What does DO mean?

google points me to this in two clicks
With its multi-layer diffractive optical (DO) element, Image Stabilization (IS) and Ultra-Sonic Motor (USM) technologies, the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is a celebration of precision optics. The lens sets new standards in compact size and high image quality. IS technology allows razor sharp images at lower shutter speeds, while rear focusing USM delivers fast, silent auto focus.
 
TinaC said:
:nuts: Yes, I read that.

Back in the day when I was at school, the physics teacher ran off with my second cousin, so I just don't cope well with physics; or perhaps I'm just thick. Will read it again.

Thanks for rapid response. :)
Click to expand...

Nice response :thumbs:
 
DO sounds great, but I had the 70-300 DO and didn't really get on with it.

People say it is a little soft and prone to flare, which it is a bit compared to more conventional zooms, but I didn't find that too much of a problem TBH. It's big advanatge is that it's very compact, and that's why I got one, but it is not at all compact when zoomed to 300mm, it's flippin huge, and it suffers badly from zoom-creep, ie the barrel extends by gravity just hanging around you neck - very annoying. It is also heavy, and very expensive. I think the regular 70-300 IS is a much better proposition all round.

The 400 DO is a lovely thing, very small and light, but that too is a bit soft - not what you'd expect for mega-bucks. I've never used one, but those that have have stopped me lusting after one.

DO = :thumbsdown: IMHO
 
HoppyUK said:
DO sounds great, but I had the 70-300 DO and didn't really get on with it.

People say it is a little soft and prone to flare, which it is a bit compared to more conventional zooms, but I didn't find that too much of a problem TBH. It's big advanatge is that it's very compact, and that's why I got one, but it is not at all compact when zoomed to 300mm, it's flippin huge, and it suffers badly from zoom-creep, ie the barrel extends by gravity just hanging around you neck - very annoying. It is also heavy, and very expensive. I think the regular 70-300 IS is a much better proposition all round.

The 400 DO is a lovely thing, very small and light, but that too is a bit soft - not what you'd expect for mega-bucks. I've never used one, but those that have have stopped me lusting after one.

DO = :thumbsdown: IMHO
Click to expand...

:lol: So it's DO = NO for you? That helps me, thanks :clap:
 
trencheel303 said:
Sounds like a no go. Do.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, you should try the 400mm F4 DO is very lightweight for a 400mm lens, the image quality is also very good even when used wide open. Maybe not as good at the 400 F2.8 but a lot easier to carry around all day.
 
homer-simpson-doh.jpg
 
TinaC said:
Looking around at more reach for my lil Rebel

I've looked at these two and can't understand the difference that clearly exists
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

DO is the obvious but what does it mean?

:help:
Click to expand...

As above, but what a DO lens really does is make things more compact and lightweight. The 70-300mm DO isn't a great example though, alot of money for a very average lens, the 70-300mm IS would be a better option. The 400mm f4 DO ........ hmmmm a friend has one, for what is now a £5000 lens, I'm not very impressed with the results, would rather eat my spinach and go for the 400mm f4 or 600mm f4 over that lens even with the advantages of being lightweight or the 300mm f2.8 with a TC.

I can see why canon has developed this technology, but I can also see why there are only 2 DO lenses, the tech needs abit more work.....
 
HoppyUK said:
The 400 DO is a lovely thing, very small and light, but that too is a bit soft - not what you'd expect for mega-bucks. I've never used one, but those that have have stopped me lusting after one.

DO = :thumbsdown: IMHO
Click to expand...

It's an interesting observation but mine really does seem sharp enough for what I want/need - I print regularly up to A3. I had one and sold it about 3 years ago to fund my 500mm. I always regretted it and at the end of last year, I bought another one.

My review is here if anyone is interested.

I'd agree on the 70-300DO not being worth the money, particularly since the new 70-300IS turned out to be such a good buy - it wasn't available when I bought my DO zoom but I really think there are times when a 400DO is a lens that will work wonders. Now I have it, my 500 is left at home quite a lot in favour of the 400...
 
I have to say I'm very happy with my 70-300 DO - it's compact and lightweight compared to others, and gets me in close, and is complete with IS.

OK - 2.8 it's not - but price wise it's not 2.8 either... I won't be changing it for a while I'm sure....
 
Cheers for that Paul.

No doubt that the 400 DO is excellent - I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. I guess where I'm coming from the problem is that the 300L 2.8 is just such a fantastically good lens and is really no bigger and very little heavier, plus it's much cheaper, and takes an extender very well too (and focuses closer).

It was comments along those lines that have been made by other users on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top