about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
109 240203 Feb 20, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
82% of reviewers $1,155.47
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.67
6.38
8.1
ef70-300_45-56doisu

Specifications:
A superior performance, ultra-compact telephoto zoom lens with Canon's Image Stabilization. These Diffractive Optics elements are combined to reduce size and boost image quality. AF is super-fast and silent with a ring-type USM, and it focuses down to 4.6 feet without rotating the front element. A new zoom lock button keeps the lens safe and secure when not in use or used at the wide angle.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 
      
Unregistered
Review Date: Aug 20, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,173.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, light, compact, comfortable to carry and use. Excellent IS and AF
Cons:
Expensive. Fares?.. so far I do not see any.

I am happy with this lens.
It is very comfortable to hold
Focusing is fast and the IS if fantastic (up to 3 f-stop handheld)
The weight is about the same as 70-200L f/4.
I got this lens was to replace my 75-300IS.
Why I chose this lens is because it is light, compact and reasonable long focal length with IS. Excellent combination with my 17-40L f/4.
The price is expensive? ....because this is not a L lens. The price I paid was equivalent to a 70-200L f4 + 1.4x TC...but you think out of the box, for the size, weight, convenient and quality achieve with the new IS & AF maybe one can justify himself...


Aug 20, 2004
Edit/Delete Message
CyberDyne
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1274
Review Date: Aug 20, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: Size, weight, IS, construction, etc...
Cons:
Cost, and not nearly as sharp as similarly priced L or primes.

I got this lens for one reason,.. lugging around a 1D with a 100-400mm IS L is not allways the best solution! Smile

Let's be serious here and call this lens exactly what it is.

It's a "Sniping" lens,.. for lack of a better term,. "candids" etc..

..this lens on a 10D or 300D will draw far less attention in the city streets than a "Great White Wonder" and that's what this lens is best for.

It would also be a nice lightweight travel lens if ultimate image sharpness were not our highest priority.

My advice.. if you have the SPECIFIC need for a lens with this one's specific "talents" then go for it. But only if you allready have the similarly priced but FAR superior 100-400mm IS


Aug 20, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add CyberDyne to your Buddy List  
nrferguson
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1578
Review Date: Aug 19, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

Pros: Great lens for carrying around on camera. Not white Like all time manual focus and "extender lock"
Cons:
Soft at 300mm Doesn't like backlit subjects Need hood on all time to avoid flare Pricey

Chose in preference to the 70-200 F4L or F2.8 L as not white, lighter and longer focal length. Definitely like the IS which is great in either mode. Zoom ring needs more power than Canon L glass. I think I will probably buy the 70-200L F2.8 some day too.

Aug 19, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add nrferguson to your Buddy List  
Johnny Bravo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8864
Review Date: Aug 17, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Size, weight, zoom range.
Cons:
Spotty results. Somewhat expensive for the performance ('almost' L-like performance at an L price)

Most of the time I love this lens, but backlit images can be pretty funky, and sharpness is spotty at the long focal lengths. Generally speaking, in my experience with it, it seems that: In good light, it's a great lens, in lower light levels it can be very disappointing. The 'strange' bokeh can be a really nice effect--I like it.

That said, this is one great 'walking around' lens. With this an my 17-40 I've got a lot of focal length range covered at a modest weight with only a slight sacrifice in sharpness compared to my 'white' lenses.


Aug 17, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Johnny Bravo to your Buddy List  
maljo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 1, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 450
Review Date: Aug 15, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,299.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, light, small. Compared with 70-200L, its a joy to carry and use. Excellent IS and AF
Cons:
Flares easily, price is way too high

I take this lens almost everywhere.
Its light, inconspicuous, sharp, good AF, good IS.
I enjoy using this lens.

I use a 70-200 if I'm putting a lens on a tripod or if I'm shooting action/sports.

I use the 100-400 if I'm shooting wildlife, surfers, etc.

In its niche, the 70-300 DO is an excellent lens. It doesn't do everything well,
but no lens does.


Aug 15, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add maljo to your Buddy List  
David W.
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 19, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 8
Review Date: Aug 13, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,900.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Rear lens element does not move when zooming or focusing, acts like a seal to keep dust away from camera's sensor. Much lighter and smaller than my favourite 100-400L IS. Black colour, 58mm filter size. Comes with lens hood and soft case. Works quite well with Canon 500D close up lens.
Cons:
It seems to me that the price could be lower. If you're first in line, you usually pay more! Unable to use Canon extenders with it.

This is an excellent walk-around and travel lens. Carry it with you all day. You will get more photos with this one! Much more discreet (stealthy?) than a white L lens. As for sharpness issues, to me it looks the same at f 8 as a 70-200L IS, in the centre. I use a Canon 10D. In a digital workflow, USM is used for any lens, L included.

Aug 13, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add David W. to your Buddy List  
fletcher8969
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13
Review Date: Aug 12, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,180.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Compact and black, Great IS, Fast AF, Quality Build, Useful Range,
Cons:
Expensive, a bit soft sometimes

I have noticed some overall softness with this lense but I do really like the color I get out of it. I can't compare it to any of the 70 - 200 L lenses which I'm sure are great but the size if this lense is much more usable for me.

I'm sure there are sharper options out there but few that offer anything close to the conveniences of this lense. It is much more usable than the larger white lenses for an amature like myself and the images are much better than those I used to get out of my 75-300 or that I get out of a 28 - 135 IS. Almost every lense suffers a bit wide open. This one isn't an exception but over all the picture quality that I've see is really quite good... even for the money my wife spent on it.


