# The Green Ring - Worth it? 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM



## D.Sim (Feb 4, 2012)

Anyone own/have used one of these? Would it seriously be worth considering one of these, especially for travelling, what with its smaller size, or should I stick to my 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM? (which will be upgraded to the f/2.8 eventually...)

Its got the downside not having a fixed aperture, and having slightly dodgier optics being a DO lens, but will the size make up for that?


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 4, 2012)

I don't have any experience with this lens, but I recommend looking at this review. I think this will help you out. 

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


----------



## Tijn (Feb 4, 2012)

Having read many different reviews on that range of L lenses (70-200 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS I, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 70-300L IS, 70-300 DO IS, 100-400L IS)... If it's the highest image quality that you're after, then I'd say that the DO is a clear no. The 70-300 DO IS image quality is not on par with any of the new (2006+) L zoom lenses.

If you're seriously looking for compromises, then I'd say in this range, it's really just between the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 70-300 DO (as they're in the same weight range, and you already own the F/4L). The f/4L IS is significantly sharper, has better contrast, nicer bokeh, is faster at the whole zoom range, focuses internally, is weathersealed with better build quality and weighs 760g. The 70-300 DO is smaller length-wise (fully extended still a tiny bit shorter than the 70-200 f/4L, not extended about 40% shorter - but a bit fatter) and weighs a whopping 40g (5%) less, but that's pretty much where the list of advantages for that lens ends.

Keep in mind that when it was introduced, the 70-300L IS wasn't released yet. Now that lens is 1kg (vs 720g 70-300 DO), so it's not really a travel lens, but I'm just speaking IQ wise here. The new 70-300L IS (2010) has one stop better IS than the DO, it's as sharp as the 70-200 f/4L, it has weathersealing and at the longer zoom range is a bit slower than the 70-200 f/4L. Length wise it fits somewhat in between the 70-200 f/4L and the DO. But weighing about 1kg I doubt you should consider this as a travel lens.

So my input is, if you're choosing between 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and the 70-300 DO, then definately stick with the 70-200 f/4L IS USM -- unless you really, really, REALLY cannot fit your f/4L lens in your bag length wise.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 4, 2012)

You might want to look here for lens reviews - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

They have separate reviews for lenses on FF and ASP-C, they don't specifically test the DO on your camera (the 50D) but they do test the other two 70-300mm Canon Lenses, and the DO does get tested on a FF and the 350D so you might be able to get an idea from that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 4, 2012)

Unless lightweight and size trumps everything, I'd get a 70-300mm L. I have a 70-200mm f/4 IS and its also easy to carry but it does not go to 300mm.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 4, 2012)

Tijn said:


> The new 70-300L IS (2010) has one stop better IS than the DO, it's as sharp as the 70-200 f/4L, it has weathersealing and at the longer zoom range is a bit slower than the 70-200 f/4L. Length wise it fits somewhat in between the 70-200 f/4L and the DO. But weighing about 1kg I doubt you should consider this as a travel lens.



I would totally disagree - I find the 70-300L an excellent travel lens, the 1/2lb difference in weight is neither here nor there - but its compact size is relevant when putting it into a small bag. The extra reach over the 70-200 f/4 makes it far more versatile. If you have a crop body then this coupled with a 17-55 f/2.8 makes the ideal pairing for the minimal travel kit covering 17-300 with just two high quality lens.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 4, 2012)

Tijn said:


> So my input is, if you're choosing between 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and the 70-300 DO, then definately stick with the 70-200 f/4L IS USM -- unless you really, really, REALLY cannot fit your f/4L lens in your bag length wise.



Agreed. Save the $1200 and buy a bigger bag if needed  It would be money better spent on the 70-300L or the 2.8 upgrade IMHO.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I would totally disagree - I find the 70-300L an excellent travel lens, the 1/2lb difference in weight is neither here nor there - but its compact size is relevant when putting it into a small bag. The extra reach over the 70-200 f/4 makes it far more versatile. If you have a crop body then this coupled with a 17-55 f/2.8 makes the ideal pairing for the minimal travel kit covering 17-300 with just two high quality lens.


True, but the 70-200 f/4L is still significantly lighter - and for SOME traveling, that matters. I have given that a lot of weight (pun intended) in my analysis, because he was actually considering the DO - meaning the consideration of "compromises" was wide open. Adding 300g to the weight list isn't much of a compromise at all. 

