here a couple of months ago, but it was this lens that made me consider reducing the amount of "in camera" sharpening, the results are so crisp.
The prices you quoted are outstanding too. I paid £849 for the DO lens at the beginning of March, which was the cheapest I could find. I guess things are coming down all the time.........
Philhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 674 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1424 times:
I think the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.5L USM would be a great complement to the lens you have. If that is too much of an investment, then the EF 70-200 f/4L USM is an excellent "budget" L lens. I have the latter, and I really believe you'd be happy with either of these two.
Javibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 46 Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
Quoting Malandan (Reply 10): To be honest neither size nor price are that important to me, I just want to buy the best first time and not have any regrets later.
I own both the 70-300 DO and the 100-400L; if you want image quality and do not care about size and weight go for a L lens, they are another league. The DO is good for traveling, specially for "stolen" portraits, as it is light and inconspicuous, but I wouldn't recommended it for aviation.
My two cents,
j
"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 674 posts, 
From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