Aug 12, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add fletcher8969 to your Buddy List  
Access
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1405
Review Date: Aug 10, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 4 

Pros: Extremely compact, lightweight, excellent balance and ease of use.
Cons:
Front 'bokeh', very poor sharpness, picky

This is an expensive, niche telephoto zoom. Good for those seeking a compact telephoto zoom of this focal range (70-300). The pictures it takes are good when measured by any criterion except for sharpness. Compared to a cheap lens it has good color, excellent operation (IS, fast AF), very low chromatic abberation. Sharpness is no better, and sometimes worse than a cheap lens.

Also the lens is very 'picky', prone to glare outdoors, shots with significant backlighting are unacceptable, front 'bokeh' can destroy a photo as it tends to seep across the whole frame (unlike traditional optics).

If weight or size isn't a premium, one would do much better off with a 70-200 f/4l and a 1.4x TC, less expensive and much sharper.


Aug 10, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Access to your Buddy List  
rd4tile
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Mar 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2218
Review Date: Aug 9, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,299.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Small, black, lightweight, well built with fast AF and great IS.
Cons:
Image soft at 300mm f5.6, expensive.

I have done a lot of shooting with this lens and have been amazed at times with it's image quality and disappointed as well. However in spite of that this is a lens you will use. I leave it on my 1D most of the time because it's so easy to just grab and shoot with. The IS and quick AF make up for it's lack of faster apertures and it's just wonderful for times when you want a light and unobtrusive setup.

The image quality is usually within +90% of my 70-200 f2.8L unprocessed at comparable focal lengths when shot in good outdoor lighting. Images do get soft wide open at 300mm but sharpen up well in my experience. I've yet to see any "strange bokeh" and have only had a few situations where the "dreamy" effect others have talked about has been pronounced. The DO will work with the Tamron/Kenko 1.4X and 2X TC's but the image quality takes a big hit. The 70-200 f2.8L with 2X TC shows better contrast/sharpness than the DO with the 1.4X.


Aug 9, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rd4tile to your Buddy List  
Jesper
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 9, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 817
Review Date: Aug 8, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,299.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Small, black, inconspicuous, good optical quality, very good image stabilizer, zoom lock
Cons:
High price, relatively heavy, not super sharp most of the time

I wanted a high quality telezoom lens.

I've read many reviews about the various Canon EF 75-300 lenses and in most reviews people complained about the lack of sharpness, especially at the long end.

I know the 70-200 L lenses are optically excellent, but because they are big, heavy, white and very conspicuous, they are not very practical in some circumstances - for example, when I'm on holiday it would attract too much attention and would be too big and heavy to carry around all day.

The 70-300 DO was just what I was waiting for: small, easy to carry around, inconspicuous and high optical quality. The 2-mode image stabilizer works great and another plus over the 70-200 L's is the extra range up to 300mm.

Con: It's expensive for a non-L lens. Most of the time it seems to be not as sharp as my other lenses (17-40L, 28-135, 50 f/1.8 II, 100 f/2.8 Macro).


Aug 8, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jesper to your Buddy List  
azpatrick2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1937
Review Date: Aug 8, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 6 

Pros: Focal length, weight, IS, size
Cons:
price and/or performance

I haven't decided if this lens is overpriced or just lacks performance for the price (six of one, half dozen of the other). It is a nice lens, shorter but fatter than the 75-300 IS but performs alot better, but I don't think it is worth the money. For $800 this would be an awsome lens, for $1200 it is not up to snuff.

If you just bought a kit and had 1200 to spend on lenses, this might be the lens for you. IF you need this focal range.


Aug 8, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add azpatrick2000 to your Buddy List  
Minh Nguyen
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 229
Review Date: Aug 7, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,350.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very compact and discrete lens for the focal length. IS is really really good. Very well constructed. Comes with a hood. 58mm thread is nice.
Cons:
Price.

I'm taking this lens, the 17-40 f4 and 50 1.8 with a 10D on a trip round the world. So far, the lens has proved to be very good and worth the money I paid for it.
IS is very good. Construction is up to L standard in my opinion. If you need a tele zoom that is compact and light, this is it. The focal length is also very very nice.
I also use a Canon 500D close up filter on it and have managed to get great results.
People complaint about the lack of sharpness wide open but I think for the size and weight, it is a very good lens. Stopped one or two stops and you will find it compares very favourably to the L telezooms (100-400L or 70-200 L). Compared to Canon 100-300 L, I think the DO is a better lens all round (IS, USM, twist zoom, f 4.5 5.6, more compact).

Highly recommended if you need a compact telezoom. I think it is the best telezoom you can get at the moment if quality and size are both important to you.


Aug 7, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Minh Nguyen to your Buddy List  
Tom Piotrowski
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 74
Review Date: Aug 6, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Lightweight, compact. Really compact for the focal range it delivers. New generatin Image Stabilizer is absolutely flawless. When fully open, you can count on steady 300mm shots at 1/60s. Perfect second all-arounder lens. In fact apart form 17-40 F4 lens this is the only lens I carry in my daily backpack with Canon 300D digital SLR.
Cons:
Soft, soft, much softer than Canon's "L" series zooms or primes. Requires good light conditions to deliver punchy colour and contrast. In less favourable light colour and sharpness tend to be flat.



Aug 6, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Tom Piotrowski to your Buddy List  




Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
109 240203 Feb 20, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
82% of reviewers $1,155.47
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.67
6.38
8.1
ef70-300_45-56doisu


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7