I'm looking at the Canon EF 70-300 F4.5-5.6 DO IS as a “Small Travel Lens – Long Zoom” and also a “Small Looking” lens that I can take into NFL Games (Giant Stadium). Last year I was able to get my Sigma 18-200 OS on a 20D into the stadium without a problem, but when I tried to get my 300 f4L IS. I got sent back to the car to switch to my Sigma again. It seems like a 4” lens is what they let in for the most part.

My Travel kit would be my 17-40L 24-105L and the 70-300 DO. My 70-200 F2.8 and 100-400 tend to say home when I want to travel lighter.

I checked the reviews at FM and it averages out to an “8”, but it seems that most who scored it low were expecting an “L” Lens and better IQ. The reviews for the past 1-1/2 years seem to be giving it better scores which seem to be more 8’s, 9’s and 10’s, those would tend to average out in the high 8’s to Low 9’s.

So, does anyone have any comments on the 70-300 DO that would help me out? I know that price is “L”, but the Build and the IQ is not.

Thanks in advance.


Edited by GeorgeK-NJ on Mar 29, 2008 at 01:50 AM GMT

It's alot of new technology the dose not deliver with it's full range softness IMO

I think that the 70-300 DO IS is a compromise:

* Compared to the 70-300 non-DO IS, you get presumably about the same image quality, but you pay a premium price for the reduced size and weight.

* Compared to a hypothetical 70-300 L IS, which would most likely cost about the same as the DO IS, you trade image quality for size and weight.

Are your own pictures of NFL games worth $ 1100 to you? Only you can decide that!

Tried one for a week from lensrentals and like you wanted something compact for travel. I wanted it to work out but it I could not get a sharp image out of it at any focal length. Could of been a bad copy but it was the best looking rentals I've ever seen, love these new online rental shops!

As the reviews state here some people have had great luck and are able sharpen em up afterwards in PP. i can't do that for the market I supply. I'm sure we will lsee a wonderful display of little jpgs here...but i say try before you buy.

Definitely try before you buy. It requires PP to bring the best out; definitely needs PP to improve contrast and sharpness. Its sharpest from 70 to 200 with a severe drop in sharpness at 300 (even when stopped down). With all of its IQ faults though, my wife loves it because it is compact.

I too really wanted to like this lens but it just didn't work out. The IQ was not even as good as the 70-300 IS non-DO. Proceed with caution. YMMV.

Additional note -

This is scary if it is accurate... (Also look at 300mm. The contrast is very low.)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=243&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=358

I want to thank everyone for their comments. Patrick, that link is scary, even if it is close to accurate. I think I'll reevaluate my needs (WANTS). Maybe a 200 f2.8 as my light travel tele, and try and get into the games with that. If not, I'll take my 135 f2.0. I've got 5th row endzone seats so either of those should get some nice shots from the 25 yardline on in.

Thanks everyone agian.

don't you think they'd allow the 70-300is/usm (not DO) in the stadium... it extends when zoomed but is pretty compact, half the price and by all accounts very sharp.

looks like an amateur kit lens too

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_70~300_4~56is_usm.html

the 300L is HUGE (not realistic) by comparison

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto/ef_300_4lis_usm.html

Rainer wrote:
I think that the 70-300 DO IS is a compromise:

* Compared to the 70-300 non-DO IS, you get presumably about the same image quality, but you pay a premium price for the reduced size and weight.

* Compared to a hypothetical 70-300 L IS, which would most likely cost about the same as the DO IS, you trade image quality for size and weight.

Are your own pictures of NFL games worth $ 1100 to you? Only you can decide that!



FYI, the non-DO weighs less than the DO

invalid2 wrote:
Rainer wrote:
I think that the 70-300 DO IS is a compromise:

* Compared to the 70-300 non-DO IS, you get presumably about the same image quality, but you pay a premium price for the reduced size and weight.

* Compared to a hypothetical 70-300 L IS, which would most likely cost about the same as the DO IS, you trade image quality for size and weight.

Are your own pictures of NFL games worth $ 1100 to you? Only you can decide that!



FYI, the non-DO weighs less than the DO

Ooops, I stand corrected. The DO is a fair bit shorter than the non-DO, though.

