Is the Canon 70-300 DO Good Enough

canonbabie

canonbabie

Messages
1,931
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

Trying to get my wife to use my 550D instead of her Olympus Z something with a 26x zoom.

The only Lens for now I can put on is the 17-55 although a Good lens it's hardly a Zoom. I know and had the 70-300 which has been replaced by the L Neither being suitable for her needs.

A new Zoom would have to be Compact for any use and easy to hold, and with this Range, Reading about this lens it's had very Mixed reviews.

The Question is would this Lens be Good enough.

Is there Any users that could Enlighten me.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Having owned one.. not worth the money. Seriously, it's pretty much the only Canon lens that made me want to throw it in the sea. I probably would have if it hadn't been so bloody expensive. So I sold it with huge caveat emptor to a friend who wanted to buy it. I'm pretty sure he's passed it on already. The normal 70-300 is as good or better in pretty much everything - sorry to say.

Oh and if you do get one, never ever put a filter on it. I don't know if it's the diffractive optics or what but it really suffers from one. But it doesn't matter because the zoom is so hard to operate it's easier to grab the hood and use it as pump zoom.. so you're going to have the hood on always.

Beyond the very good normal 70-300, the 55-250 is a cheap as chips option but not as good. Then you have the superzooms like 18-200 for an all-in-one solution but I've no experience with them - just prejudiced against them ;)

If you want a large zoom which is compact and easy to hold, well she seems to already have one. For a sensor as large as APS-C, they don't come much smaller than the options above which you've probably already considered.
 
Hi,

Thanks Jukka for your Reply, looks like a Rethink for the Zoom.

Was looking for something as Compact as the 300 just to get her away from the limitations of the Olympus.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a prime is not such a good idea if she is used to a zoom lens, particularly with such a large range.

In saying that, I'd love to add the 135L prime to my bag it reviews very well indeed.

Don't know if you have used this site before you can compare upto three lens sizes, I expect the 55-250 to be the lightest of them.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...ages.aspx?Lens=456&LensComp=108&LensComp2=358


Andy

*edit* You did mention the 135L before your edit, or am I going mental :lol:
 
Last edited:
I didn't mention the 135L but now that it came up - it's a fantastic lens. I intend to try it out with a 2x extender today to see how it works as a 270/4 :nuts: Mainly if it's better than my 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x extender (probably won't be but gotta try it).
 
Hi,

Yes Andy did mention the 135mm but then edited after a Rethink for a Variable Zoom.

Though it could still be A Possibility.

Regards.
 
vaizki said:
I didn't mention the 135L but now that it came up - it's a fantastic lens. I intend to try it out with a 2x extender today to see how it works as a 270/4 :nuts: Mainly if it's better than my 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4x extender (probably won't be but gotta try it).
Click to expand...

Jukka, could you just try it as it is (without extender) and let me know what you think:thumbs:.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
The 135/2L without an extender? It's one of the best lenses Canon makes and definitely the best prime lens I have. It's sharp enough wide open and AF is a dream. The minimum focus distance is 90cm (from sensor) so for a tele not too bad but it's no macro lens.
 
It might be worth shoping around a bit for a used 70-300 DO, I'v seen them at around £550 a couple of times recently. For that price I'd say its starting to provide a bit more value for money given that it has USM, a non rotating front and what sounds like a little better build over the normal 70-300 IS.
 
Moreorless said:
It might be worth shoping around a bit for a used 70-300 DO, I'v seen them at around £550 a couple of times recently. For that price I'd say its starting to provide a bit more value for money given that it has USM, a non rotating front and what sounds like a little better build over the normal 70-300 IS.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll try to be a bit more concise. The 70-300 DO is crap. If you want a better zoom in that range, get a 70-300L IS or a 70-200/4L IS. Build quality, weather sealing, IQ on a different planet. But not compact.

The normal 70-300 has USM too, but the plastic in the DO is indeed a bit better and the front element doesn't rotate. But since a filter ruins the damn thing, it's a bit of a moot point.

I'm really surprised they still make the damn thing :shrug: All the happy owners are welcome to prove me wrong though.

Edit: Opinion based on owning 75-300 II, 55-250, 70-300 DO, 70-300 IS, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II (current).. and yes, I've ranked them right there :)
 
Last edited:
You ranked the 55-250 below the DO lens??

It's much better in every respect bar build! I even thought the focus, while noisy, is easily as quick, if not quicker than the 70-300 DO which i too thought was crap, and nothing more than a novelty item!
 
Hi,

Daft question the 135mm on a 1.6 Crop sensor would make it a?.

Regards.
 
canonbabie said:
Hi,

Daft question the 135mm on a 1.6 Crop sensor would make it a?.

Regards.
Click to expand...
135 x 1.6 = 216mm effective focal length on a FF. Just multiply by the crop factor. The lens itself is still 135mm, just you get the same field of view as you would with 216mm on FF
 
I'm probably one of the few photographers who actually rated the 70-300 DO, but I concede it had it's idiosyncrasies, and after a good few years with it, an opportunity came up to buy a 70-200 f4IS + 1.4x for the amount I could sell the DO for secondhand. As everyone says, you can't beat the 70-200.

I originally bought the DO as it was more compact than other zooms and my wife wanted the 'smaller' lens, but over time it became obvious that even though it was smaller, it was quite a bit heavier. Also she liked that it could produce almost L like results without the white paint, which made it a bit more discreet when travelling. Being very robust, you could also chuck it anywhere.

The crappy doughnut bokeh isn't to everyone's liking, and you have to work images a little more in post to get the best out of them. It flares alot easier than most lenses, but I'm a sucker for lens flare so that worked fine for me! The IS was a dream, but the lens creep when shooting close to vertical situations wasn't. I didn't get too many odd results using filters like some have reported.

I'd say it's very expensive for what it is, and the other poster was right, getting one secondhand would be the way to go, especially as I think the IQ is better than the regular 70-300, but not £400-500's better.

Hope this helps,

Mark.
 
70-300 DO is a pointless lens. Not sure why I ever bought one.

It's not great optically (but not that bad either I found) but the whole idea of it is to be compact - which it isn't. It's short at 70mm, but very fat and heavy, and at 300mm it's as long as anything else.

Lots of much better alternatives about.
 
Hi,

Looking now at a lens I also used to own the EFS 18-200 which I thought was Quite good at the time.

Anyone think this is the Better option.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
I will forever be guilty of advising a good friend to fork out his cash for a 70-300 DO
boy what a huge mistake it was very very soft and he bought it after I read a couple of good reviews and told him it was supposed to be a 'good un'

within the first 5 days he was sending me images non stop asking if I thought they were sharp!!!!! it was very poor for the amount he paid and not only that I had a nifty fifty that was far sharper that cost 60 quid

so every time I see a thread about this Lens it brings back my re-occurring nightmare about it
so my advice for anyone thinking about buying it 'DONT'
my 2p
 
On the subject of the 135/2 for "wildlife", here's a wandering cat I spotted on the edge of the woods and took a shot from the car on my way home today..

EF 135/2 @ f/2
i-XVmKS5M-L.jpg


Larger version:

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-XVmKS5M/0/X3/i-XVmKS5M-X3.jpg

No processing at all, just a RAW->JPEG conversion in Lightroom. Sorry for the noise, 5D classic ISO 800.. Finland is dark :)
 
Hi Jukka,

Thanks for taking the time out to take this shot, Excellent:thumbs:.

You must have an Interesting drive home.

Going to have to Seriously Consider this Lens.

Regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top