Advice on EF70-300 4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

[Tectortony]

Hi,
Anyone know how this lens performs on a 20d.
I would appreciate some comments from the wise people on the forum.

Thanks
Tony

[HoppyUK]

Tony, there is miles of stuff about this controversial lens here, and elswhere on www.dpreview.com

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15446632

I have used it extensively on a 350D, and like it a lot. Very compact and unobtrusive, excellent focusing and IS, good if not stunning optics, but high price.

Yes, it is expensive, but the new 70-300mm IS lens (non-DO) was not available when I purchased. That lens is being very well received. As it happens, I need a non-rotating front element so this newer lens is not suitable for me, but otherwise at the price it is very tempting.

For birding, my personal choice for size, weight, price and performance would be the Canon 300mm f/4 L IS with 1.4x extender, which gives you a very handy 672mm (effective on a 20D) f/5.6 lens with IS for about £1,000GBP :)

Richard.

Richard.

[robski]

From the review it looks promising - it's got to be better than the old IS version, which was based on the cheap 75-300 lens.

A Bob Atkins review

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

Robert

[hollis_f]

Robert's directed you to a review of the new (non-DO) lens. This looks really nice and I may have bought it instead of the DO if it had been out earlier this year. I did buy the DO, mainly because it was compact with fast focussing and excellent Image Stabilisation.

The new (non-DO) lens is a lot cheaper than the DO. The only real differences seem to be...

It's slightly longer
The front lens rotates when focussing (makes it not very good with a polarising filter)
It doesn't have Full-Time Manual focussing

The latter would be the real decider for me. When shooting birds in a tree it really is nice to be able to tweak the focus (so that it's the bird, not a twig that is in focus) without having to switch the lens to manual.

If you want to see some pics with the DO, I've a few (hundred) shot in Africa a couple of weeks ago here. (http://imageevent.com/frankhollis/africa)

[Tectortony]

Hoppyuk & Robski many thanks for your comments.

[Tectortony]

hollis f What can I say! You have really got me thinking, do I need a Camera and do lens or do I need a super trip like yours ?
Seeing all those great pics has helped a great deal, but would you mind me asking , have they been manipulated at all, or are they just as taken ? It seems that you would not have had time to play about with them too much ! The one's with the highest contrast seem a lot sharper, I am of the belief that Pics from the do lens appear a little soft without a bit of processing. Any comments ?
Sorry to be a bore, but money is a bit tight and I don't want to make a mistake.

Thanks

Tony

[madmike]

Hi there,
Sorry to say that I think the lens is a total waste of time and money! Save your dosh and get the 300mm IS prime lens, or, if you can afford it, the 100-400 IS jobbie. The normal non IS 70-300 lens is fine for general use, but the IS version is just not worth the extra.

madmike


madmike

[hollis_f]

hollis f What can I say! You have really got me thinking, do I need a Camera and do lens or do I need a super trip like yours ?
Seeing all those great pics has helped a great deal, but would you mind me asking , have they been manipulated at all, or are they just as taken ? It seems that you would not have had time to play about with them too much ! The one's with the highest contrast seem a lot sharper, I am of the belief that Pics from the do lens appear a little soft without a bit of processing. Any comments ?


Yes, they have been processed. Only cropping (in some cases), adjustment of levels (in most cases) and a wee bit of USM (in nearly all of them).

This trip was the reason for me buying the 20D and the 70-300DO. I'd looked at the 100-400IS and rejected it mainly because of the extra weight (we took an internal flight with a total limit of 15kg - the 100-400 was 10% of that allocation).

[hollis_f]

Hi there,
Sorry to say that I think the lens is a total waste of time and money! Save your dosh and get the 300mm IS prime lens, or, if you can afford it, the 100-400 IS jobbie. The normal non IS 70-300 lens is fine for general use, but the IS version is just not worth the extra.

If I'd only taken a prime I'd have missed out on half of my shots on holiday. I was quite surprised at how often I found myself wanting to go shorter than 70mm. And the birds and animals don't hang around to let you change lenses (which wouldn't have been a good idea in the desert anyway).

The IS was essential for several shots. We were out early mornings and late afternoons - when the light wasn't always intense (but wonderful colours). This shot (http://photos.imageevent.com/frankhollis/africa/huge/Africa_051004_174304_64.jpg) would have been impossible without IS (taken at ISO1600, 1/15s, handeld).

[Tectortony]

hollis F, thanks for all your info, I am almost certain to go for this lens, looking at your range of photo's I would be more than happy with those results. Once my bank balance recovers I might well go for a longer prime lens for birding close to home. But like you I like to travel, and I am fundamentally lazy, I do not like taking too many items.
Once again, thanks for your help.

Tony

[madmike]

With all due respect - the photo says it all and confirms my original comments.

In any event, you only need IS in very poor light, but if the lens is no good, it makes no odds anyway!

Don't waste your money!

madmike :C

[hollis_f]

With all due respect - the photo says it all and confirms my original comments.

With all due respect - do you really believe a non-IS lens could have taken a better picture (or even one as good)?

Of course it's not great - nobody would expect a picture taken 30 minutes after sunset, in Africa, to be great. But it was a darn sight better than anybody else could get at the time. And a lot of that is due to the fact that the IS made a long, handheld, exposure possible.

For me, the fact that I got a shot (even if it's not perfect) of the only hyena we saw on holiday totally justified the choice of an IS lens.

[madmike]

Without wanting to labour the point - all I can say about the lens is that it is better then nothing - HOWEVER, if one has a choice, it's simple not worth the money as the image, even under good conditions, is not very good compared to other available lenses.
I have BTW spent many years in Africe and never had the need for IS lens as darkness is so quick dusk only lasts perhaps 15 minutes!
The original question of course was - What Lens to get? - hence my comments!


madmike :-C

[hollis_f]

The original question of course was - What Lens to get?
Ah! I thought it was "Anyone know how this lens performs on a 20d". I must have missed something.

[louisneuville]

On a 350D and a 5D, it works perfectly.
A 24-70 and this 70-300 Do IS USM : the good choice, and a compact outfit, really.
You can always have it with you.
It's a zoom; not a wildlife telephoto lens !

[ghocking]

Compact size is great for a carry round of this length, but optics are average, and IMHO the price is way way too high.
Have not tried it on 5D yet (never stops raining), but don't expect anything better than 20D.
If you want a good long lens, the 100-400 L IS meets this, a fantastic lens and not to much above the DO in price terms. In my view they are not comparable.