 |
|
|
spenjam
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 3, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 494
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2019
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $235.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, Macro, lock at 70mm, Image quality!
|
|
Cons:
|
A little heavy for size, somewhat soft at base aperture.
|
|
|
Got a steal on this lens at $235 so I thought I would try it despite the not so great reviews... My copy can be magical!!! It has the finest Bokeh, sharpness and contrast (stopped down a bit) that I am in love with!!!
Wonderful Macro photos, very smooth, nice compact size although hefty. Well worth the $$$ paid and then some! Love it, can't let it go...
|
|
 Oct 4, 2019
|
|
canon_tog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 20, 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, Excellent IQ, great travel lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly soft at 300mm
|
|
|
IMHO, this lens is vastly underrated, OK it's a bit soft at 300mm but that's a trade off for such a long F/L but this is improved greatly by stopping down. I have won 3 National awards rececently with images taken with this lens on my 1D3 and the panel of judges come from all genres of photography. It's compactness is what sold it it to me and I've been blown away by the IQ - not an L lens but comes close to my 17-40 and 24-105. Plan to use it on holiday in June along with my 24-105 on my 5D2, I've done what a previous poster has done, set a userdefined picture style and increased the sharpness, contrast, colour tone and saturation by +1 from the standard settings and this also works for me. Weddings are where I earn my money mainly and although not a "wedding lens" per se, I'll give it an outing at my next wedding in April but I do tend to stick to my L's and zoom with my feet.
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2014
|
|
rbussmann
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 11, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range, weight, compact build, inconspicuous = great travel lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Somewhat soft at 300mm, zoom creep, price
|
|
|
This is a great travel lens, although the image quality at full zoom could be a bit better, definitely not L grade, but very good. Bought one a few years ago used, and sold it again after a bunch of trips. Now bought a new one. The light weight, range and effective IS make this a great lens for expeditions when weight is a limiting factor, e.g. on long mule or canoe trips.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2013
|
|
Abstraction
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide zoom range; compactness
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the job it is intended to do
|
|
|
I have to keep learning this lesson over. A camera lens is a tool. They do a job. There are tools that are intended to do many things, like a Swiss army knife. There are camera lenses like the Swiss army knife. Canon makes a 28-300mm zoom. However, it needs its own little cart to carry it around. It seems to me a tool that defeats its own purpose.
I owned a 70-300mm DO, a while back and sold it. It was not quite as sharp as my L lenses. But I am getting ready to buy another copy. I am hoping to do a lot of travelling in the next few years, and I want a long zoom I can carry in my pocket. I rate the lens a 10 because, as far as I know, this is the only tool on the market that does the job I want done.
|
|
|
May 26, 2011
|
|
SanjMaghera
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light, compact, discreet, good image quality on full frame, very little problem with glare, very portable, excellent for holidays
|
|
Cons:
|
Zooming in and out isn't that smooth, I noticed I can zoom in smoothly if i point the camera down, and zoom out smoothly if i point the camera up, but otherwise its a little sticky. Not weather-sealed
|
|
I traded in a 28-300L which had great image quality, but was frankly way too heavy to carry around all the time, so it stayed at home. I decided to PX it and the candidates were a 70-200 f4, a 70-300 L series, or this DO lens. I tried them all back to back, and decided the 70-200 didn't have the range I wanted, and if i wanted optimum quality i'd simply use my 50mm prime or 24-70 L. Having taken a bunch of test shots on the 70-300 L series and DO lens and compared them I honestly couldn't tell much difference. Perhaps the L series was slightly more saturated in terms of the colours, but the sharpness and contrast (as far as my eyes were concerned) were pretty similar. I decided to take a punt on the DO lens which I got for a bargain £500 plus some cash in my pocket with the view of immediately trading up to the L series if it didn't work out. After a few test shots, I'm pretty pleased!
Here's a pic of the moon I took this evening:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5629452840/in/photostream
Rating reflects price I paid 
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2011
|
|
DemonAstroth
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 9, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 120
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, build quality, inexpensive size (58mm), great performance, bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price. Non continuous aperture. Barrel creep.
|
|
|
The 70-300 was a very nice lens to have and a very good option against other 70-300mm lenses and even 70-200.
The build quality of the lens is very good. It feels very heavy for its size and it's nice to hold a camera with the lens. The lens extends as it is zoomed in but it is still very small compared to other zooms at same focal length. Though the barrel creeps, there is a lock that prevents it. Unfortunately, it can only be locked at 70mm. The lens supports FTM focusing, and the 58mm front element does not rotate, which will make using a CPL pretty easy. Though the quality is better than other zooms I have used (28-135mm, 24-85mm), it is still not on par with L lenses. The zoom and focus ring aren't the same. Regardless, one could not complain about the construction of this lens.
