Gordon Leitch
Senior Member
Anyone tried more than one of them? Leaning towards the DO due to size and inconspicuousness. But what of general image quality. Is it close to the L's?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
70-300 DO IS v. 70-200 2.8L IS v. 300 f4L IS
- Thread starter Gordon Leitch
- Start date
Brent Reid
Well-known member
I haven't used one yet, but am considering the DO zoom as a travel lens, and am willing to give up f2.8 speed and a bit of performance for lighter weight, less bulk, more reach, 58mm filters and diopters, and a black finish.
I found this review/test helpful:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/
I found this review/test helpful:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do_2/
Gautam Majumdar
Forum Pro
Each of the above lenses has their own pros & cons. DO is small, inconspicuous & has a good range but needs a fair bit of postprocessing to get the best out of it. 70-200 is faster, sharper but twice the weight and size. Also has a 77mm front thread, so you would need bigger (and costlier) filters if you use them. 300mm one is the best for image quality, but no zooming & is intermediate in length & weight. You need to decide on your priorities regarding the features. For travelling, if that is what you have in mind, DO would be the better choice.
--
Gautam
--
Gautam
slipstream
Senior Member
Well go and take a look at this review were the DO is tested against some other lenses one of them the 70-200L IS : http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml
As to which one to buy. Well I prefer the DO due to its combination of features/quality/price. Nothing comes close to it on this. But I you only look at ooptical quality the 300 f4 is certainly better.
Alot of people always comment the new 70-300 IS is a better buy. Maybe it is for them but the DO is a much better lens on a whole. The new 70-300 comes close to it optically (but doesn't win it certainly not FF) and for all the rest the DO is alot better meaning build, size, AF, IS etc. Maybe those differences are not worth the price differences for them but that is a personal thing.
The 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4 are better optically have a comparable IS(although I think DO is better) similar AF and have an even stronger build. On the other hand they are much less convenient. It's up to you to decide where your preferences go.
Gordon Leitch
Senior Member
Thank you all for your helpful information. I am leaning even more towards the DO now. Actually, a Panasonic FZ5 might do what I need it for. However, I hate to even think about spending on a less-than-dslr. Thanks again.
Gordon
Gordon
Steve V
Well-known member
--
Steve
I had the DO but have sold it after I bought the 70-200 IS
The DO lens is in fact a good lens, in terms of built quality and size. However, it is not light (> 700g) but it is significantly lighter than 70-200 IS
Optically, 70-200 IS is supreme, and is comparable to the 200 F2.8L prime, or even 135 F2L prime. You could get very sharp images wide open at F2.8 but you need to get a reasonably sharp picture with DO by stopping down to F8 or smaller. AT 300mm, my experience was that I could hardly get sharp images with the DO. Anyway, image quality with the DO lens is OK and you could get rather good quality images with it. Do expect good light condition when using DO. However, the 70-200 does not has this limitation.
AF with DO lens (and of course 70-200 and 300) is very fast and the IS function could often allow me to take photos at 300mm with 1/100 seconds. My comment on DO lens is: apart from excellent image quality, DO is a very good lens.
However, image quality of DO will never be on par with the combination of 70-200 IS + 300 F4L. Even 70-200 IS + 1.4 teleconvertor combination will beat DO lens in terms of image quality.
To choose, you have to decide your priority on price, image quality, versatibility (weight, size, etc.), and whether you need large aperture.
The DO lens is in fact a good lens, in terms of built quality and size. However, it is not light (> 700g) but it is significantly lighter than 70-200 IS
Optically, 70-200 IS is supreme, and is comparable to the 200 F2.8L prime, or even 135 F2L prime. You could get very sharp images wide open at F2.8 but you need to get a reasonably sharp picture with DO by stopping down to F8 or smaller. AT 300mm, my experience was that I could hardly get sharp images with the DO. Anyway, image quality with the DO lens is OK and you could get rather good quality images with it. Do expect good light condition when using DO. However, the 70-200 does not has this limitation.
AF with DO lens (and of course 70-200 and 300) is very fast and the IS function could often allow me to take photos at 300mm with 1/100 seconds. My comment on DO lens is: apart from excellent image quality, DO is a very good lens.
However, image quality of DO will never be on par with the combination of 70-200 IS + 300 F4L. Even 70-200 IS + 1.4 teleconvertor combination will beat DO lens in terms of image quality.
To choose, you have to decide your priority on price, image quality, versatibility (weight, size, etc.), and whether you need large aperture.
Michael Thompson
Leading Member
Hiya!
