Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

[Nathaniel]

After survining the very expensive christmas and New year months,I intend buying one of the above lenses to give me the 300mm reach. I note that the DO lens, when it first came out was more expensive than the L lens but now the DO lens could be bought for approx £200 less than the L lens. I also find that the DO lens is much lighter than the L lens and it has a filter thread of 58mm for which I have got filters of that size to use as well. Both lenses accept the Kenko HD TC (1.4x & 2.0x)

Can any member give me good reasons why I should go in for the more expensive L lens as opposed to the DO lens.

Many thanks

Nathaniel

[jk224]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

I have never owned either of these lenses Nat, but I did read up on both of them when I was looking for a similar lens. From what I remember, the DO lens was reckoned to be smaller and lighter, but was found to be quite soft when compared to the L lens. The L lens also had a significantly shorter minimum focussing distance, which some users found to be an issue.

Of the two I would have gone for the L, but in the end I decided that I couldn't justify the extra expense over the lens I did buy, which was the Tamron 70-300 VC.

[GORDH]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

If you are going to use a convertor Nat you need a sharp lens as theres always going to be a slight degradation with a convertor, the 70-300 DO as always had a bad press as regards sharpness even compared to the 70-300 USM (not L) and I'm sure there was a member on here saying it was the worst lens he'd ever bought cant rememeber who it was though

The 70-300 L on the other hand I can vouch for as I own one, and its a really handy lens to have its sharp, fast and at 300mm end its an extremely useful lens to have out in the field, its only downfall as John above alludes to is that the minimum focussing distance is 47 inches however the DO version is 55 inches
Also I was always lead to believe the 70-300 L didnt accept any convertors not even Canons but if what you say is right re the newer Kenko convertor I will have to have a look at that

Gord

[GORDH]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

Just found this which confirms my thoughts on the 70-300 DO lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Gord

[jk224]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

The 70-300 L on the other hand I can vouch for as I own one, and its a really handy lens to have its sharp, fast and at 300mm end its an extremely useful lens to have out in the field, its only downfall as John above alludes to is that the minimum focussing distance is 47 inches however the DO version is 55 inches


Gord

I put my comment badly Gord, the article I read stated the shorter minimum focussing distance of the L as being an advantage over the DO lens, 47 inches as opposed to 55 inches as you say.

[GORDH]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

No worries John I understood your comment and what you meant

Gord

[Nathaniel]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

Thanks folks for your good advice. I will now consider the Tamron SP 70-300mm VC USD lens as well, before I make my final decision. On your advice I will certainly forget the DO lens as IQ is important for me.

[Richard W]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

There is another test here :

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/540-canon70300f4556doisff

I like this site because it gives MTF charts etc., an objective test for a lens rather than just opinion. It gives a fairly low score for the DO lens of only 2.5 stars. I've checked this site before all of the lenses I've bought and even low cost kit lenses have at least 3.5 stars and higher MTF scores. The Tamron is given 3.5 stars, the same as the Canon L tested on full format, the Canon is given 4 stars on APS-C.
I'd recommend checking the full test reports on this site, it's very good.

[antoeknee]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

I used and still own a Tamron SP 70-300mm VC USD, it's quite light and compact. IS seems to work well and IQ was very good.
Nat if you take a look at my Flickr page there are plenty of images taken with this lens, you may need to go back 18 months or so.
This image from BWC was taken using this lens,

https://www.flickr.com/photos/16830751@N03/15033158464/in/datetaken/

Sorry about link for some reason tablet won't copy BBcode today.

If I had any criticism of the lens it was that the switches for AF and IS were a little too easy to move.

Also reasonably cheap at £200-250 new

[Nathaniel]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

Thanks Richard and Ant. I will certainly look at all the links given. IQ and weight are both important to me.

[antoeknee]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

Just a quick check and weight is 765g.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

Just a quick check and weight is 765g.

Yes, I have checked it as well. PM sent to you. I have e-mailed Tamron re the TC

[antoeknee]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

Just replied Nat. Pity your not closer as would have loaned you mine.

Don't know if budget is a concern but available S/H from places like MPB for as little as £170.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6 L lens and Canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO lens

Thanks Ant. Budget is not a concern of mine for this lens as I was looking for something in the range of say £450! My constraints are IQ and weight and I would like a reach of 672mm with my 100D |(with the TC of course). Having said that I will certainly use the Tamron on my full frame for low light concerts and similar.( I still haven't used my Sigma 100-300mm lens which is in mint/new condition!).