Picture quality is also very good. It is evenly sharp and if stopped down things get even better. However, at 100% crops it is evident that L lenses are sharper. I have compared it particularly with a 70-200mm f/4 L IS, and with a 300mm f/4 L IS. I actually like the onion ring bokeh that it sometimes produces, and at times there is a dreamy effect to photographs. Glare is a minor weak spot, though the provided hood is more than adequate.
If one is willing to sacrifice a tiny bit of picture quality,and in return get a very nice unobtrusive lens that will get carried even in instances when other lenses wouldn't, then it is worth the price.
Certainly the new price vs Canon's new L 70-300 price is too small, and the L lens may be the better alternative. However, if one finds a well taken care of used copy, it will definitely make a nice addition as a portable alternative with great build quality and very good optics.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2011
|
|
mwassell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 237
|
|
Review Date: Mar 4, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This has been one of my best lenses over the years. I purchased it a year after it was on the market. I photographed football games, including night games, lots of action in bright and low lighting of animals, whales, dolphins, did some portrait shooting, and some landscape with it. I have never been disappointed with this lens and I do not think I will ever part with it. I am a professional photographer and quality is VERY important to me. I don't accept anything less than tack sharp photos!
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This has been one of my best lenses over the years. I purchased it a year after it was on the market. I photographed football games, including night games, lots of action in bright and low lighting of animals, whales, dolphins, did some portrait shooting, and some landscape with it. I have never been disappointed with this lens and I do not think I will ever part with it. I am a professional photographer and quality is VERY important to me. I don't accept anything less than tack sharp photos!
|
|
|
Mar 4, 2011
|
|
Sportscaster
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great travel lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Because of the inherent convince of its size, this is my tried and true telephoto travel lens, and it is my only non L lens. I have used it with great success since I purchased it in 2005 and have come to trust shooting it at all ranges from macro to 300mm.
However, it took time to learn how to set it up in order to get excellent, sharp pictures. I customized my 5D picture style by creating a user default position that I use for this lens that is one notch up for all parameters above that of the cameras standard settings, that is, sharpness, contrast, saturation and color tone. And, I added both UV and polarizing filters and I always use the hood when lighting so dictates. For convince, my large rubber hood is preferred. With this arrangement and its quick auto focusing, I have gotten some great National Geo as well as artistic type pictures. When left to just one lens to travel with, this is the one I usually carry.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2010
|
|
klutterbooks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Okay, so I have just bought one of these possibly excellent lenses on ebay. I know that an f4 lens at this sort of focal length is not the easiest thing to use. Happily, I've had plenty of practice with my quite excellent Sigma 120-400mm lens - but the thing is, if you point a full size telephoto lens at people they just seem to squirm out of the way. On my 500D, I used my cheap but surprisingly good canon 55-250 mm lens to get around this problem. However, you can't use one of these on a full frame camera. So with the the kind of photography that I am increasingly wanting to do - the candid, surreptitious street photography type, where a really big lens is not a good thing, a small lens is going to get more shots. I hope. Finally, and just to cover some of the disparities in the reviews so far, I reckon that if you shoot full frame then generally you're going to find a long focal length lens easier to use than it would be on a cropped sensor - that's if the rule that you shoot at 1/focal length of a second exposure or no shake rule applies. Maybe it doesn't. But I certainly get more useable shots on my 5d than my 500d. Although, that could be down to better auto focus, and a better view finder, and lower noise at high iso. Anyway, I am looking forward to getting my hands on this anyway - after all it's one of the first truly 21st Century lenses isn't it? Green is the new red, right?
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2010
|
|
cdryall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Compactness, inauspicious, nice travel lens, quick and accurate AF and great IS
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, flare, given contrast issues need to use hood at all times and this takes away versatility of size. Zoom lock necessary but again makes handling difficult but overpriced
|
|
|
Definitely better than 70-300 IS at longer settings in terms of sharpness and colour and IS very good, however does not match 100-400 or like at equivalent lengths. Capable of taking nice pictures when stopped down.
My biggest gripe was that the primary reason for getting this lens was as a versatile travel companion, but if you have the hood loaded backwards on lens for compactness, cannot get to zoom lock and if in place (as necessary for contrast) the lens ends up being longer than 70-300, so close but no cigar I am afraid....