Well i have the DO and for over 6 months now and all in all im happy with it, small size for its focal lenght,
love its overall light(ish) weight, with exellent build quality, lovely IS system, contrast nice colour images, and again really is a suprisingly compact Lens -
but its not as bitingly sharp as the 70-200L IS or the 300L IS - and really now in the real world just how could it be? not possible imo and quite unfair to the DO in this superb 'L' Lens company
if you have more 'realistic' ambitions with this nice Lens you will be quite happy i know i am,
btw i have tried out a frends new 70-300 IS mk3 and it is sharper in the very middle area of the Lens but everywhere else the DO is better especially on FF, like no vigg in the corners, nice even illumination to the very edges and is the same at 70mm as it is at 300mm
however i add it is cheaper and 'much lighter' and far more discreet than the alternative 'L' Lenses you have mentioned.
cons? well the DO is expensive, and if you can justify the expense then go for the DO, also the images do require sharping more than you may think or expect initially (but the DO images hold up very well under USM sharping)
Michael
Canon 1Ds mkII at work & 1D mkII
Eos 1v Film SLR now covered in dust, sad but true.....
Well i have the DO and for over 6 months now and all in all im happy with it, small size for its focal lenght,
love its overall light(ish) weight, with exellent build quality, lovely IS system, contrast nice colour images, and again really is a suprisingly compact Lens -
but its not as bitingly sharp as the 70-200L IS or the 300L IS - and really now in the real world just how could it be? not possible imo and quite unfair to the DO in this superb 'L' Lens company
if you have more 'realistic' ambitions with this nice Lens you will be quite happy i know i am,
btw i have tried out a frends new 70-300 IS mk3 and it is sharper in the very middle area of the Lens but everywhere else the DO is better especially on FF, like no vigg in the corners, nice even illumination to the very edges and is the same at 70mm as it is at 300mm
however i add it is cheaper and 'much lighter' and far more discreet than the alternative 'L' Lenses you have mentioned.
cons? well the DO is expensive, and if you can justify the expense then go for the DO, also the images do require sharping more than you may think or expect initially (but the DO images hold up very well under USM sharping)
Michael
--
Canon 1Ds mkII at work & 1D mkII
Eos 1v Film SLR now covered in dust, sad but true.....
I would love to see the data that you used to come to your conclusions here. I have owned both the 70-300 DO and the new 70-300 IS and my findings were pretty different from what you have posted here.
Thanks,
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Thanks,
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Maurice Joubert59901
Senior Member
Hi,
I have the 70-200 and the 70-300 DO.
I had the 300 f/4 IS too, but did not like it.
I had a 70-300 (old version) I did not keep a long time.
The 2 lenses I still are do not fulfill the same tasks and I do appreicate both of them :
The 70-200 for the superlative construction and image quality.
Samples there :
http://www.pbase.com/joubert/70_200
The 70-300 for its lightness and compacity (and image quality too, even @ 300mm). Not as fast as the 70-300, but the ideal lens for travel.
Samples there :
http://www.pbase.com/joubert/70_300do
Maurice Joubert
http://www.pbase.com/joubert
I have the 70-200 and the 70-300 DO.
I had the 300 f/4 IS too, but did not like it.
I had a 70-300 (old version) I did not keep a long time.
The 2 lenses I still are do not fulfill the same tasks and I do appreicate both of them :
The 70-200 for the superlative construction and image quality.
Samples there :
http://www.pbase.com/joubert/70_200
The 70-300 for its lightness and compacity (and image quality too, even @ 300mm). Not as fast as the 70-300, but the ideal lens for travel.
Samples there :
http://www.pbase.com/joubert/70_300do
--
Maurice Joubert
http://www.pbase.com/joubert
Would you be willing to show some side by side comparisons with the DO and non DO 70-300 IS that demonstrate the poor quality at the edges of the frame with the non-DO lens relative to the DO lens? I tested the non-DO on my 1D3 and in the corners of the 1.3x crop frame things looked superb so I wonder how things can fall apart so fast on that last bit of the frame that would lead to your conclusion.
Thanks,
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Thanks,
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Maurice Joubert59901
Senior Member
netgarden
Forum Pro
I really should have gotten the 70-300DO for the size, with my neck problems, but I wanted one L for the first time, having been somewhat happy with my non "L"s.
I bought the 300mmL IS and absolutely love it. Its too heavy for me for long walks, but the image quality is wonderful, and I didn't want to go down that road again of lesser glass ability. Had plenty of those lenses in my bag already.
I'd say if weight is an issue and this is your favorite lens for your uses, then get the DO. But if you want the absolute best quality image right now and maybe like me have plenty of consumer lenses, then try an "L" in that pricerange.
You can rent canon lenses online and usually locally. I think the next time I will try a lens for a few days before purchasing one, especially now that I am in the "L" quality prices. My husband also bought the 70-200IS L at the same time and it's clarity is immediately noticed and wonderful.
If you know PS pretty well, then the DO will be great too.
--
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...
I bought the 300mmL IS and absolutely love it. Its too heavy for me for long walks, but the image quality is wonderful, and I didn't want to go down that road again of lesser glass ability. Had plenty of those lenses in my bag already.
