# 70-300 DO - is it worth getting it?



## KacperP (Jul 3, 2013)

July 2013 already, but can't afford new 70-300L. Is the 70-300 DO worth to buy, when it's half the price of L?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2013)

I had one, sold it. Best thing about it is the small size - same as the 24-105L. IQ is just ok, needs work on contrast and sharpness in post (although the DxO module handles that well), has an odd bokeh that post processing can't fix (you can see it in the foreground of the image below). 




EOS 7D, EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM @ 300mm, 1/500, f/6.3, ISO 640

Zoom creep is horrible - once with the lens fully extended, when tracking a bird flying overhead, the barrel slammed back in so hard I almost gave myself a black eye with the eyecup. 

I do see them a lot on Craigslist, and they don't move very well. So if you're going to buy it, I'd try to pay no more that $700 so you can resell it without much loss (and hopefully none).

I have the 70-300L now, it's really an excellent lens! Despite being a bigger than the DO version, I far prefer it.


----------



## KacperP (Jul 3, 2013)

I would too prefer L over DO, but...
Or perhaps I'm taking it the wrong way? Maybe I should replace 17-85 with 24-105L for holidays in mountains?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2013)

KacperP said:


> I would too prefer L over DO, but...
> Or perhaps I'm taking it the wrong way? Maybe I should replace 17-85 with 24-105L for holidays in mountains?



If you have a 10-22 or other UWA solution for APS-C, yes. Else, I wouldn't...


----------



## oscaroo (Jul 3, 2013)

I considered the DO for a long time.
The weird bokeh and hazey images didn't convince me.

When the L came out I knew my prayers were answered.

I bought the L and it's amazing.

My advice: Don't by the DO. Save up a bit more.


----------



## KacperP (Jul 3, 2013)

Of course I can save up a bit more, but never in time.
Holiday leave is around corner and I can as well save for another year.
For now I have 17-85 and 28/1.8.
I was thinking about upgrade: used 70-300 DO, or new 24-104L or maybe new 15-85.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2013)

Instead of the 70-300 DO used, how about the 70-200/4L new?


----------



## lol (Jul 3, 2013)

The 70-300DO has its uses, at the right price. I'd say the biggest reason for thinking about it is the small size. If you don't care about size, the Tamron 70-300 VC USD seems to get decent reviews, although you will have to put up with a backward zoom.

Back to the DO, while I had it basically there's two tricks to getting the best out of it. 1: avoid shooting into light and 2: stop down to f/8 where possible. Sold it in the end and got a 70-300L, much better but bigger too.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 3, 2013)

Or if you really feel you must have IS and want to save even more money ( and weight ) look at the 70-300 non L. My daughter's just got one. The rotating front element and focus ring during AF is a little alarming, but the lens is actually _really_ good from 70 to about 120. One or two stops in it's centre is excellent at 200, but mid frame falls off, at 300 two stops in the very centre is excellent, but mid frame is bad. Wide open at 300 it's basically a soft focus lens. 

The DO on the other hand does not excel in the 70-120 range. It is not as good in the very centre at 200 and 300 but the mid frame is _much_better ( than the 70-300 non L ). Build wise the DO feels closer to a L than non L. 

There's no way I would pay the new price of a DO. Used the price is more attractive, about half that of a used 70-300L. It's a tricky one really, the DO basically doesn't excel at anything. Even it's small size is negated by high weight.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 3, 2013)

Where are you located that the 70-300 DO is half the cost of the "L?" Here in the U.S. there is only about $100 difference. Certainly not worth that.

Before I got the 70-300 "L" I had the 55-250 EF-S and then the 70-300 Tamron. Both were excellent (okay, not as excellent as the "L" but both very good and inexpensive.) 

If you are using a crop camera and want a cheap telephoto don't discount the 55-250 EF-S. Canon did the right thing with this lens in my view: they saved money on build quality but did not scrimp on sharpness. To me, a less robust lens that is sharp beats a well-built but not sharp lens any day.

I had no complaints about the Tamron either. Also very sharp. It did have a tough time finding focus on rare occasions, but nothing that was terrible. Technically, I still own both lenses, but my daughter has the 55-250 and my wife has the 70-300. They are both happily still using these lenses and getting great shots.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 3, 2013)

@unfocused:

I was referring to the used ( second hand ) prices in the UK. 

Agreed about the new price. Anyone buying the DO instead of 70-300L new has been smoking the wrong stuff IMO.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 3, 2013)

I had one and loved it, great size, IS good range. I think the IQ problems arent as bad as people make them out. It depends what your used to its not an L lens. But I upgraded mine from a sigma 18-300mm and was a huge upgrade back in the day. But started shooting a lot of events so sold it for no loss after 18 months and got the 70-200mm L 2.8.

One benefit is that the 70-300mm 70-300mm L and 70-200mm series are massive and heavy the latter two being very obvious being white. The 70-300mm DO is small and black perfect for travel if you dont mind stepping down and it not being quite an L lens. Its a compromise. 

Shooting with light over your shoulder can produce lovely images but you do get the slight white halo. Depends what you want/need.

Would I have one again yes. But do i prefer the Ls yes... but the Ls take up a lot of room and your better off having the lens with you than not at all.


----------



## ahab1372 (Jul 4, 2013)

unfocused said:


> If you are using a crop camera and want a cheap telephoto don't discount the 55-250 EF-S. Canon did the right thing with this lens in my view: they saved money on build quality but did not scrimp on sharpness. To me, a less robust lens that is sharp beats a well-built but not sharp lens any day.


+1 on the EF-S 55-250mm. If you need telezoom on a budget for APS-C, this is the best value for the money IMO. IQ and AF of the 70-300 non-L is not significantly better (if at all) to justify the upgrade. No experience with the DO, but from what I read it is not better either.
I used the EF-S 55-250 happily until I knew that I'd be using telezoom enough to justify the price of the 70-300L


----------



## mwh1964 (Jul 4, 2013)

No doubt. Save your money for the 70-300 L. You will not regret.


----------



## birtembuk (Jul 4, 2013)

Borrowed one once. Don't buy it unless you're a photo-reporter working in war, mob, revolution zones. The difference in IQ between this and 70-300L or 70-200 f/4L is quite significant. The latter allowing a 1.4X in future and also for some cropping without much loss of detail.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jul 4, 2013)

If you can't wait to save up to buy the 70-300L, then consider renting it for a specific occasion. That way, you won't end up with a lens you might want to sell and you'll get much better photos than you would from a lens with lower IQ.


----------

