Canon 75-300 IS vs 70-300 DO IS

Hi,

I know there are several forums about this, but none of them give a clear answer. I have just bought a Canon 20d and am looking to find a zoom lens for a forthcoming trip on Safari and Whale watching in Africa.

Is the DO lens a better lens? I know it is more compact and more expensive but that does not mean it is any better! Will I really notice a difference between the two in my pictures?

Any help or advice would be appreciated!

Thanks
Andrew

• the IS of th DO is visually better.
• the DO is sharper between 75 and about 200.
• The DO doesn't offer any real improvement from 200mm
• The DO has ring USM focusing - much faster than the 75-300
• The DO has better build quality, and a non-rotating front element.

But is it worth 3x the price ?

AndrewJsy said:

Hi,

I know there are several forums about this, but none of them give a
clear answer. I have just bought a Canon 20d and am looking to
find a zoom lens for a forthcoming trip on Safari and Whale
watching in Africa.

Is the DO lens a better lens? I know it is more compact and more
expensive but that does not mean it is any better! Will I really
notice a difference between the two in my pictures?

Any help or advice would be appreciated!

Thanks
Andrew

Click to expand...

--
Click profile for current and previous equipment.



Website : http://www.fotoz.co.uk

IF you are interested in something like the 75-300 IS, and would use non Canon glass I'd suggest the Sigma 70-300 APO Super (red ring).

It does not have the IS of the 70-300 but in direct comparisons I've made the image quality is identical and for some reason seems to work better (ie actually focuses) with generic teleconverters.

I don't have direct comparisons with the 70-300 DO but have used a 100-400 Canon L and that was quite good as well.

HTH

Thanks for your help guys. I think the IS is important as I will be on a boat and safari vehicle most of this trip (a future ones) so little room for a tripod.

The only thing I have to work out in my mind is if the new DO lens is worth the extra money, or if I blow out my budget and get something like the 100-400?!

Cheers
Andrew

For the use you specify, absolutely get the 100-400/IS. It's a great safari lens and you will find yourself at 400mm frequently. It's also sharper and has a reasonably good bokeh.

Most of my shots from safari were using this lens. It's so small and convenient there is simply no reason not to. You can find them "like new" for $1,100 at many forums.

Brendan
--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...

The Canon 100-400 IS L is in a much better class than the 70-300 IS DO or 75-300 IS. It is a superb lens. But... it is also much bigger and heavier than the other two. How important is gear bulk to you?

I'd also suggest pairing a 1.4x tele with the 100-400. You may lose AF, but the extra reach can be invaluable - and the tele is light. IS still works fine with a tele.

Weight is not that important, but it really depends on the price. The DO is at the top of my budget for a new lense and I really am not sure to blow another £400 on the 100-400 if on average the photo quality is similar? The question is... is it really really worth it?

I have the 70-300 IS and the IS is first rate, focussing spot on and the quality absolutely fine. Do not be put off. It is easy to carry this lens all day and I would not be without it.

Andrew

fwiw, Rick Sammon recommends for wildlife either the 75-300 IS for a novice user or the 100-400 L for the enthusiast user (follow the link). Been reading his tutorials and if you click on Rebel XT tutorials, then click on EOS Digital Rebel XT Lesson 13, he gives lens recommendations for a wide variety of situations. My wildlife choice had come down to the 75-300mm IS or the 70-200 f4L. He pretty much confirmed the 75-300mm IS as a better choice (for THIS situation). Having said that, if I could afford the 100-400, that is the one I would've gotten.

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/index.html

OK, then it would be worth to consider the Sigma EX 80-400 OS. It's (at least in Germany) somewhat cheaper than the Canon 70-300 DO IS, but a bit on the heavy side.

I had never thought of Sigma lenses... how good is the quality? I cannot find the one you speak of, however I have found 80-400mm F4-5.6 EX APO OS DG which is a new lense out.

Anyone got any feedback on this?

Thanks
Andrew

For safari, I'd definitely go with the 100-400mm IS over any of these options. The increased quality of the images is worth it. Frankly, I don't believe the lens to be that big, especially when compared to my Sigma 50-500mm.

