Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon Lenses  
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2634 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!
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2611 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.

Staffan


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Why would you want a 75-300 DO? Only if you want to travel light should you be looking at one. There is a huge cost for essentially an average lens.

Look at a 100-400 L IS or a 70-200 version. They will suit you better with better quality at the same price.

That is, unless you NEED a very compact and light lens.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2574 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.



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2560 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.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2552 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 4):
It's not cheap either, but it's cheaper than equivalent true L glass

There is no equivalent L-glass.

Staffan


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

OK I mean L glass with a 300mm focal length.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

At B&H the 300/4 IS is the same price as the 70-300 DO. Here in Europe the 70-300 is a bit cheaper, but not by much.

Staffan


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2512 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.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2493 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  Smile


User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2453 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!
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2428 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.........

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlinePhilhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2430 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.

cheers,
Phil



HoustonSpotters Admin - Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2351 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?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Experience With Canon Lenses posted Sat Mar 25 2006 18:52:31 by TACAA320
Returning Canon Lenses For Repair posted Fri Oct 14 2005 05:54:28 by Wagz
Canon Lenses posted Tue May 17 2005 19:21:50 by Malandan
"old" Canon 'L' Lenses..... posted Tue Apr 26 2005 19:00:05 by BHXviscount
Canon Lenses Question posted Sun Feb 27 2005 09:53:51 by Bruce
Canon Lenses... Choosing A New Car Is Much Easier! posted Thu Sep 16 2004 07:00:34 by Maiznblu_757
Need Help With Canon Lenses For 300D posted Fri Jan 2 2004 10:29:29 by Spotterboy
Canon Lenses With Is? posted Mon Dec 8 2003 01:56:15 by PJS800
Info On Image Stabilizer On Canon Lenses posted Sun Aug 10 2003 23:44:39 by Paulinbna
Need Help With Canon Lenses. posted Sat Mar 8 2003 22:56:30 by Dazed767