But then at least we agree that the 70-300L would make a better travel lens than the DO. Perhaps even better than the 70-200 f/4L, as it's more versatile and a tad bit shorter - but it _is_ heavier, so it depends on what weight you can allow for.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 4, 2012)

I owned the 70-300 DO for a couple of years before I sold it in November on eBay. I have to say, the size of the lens and the reach you get with it are pretty amazing. My girlfriend was quite upset when I told her that I was selling it because she isn't very strong and she likes to take candid shots of people. She's still mad at me for it and she LOVED this lens. She used it more than any other.

Still, I thought there was just something weird-looking about the way the pictures came out. It's very hard for me to put my finger on exactly what about them was weird, but to me they always looked slightly strange, even though they were reasonably sharp. That being said, you can improve them quite a bit in post but they'll never have the great juicy colors that truly good glass gives you. I did not like this lens.

So there you go. You're getting huge weight/size savings but the cost is the quality of the color.


----------



## lol (Feb 4, 2012)

I used to own one. The main reason for it existing I think is the size. If you really need small at that length, it is the only Canon choice. So is the size more important to you than the image quality? Remember it doesn't need to be the best, but good enough for your needs.

If you use it wide open, it lacked a certain punch, but perked up noticeably stopped down a little to f/8. It is quite sensitive to flare though, so you will be needing the included hood. So the small size/space is primarily for storage, not in use. When you stick the hood on you practically doubled its visible size unzoomed.

I didn't keep it in the end as I did want to go for something better (and weather resistant) so traded it towards the 70-300L. Of course that is bigger and heavier, but it is that much better in build and optics too. I guess if you have a 70-200L already, you might as well stick with that (optionally with 1.4x extender) than look at the 70-300L.

If you do decide to go the 70-300DO route, and the price tag seems hard to swallow, keep an eye open on the used markets. At least locally to me, there are often copies floating around for a significant saving over new.


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 4, 2012)

Another thing to consider is that its not an attention grabbing pattern of alternating white and black. The DO is better if stealth matters.


----------



## MazV-L (Feb 4, 2012)

I used to own this lens and loved it! Unfortunately it met with an accident :'( (I'd download a sample photo but my computer and/or this site won't let me  ) Most images look just fine, sharp and detailed until you zoom in on them, then you notice the halo effect. This can look good in some photos IMO giving an ethereal feel. I know one Pro who always used this lens for his wedding shoots and really liked it.
IMHO it's a better lens than the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM I still have.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 4, 2012)

So you already own the 70-200 f4 IS L?

What is it that this amazing light and sharp lens does not do for you?
If you need the extra reach, then the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS L is a no brainer -why?

Whilst heavier, it takes up no more room in my bag than the 17-40 f4 L or 24-105 ISL.

Really, whilst it might be heavier to the tune of a large bag of sweet or biscuits, the compact nature of this lens when stowed away is amazing. And that extra weight? Only really counts at an airport...

Did i mention IQ is as good as the 70-200 f4 IS L?

I traded up from the 70-200 f4 IS L to the 70-300 because i need the extra focal length, and have absolutely no regrets...


----------



## jcsutcliffe (Feb 4, 2012)

I'd have to say as an up/down grade from the 70-200F4 don't bother.
I own the DO and it's a ideal compromise of stealth and range over cost and IQ of the more expensive and better L lenses. With the lens retracted no-one would suspect it was 300mm hiding behind that green ring.
There are some secondhand bargains to be had on the DO that you will struggle to achieve on an L.
New prices there doesn't seem enough of a gap between the DO and L so I'd go for the L.
But then my upgrade from the DO would be to the 70-200F2.8IS Mk1
The big thing for me on my zoom lens of that range is having the IS.


----------



## MonikaC (Feb 4, 2012)

I would suggest that you rent one and see for yourself. I rented one for a couple of weeks last summer and definitely appreciated the small size/big zoom. I sharpened in post, didn't have any problems with flare. I've thought about buying one occasionally, but haven't. I think if there was a killer deal, I'd think about it really hard, but I'm an f/2.8 fan.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2012)

I owned a 70-300mm DO for a while. I was interested in it for similar reasons as the OP - small size for outings with the kids, taking the 24-105mm and the 70-300 DO instead of the 70-200/2.8L IS II. It's certainly great from a size perspective - about the same size as the 24-105, and while you can coax good IQ from the images, it does take more work in post than other lenses. 