I was prepping for my recent trip to Indy for the Formula 1 race and was seriously considering getting the 100-400mm instead (for the IS) and even went to a store to try one on for size. I was expecting the lens to be much larger than it actually turned out to be! For the $$, I think its a much better investment than the DO, which I also tried out. I shot some test shots and they were not really significantly better than my Sigma to where I felt the need to change lenses and in the end kept my Bigma for the wider zoom range, I just use a cheapo $20 monopod and watch my shutter speeds. My Grand Prix pics came out awesome - No regrets.

In my case, for a safari I'd actually keep my Sigma 50-500 and use the monopod and/or beanbags.

Starting from scratch, I'd say suck it up and get the 100-400mm IS... you won't regret the addtional quality. Then, when you get back.... ebay the lens and get 90-95% of your money back and buy youself a shorter, more practical lens like the DO. You will be thankful for every bit of additional focal length you can get while on safari.

Best of luck with your choices.

--
Lots of Cameras, lots of lenses, not enough time...

I like the 70-300 DO IS, its black and not as conspicous as the white ones, Its easy to carry. Good if you are will be a forienger and not want to draw too much attention. I had the same questions you had about 6 months ago.



This was a difficult shot but thanks to IS..

Preetham

...about the color or size of your lens, at least on the safaris I've been on ;-)

It's not big at all. In fact, I find the 100-400/IS to be small and portable and not conspicuous at all. When I want to be obnoxious I walk around with a 500/4IS.

Brendan
--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...

The image quality of the 100-400 IS L is much better. Period. With longer reach. And it is about 50% more expensive than the 70-300 DO. But the 70-300 DO is 100% more than the 75-300 IS. If you are judging by price, the 75-300 IS is the best deal by far. The 100-400 IS L is the best performing. And the 70-300 is in the middle. And you get to choose.

...Go for the 100-400 L.

I've owned the 75-300 IS, 70-300 DO IS, 70-200 L, 50-200 L, 100-300 L and 100-400 L. I've real-life tested them all.

The 100-400 L is just awesome. Apart from the 70-200 L, its the best optical quality your going to get in a tele-zoom, it has it all - ring USM, 400mm reach, IS (Second Gen - which is nearer 3rd gen than 1st gen).

The only reason I didn't keep the 100-400 L is I don't need it for the photography I currently do. I'll be going to africa next year, and I will buy another without a second thought.

Did you see this thread from a while back ?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12565732

AndrewJsy said:

Hi,

I know there are several forums about this, but none of them give a
clear answer. I have just bought a Canon 20d and am looking to
find a zoom lens for a forthcoming trip on Safari and Whale
watching in Africa.

Is the DO lens a better lens? I know it is more compact and more
expensive but that does not mean it is any better! Will I really
notice a difference between the two in my pictures?

Any help or advice would be appreciated!

Thanks
Andrew

Click to expand...

--
Click profile for current and previous equipment.



Website : http://www.fotoz.co.uk

OK, Seriously thinking of the 100-400... can someone tell me how long it is when at 400 with the hood?

Thanks
Andrew

I was in the store today playing around with a 100-400 IS, it didn't seem exceptionally long or heavy. Surprisingly comfortable to use. I saw some pros using this lens at Wimbledon on Monday -- handheld.

AndrewJsy said:

OK, Seriously thinking of the 100-400... can someone tell me how
long it is when at 400 with the hood?

Click to expand...

I don't have it now to measure it, but it just fits to my Lowepro Computrekker with the hood and camera mounted.

I think the larger lowepros have been designed for this purpose in mind.

100-400 is heavy, but it's good and worth a little suffering. I had it with me in Africa. Make sure you have a good bag for it if you buy it.

Have you thought about the Sigma 80-400 OS? It's got a good range, is supposed to be nice and sharp, it's black if that's important to you and it has a decent image stabilisation system....

I am personally trying to make a similar decision and can't decide between the 70-300 DO (small and black and easy to carry around) or the 100-400L (heavier and white so not so stealthy) or the Sigma 80-400 (cheaper and with decent range)

It's a tough choice. I am also considering something like the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and a TC.

In my case I'd like to avoid a white lens if possible.

Hohum

John