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2010
|
|
primeshot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great travel lens and build. Optics are good.
|
|
Cons:
|
The lens is very expensive.
|
|
|
I have owned the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm. The DO beats both in terms of size and build. The focus speed is not even a contest; the focus speed of the DO is noticeably better. All three lenses have great IQ. Why did I go with the DO if all three optics are equal? The focus speed of the DO allows me to get the picture. There were times I missed pictures because the AF was too slow.
The biggest drawback is the price.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2009
|
|
sultan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2009
Location: Qatar
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,190.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
nice lens in 70-300 class , it is nice for portrait in strong lighting
|
|
Cons:
|
this lens very heavy ,
70-300 have low quality result if you comparable with L lenses
|
|
|
nice lens in 70-300 class, but not comparable with L lenses
this lens very heavy by comparing with other like tamron , but batter sharpness than tamron 28-300 .
70-300 have low quality result if you comparable with L lenses, it is nice for portrait in strong lighting
i recommend this for person who want tow lens , but who want more like professional i well recommend to search in other solutions !
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2009
|
|
dbarthel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 788
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact size, quick focus image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Close focus distance
|
|
|
Got tired of schlepping a 100-400 around, so tried the 70-300DO. People have looked at charts and said why not just go the 70-300 non DO lens, but there is no comparison for sharpness and contrast. Stopping down to f6.3 at 300mm is all you need to do. At shorter lengths, wide open is fine. What a lens this would have been if built with a 77mm front objective, instead of the 58mm. Oh well,
|
|
|
May 26, 2009
|
|
ISUSMDO
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 90
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact...better build than 70-300...sharp...very useful range
Works well with extender re:AF
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
More than happy with this lens, it compliments my 17-85, indeed the two lenses are very similar in appearance.
I bought this lens on a trip to New York, I took some very impressive shots of the Chrysler Building and its Eagle Heads in close up.
The focal length was further lengthened by using a Kenko 1.4 DG 300... IQ was maintained and the results were very acceptable.
I too read so much bad publicity and comment on this lens but it did not put me off as in recent times this lens has received accolades to which I am pleased to add mine.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008
|
|
teglis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1094
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Just a follow-up to my earlier review. After purchasing the Tamron 28-300VC, I felt I would no longer travel with two lenses (24-105L and 70-300DO) when I could travel with one. I fully expected the 28-300 to be optically inferior to the 70-300DO, but presumed it would be "good enough" for travel-light situations. If I was really concerned about optical quality, I still had my L glass. So I sold the 70-300DO.
Big mistake! The Tamron 28-300 just didn't cut it at the telephoto end. Horrible CA and soft at any aperture. So, sheepishly, I purchased another 70-300DO. The new one (now my 3rd copy) is disappointingly soft at 70mm (even softer than the Tamron at that focal length). But it crisps right up by 100mm and blows away the Tamron from that point on. The overall optical quality of the 70-300DO more than makes up for the inconvenience of traveling with two lenses. I'll just have to be careful to use the 24-105 when working in the 70-100 range.
The 70-300DO is still highly recommended.
|
|
|
May 3, 2008
|
|
jhapeman
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Sep 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2388
|
|
Review Date: Apr 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very compact and relatively lightweight for the focal length. The small size and black color make it inconspicuous; coupled with the focal range, it makes for a great travel lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey and a tad soft wide open at 300mm.
|
|
|
I bought this lens for travel; I wanted a compact and relatively lightweight long telephoto. As a result, I accept the relatively slow f/4.5-5.6 range (had to be so for the small size and light weight). When I received my copy it was disappointingly soft wide open and was front-focusing. A trip to Canon service resulted in a lens that is now very sharp except wide open at 300mm, where its a tiny bit soft--but only if you are pixel-peeping. Otherwise its very sharp, has excellent color and appears to be completely free of CA--a characteristic it shares with my 400DO. It is the ideal travel lens, and draws virtually no attention attached to a 40D. Combined with a 10-22mm, a 24-105 f/4L and a 40D, you have an ideal travel package that covers 10-300mm (16-480mm factoring in the 1.6x crop).
My word of advice: Before panning any lens make sure its operating within spec. I have owned many lenses over the years, and have had to return several for adjustment (Nikon and Canon). If you can return it to the store, great, but they should know its faulty so someone else does not get it. Otherwise send to the manufacturer and get it corrected.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
109
|
268548
|
Oct 4, 2019
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
82% of reviewers
|
$1,142.07
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.67
|
6.42
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
