Canon 70-300 IS USM Lens v Canon 70-300 DO IS USM Lens

[DICKER]

Hi, can anyone help please I have read so many forums now my mind is boggled!! In your opinion which of these two lens gives the better image quality. I am prepared to pay the price for the DO IS USM but there seems to be a lot of bad reports on it but surely it must be better if it costs double the price of the IS USM. I don't want to buy the IS USM and then wish I had the DO IS USM. Help please? :stuck:

[Torquemada]

Hi, can anyone help please I have read so many forums now my mind is boggled!! In your opinion which of these two lens gives the better image quality. I am prepared to pay the price for the DO IS USM but there seems to be a lot of bad reports on it but surely it must be better if it costs double the price of the IS USM. I don't want to buy the IS USM and then wish I had the DO IS USM. Help please? :stuck:

I have the Canon 70-300 IS USM Lens (not the DO) and I love it. I am planning to sell it though for the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. The 100-400 gives me more reach, it's a bit more versatile than the primes since it's a zoom (though just a tad less sharp), and it costs less than the primes. It's only a few hundred more than the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM so it seems worth it for L glass and the extra reach.

Have you considered the 100-400?

You can see some of my photos taken with the 70-300 IS USM here: www.red-december.net/madhatter/

Most of the photos there were taken with that lens unless it says "macro" in the heading. That might give you some idea. All shot with a Canon 300D.

Not a lot of bird photos I know, but I'm just getting into that.

Hope this helps.

[delia todd]

Hi Jon I see this is your first post so may I welcome you on behalf of all the staff and moderators at Bird Forum.

You've got some great pictures there on your site, good luck with your new venture in to bird photography - hope you put some into our Gallery

D

[Torquemada]

Thanks for the kind words! Glad to be here!

[eastwood]

I own the 70-300 IS USM lens.Unfortunately, when I first used it, I can never get a satisfactory image. Later, I found in the USA Canon site that it falls into the recall group with which there is a problem which I do not know what it is. Anyway I sent it back to Canon Canada and they repaired it for me free. Now I can get usable images. However it cannot match my 100-400 L, which also gives me a longer reach.(However one should bear in mind that the latter lens cost 2 1/2 times the former.) I still would say that the 70-300 is a good lens (much better than my old 75-300 USM II) and I can carry it out on casual trips. I have not used the DO optics, so I cannot give any comment on that lens.

[hollis_f]

I don't think you'll find a lot of difference in the image quality of the two lenses. The important differences lie elsewhere...

The DO lens is shorter and slightly heavier than the non-DO. However, it really does need to be used with a hood to avoid the oft-reported problems with flare.

The main difference is the focussing. The DO's front element doesn't rotate when focussing and it has full-time manual focussing. Neither of these is true for the non-DO (which makes it a real pain to use a polarising filter).