I had the non-DO version but recently, because of size, sold it and bought a used DO. Its absolutely the ticket - at least for me. Check out ...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/626530/0#5540927

I know these are downsized but the originals were very good. While not the equal of say the 135L or 300/2.8IS (both of which I have) when traveling (or in the case of skiing as in the post) it is a great compromise. These can be had used for around $800.

Edited by dlemkow on Mar 29, 2008 at 04:06 PM GMT

dlemkow wrote:
I had the non-IS version but recently, because of size, sold it and bought a used DO. Its absolutely the ticket - at least for me. Check out ...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/626530/0#5540927

I know these are downsized but the originals were very good. While not the equal of say the 135L or 300/2.8IS (both of which I have) when traveling (or in the case of skiing as in the post) it is a great compromise. These can be had used for around $800.

Well those picture didn't help!!!! They look pretty good to me!
NOW What?

It seems that it is a niche lens, you have to choose if it falls into what you are looking for. Thank's for those great pictures!


Edited by GeorgeK-NJ on Mar 29, 2008 at 01:49 AM GMT

GeorgeK-NJ wrote:
NOW What?


Buy a used one! If you like it, great, and if not, you can resell it with only a minimal loss.

This lens generates so much controversy. The first thing I'd say, however, is to take comments from those that only read test charts with a 50lb. bag of salt. Maybe more in some cases I've read.

The second thing I'd say is that I love the lens. So, why do I love it? Because I know what it is, and what it isn't. Some people have ugly kids and they still love them.

The consumer 70-300? Not a chance. It's cheaply built (comparatively), has a rotating front element (really sucks when using filters), much larger size, and oh yeah, did I say cheaper construction yet? Those that advocate for the consumer over the DO say things like "it's just as good and cheaper". OK, so the IQ is the same, but nothing else is the same and that's important.

I use it as a compact travel lens. Is it the sharpest lens in my bag? Not a chance. I'd never be so foolish as to compare it to a 70-200 though, which seems to be a popular thing for some to do (not accusing anyone here..) Does it work extremely well IMO? Yes. All the trade offs are worth it to me.

Here are some old grab shots (the only one's I can get to right now). No sharpening (as in none. Not in camera, or afterwards), no contrast or color enhancements. The only problem is the the jpeg compression that hits any image in the head will be evident here. Softness can easily be taken care of by adding in camera sharpening (I turn mine off effectively by setting it to the lowest amount) or in PP. contrast enhancement? It's simply not needed any more than any other Canon lens except for the newest in the last year or two. Check my profile, I have a few decent lenses, including many that are not listed....

I owned both the DO and non DO at the same time. I have since sold both but if I needed to pick up another one it would be the DO. The lens does not replace the 70-200 lenses, like everyone else has mentioned it is a special lens that I manly used for traveling.

I have the DO version specifically as a travel lens and bought it used through the B & S here based on the samples provided. To me they were excellent, and when it arrived my tests satisfied my eyes. I haven't used it much but did add some full file samples to my test shot album, which can be seen & downloaded here.
http://picasaweb.google.com/cicopo/LensSamples
There are some of 2 different houses just before a set showing the cat, plus some of the aircraft shots were taken with it. All EXIF should be intact, and they are exactly as shot.

If you're a pixel peeper maybe a 100-400L is on average just a fraction sharper. To compare this lens to a hypothetical 70-300L is nonsense. True its not a 300 2.8L or 135 2L in terms of sharpness but I've seen several L zooms with poorer IQ than my copy. The 28-300L is no competition for the 300 2.8 but we make allowances for the huge zoom range, why not accept this lens for what it is and cut it some slack too.
The beauty of this lens is it always gets to go in my bag and delivers images which look great (often after a slight contrast boost in PP). I agree with Jamesf99 I'd happily take a 400DO over a 400 2.8 or for that matter a 500/4 for the low weight and usability. The reputations of these lenses suffer because when people part with a lot of money they expect the absolute best IQ. They may not get this but IQ remains very high indeed and the lenses are a joy to use. I must also add that I have no problem whatsoever with build quality of the 70-300 DO.

I'm glad to see people sticking up for this lens. I have a copy and have found it to be very good - even wide open. It is soft at the 300mm end and absolutely abysmal at f/32 (what lens isn't?). Other than that, I'd happily take it on a days shooting in preference to my heavyweight 70-200mm f/2.8.