Here's an example:




EOS 7D, EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, 1/400 s, f/5.6, ISO 500

I owned the 70-300 DO for ~4 months before selling it. That was just before the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS came out, and I'd choose that over the DO lens now. 

Piece of advice about the DO - if you are interested in one, buy it used. Unlike most high-end Canon lenses, where used prices are not much less than new, the 70-300 DO doesn't hold value - used copies sell on Craigslist for about $750. I bought one used, sold it for the same price I paid - basically a free 4-month rental. That's what I'd recommend if you want to try it out, but as I said, I'd prefer a 70-300L instead. 

If it helps, I previously compared a bunch of lenses at a set of focal lengths, some primes and some zooms, including the 70-300 DO. You can see the lack of sharpness and especially contrast with the DO lens, but I added a set with sharpness/contrast boost, and it's ok. 

Here are the links:

85mm
100mm
200mm
280mm


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 5, 2012)

MonikaC said:


> I would suggest that you rent one and see for yourself. I rented one for a couple of weeks last summer and definitely appreciated the small size/big zoom. I sharpened in post, didn't have any problems with flare. I've thought about buying one occasionally, but haven't. I think if there was a killer deal, I'd think about it really hard, but I'm an f/2.8 fan.



Can't rent here, unfortunately. 

Thanks for the input thus far, I did do my research on the various websites, was hoping to get some first hand experience from users.. 

Main reason I ask is I've been offered one almost brand new, at 20% off RRP. Its gotta get shipped over though, but I know the guy and pretty much trust him on the lens not being a dodgy one. That said, what does interest me is the size - Compact makes it easy to travel. I could go for the bigger bag, but then I'd have trouble bringing it on board the plane. The size also makes it somewhat less obtrusive when I'm out on the streets too. 

Love the input thus far... interesting comments. Not often is the green ring discussed, which is a pity really - could it go far?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> I've been offered one almost brand new, at 20% off RRP. Its gotta get shipped over though...



That's what's commonly available here in the US on the used market - almost brand new copies. Except the going price is over 45% off the RRP. 

The other issue I forgot to mention (no one else has, I think), is really bad zoom creep. If you point the lens down and aren't holding the zoom ring, it will drop out to full extension with a bump. Likewise, if you point it up, it collapses. There's a lock switch so you can park it at 70mm.


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > I've been offered one almost brand new, at 20% off RRP. Its gotta get shipped over though...
> ...



My 24-105mm L does that sometimes. Not always, and not rapidly, but enough to be irritating when I pull the camera round my shoulder from behind my back, and find the thing hanging there fully-extended.

I assume the only "fix" is to send it back to be tightened? I don't really want to do that, as it's one of my walk-arounds.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > I've been offered one almost brand new, at 20% off RRP. Its gotta get shipped over though...
> ...


gee it can get cheap there =/ 

as for the creep, would that mean if you're shooting pointing up (say birds) or pointing down (from a high viewpoint) - you'd need to lock it ? =/


----------



## lol (Feb 6, 2012)

I didn't have creep on my copy unless I was practically pointing straight up or down. In that case, you can just hold the lens to keep it in position. I never used the lock except for storage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> as for the creep, would that mean if you're shooting pointing up (say birds) or pointing down (from a high viewpoint) - you'd need to lock it ? =/



More likely hold onto the zoom ring - the lock only works fully retracted at 70mm.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Tijn said:
> 
> 
> > The new 70-300L IS (2010) has one stop better IS than the DO, it's as sharp as the 70-200 f/4L, it has weathersealing and at the longer zoom range is a bit slower than the 70-200 f/4L. Length wise it fits somewhat in between the 70-200 f/4L and the DO. But weighing about 1kg I doubt you should consider this as a travel lens.
> ...



Also agree with Brian, the 70-300*L* is easy to carry since it is not as tall, most of the weight is close to you hand to it does not feel as heavy, it is compact, has great IQ and is Tack sharp. A definite lens for me to take on travel after the 24-105mm.


----------