I'd say if weight is an issue and this is your favorite lens for your uses, then get the DO. But if you want the absolute best quality image right now and maybe like me have plenty of consumer lenses, then try an "L" in that pricerange.
You can rent canon lenses online and usually locally. I think the next time I will try a lens for a few days before purchasing one, especially now that I am in the "L" quality prices. My husband also bought the 70-200IS L at the same time and it's clarity is immediately noticed and wonderful.
If you know PS pretty well, then the DO will be great too.
--
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...
Michael Thompson
Leading Member
Hi Froggy.. long time no hear ...
erm No!
as i really just cant be bothered,
nor care really, if my word isn't good enough then tough - alright?
DO, DO, DO, DO, DO, DO we want to go through all this again re:- your obsessive never ending DO bashing, some of us here actually like the DO Lens! surprising isn't it?
your turn ............................ ?
Michael
Canon 1Ds mkII at work & 1D mkII
Eos 1v Film SLR now covered in dust, sad but true.....
erm No!
as i really just cant be bothered,
nor care really, if my word isn't good enough then tough - alright?
DO, DO, DO, DO, DO, DO we want to go through all this again re:- your obsessive never ending DO bashing, some of us here actually like the DO Lens! surprising isn't it?
your turn ............................ ?
Michael
--Would you be willing to show some side by side comparisons with the
DO and non DO 70-300 IS that demonstrate the poor quality at the
edges of the frame with the non-DO lens relative to the DO lens? I
tested the non-DO on my 1D3 and in the corners of the 1.3x crop
frame things looked superb so I wonder how things can fall apart so
fast on that last bit of the frame that would lead to your
conclusion.
Thanks,
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Canon 1Ds mkII at work & 1D mkII
Eos 1v Film SLR now covered in dust, sad but true.....
Dom81
Active member
I have the DO & the 2.8L IS
The 2.8 is unquestionably better (virtually perfect straight out of the camera, with wonderful colour and DOF) but the DO really does have a place...
There have been times when I have come back from short, we're all friends here, low-light shoots with the 70-200 (school plays etc.) when I have questioned why I even keep the DO with it's need for processing and stopping down but -
there are other times when I love the inconspicuous looks, the build, the IS (which spanks the 2.8L IMHO), the reach and the sheer anonimity - plus the pictures are damn good.
Make me keep one and it would be the 70-200, but I would have fewer, better shots. If you're looking for art then that's probably the right call - if you want memories (like me) then maybe the DO is actually better?
Dom
The 2.8 is unquestionably better (virtually perfect straight out of the camera, with wonderful colour and DOF) but the DO really does have a place...
There have been times when I have come back from short, we're all friends here, low-light shoots with the 70-200 (school plays etc.) when I have questioned why I even keep the DO with it's need for processing and stopping down but -
there are other times when I love the inconspicuous looks, the build, the IS (which spanks the 2.8L IMHO), the reach and the sheer anonimity - plus the pictures are damn good.
Make me keep one and it would be the 70-200, but I would have fewer, better shots. If you're looking for art then that's probably the right call - if you want memories (like me) then maybe the DO is actually better?
Dom
Gordon Leitch
Senior Member
Dom wrote:
Make me keep one and it would be the 70-200, but I would have fewer, better shots. If you're looking for art then that's probably the right call - if you want memories (like me) then maybe the DO is actually better?
Art vs. memories. Actually neither. I am about to do a whole bunch of documenting of security cameras on buildings for court presentation. The cameras are between twenty-five feet and fifty feet high on a group of buildings. I do not need art or memories at 200-300mm; but would like to have seemingly sharp 8x12" prints for the Court. The reason I thought the DO might be best is that the owners of the building do not want me obtaining the photographs and walking around their parking lots with an L would not be a lot of fun for me. I can get a court order to allow the photography, but by then they could change the situation.
Still leaning towards the DO. BTW, the lens cost does come out of my pocket. I hope to use it on similar cases in the future.
Make me keep one and it would be the 70-200, but I would have fewer, better shots. If you're looking for art then that's probably the right call - if you want memories (like me) then maybe the DO is actually better?
Art vs. memories. Actually neither. I am about to do a whole bunch of documenting of security cameras on buildings for court presentation. The cameras are between twenty-five feet and fifty feet high on a group of buildings. I do not need art or memories at 200-300mm; but would like to have seemingly sharp 8x12" prints for the Court. The reason I thought the DO might be best is that the owners of the building do not want me obtaining the photographs and walking around their parking lots with an L would not be a lot of fun for me. I can get a court order to allow the photography, but by then they could change the situation.
Still leaning towards the DO. BTW, the lens cost does come out of my pocket. I hope to use it on similar cases in the future.
José B
Forum Pro
Cheers,
José
--
Images of beautiful women anyware-----Canon DSLR system
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
Wow, what a reasonable response. So in other words you just made that information up.
Thanks for confirming that.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Thanks for confirming that.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum