Question on Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

Words · #1 (**permalink**) 21-12-2006, 12:12 PM

Ok, I know everyone is still going to say go for the 100-400 (esepcially at the price of this), but I'm giving serious thought to the Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens and wondered if anyone had any experience of it. It'll go on the front of a 400D.

The main reason for opting for this is that it is small, has IS, will handle my macro needs as well. Plus I really don't need 400mm to photograph foxes (about 90% of what I shoot). Yes, I know that percentage would come down with a 400! Looks incredibly versatile and its size will mean it gets a lot more usage, which is a major plus. And there's always next Christmas!

danpen · #2 (**permalink**) 22-12-2006, 09:17 AM

I've never used that lens but was very tempted by it recently when looking for a lighter, less obvious lens to get a bit of range (I have the 100-400 but only carry it if I'm reasonably sure I'll need it). I was put off by the rather mixed reviews and the price, I think if it had been a couple of hundred less I'd have taken a punt.

I ended up getting a secondhand 70-300 IS USM that had been recently recon'd due to the "portrait shooting issues".

I'm pretty happy with it, probably not as good as the DO, not as short but very portable and a lot cheaper. As a backup to the 100-400 to ensure I've always got something with me it's fine.

I'd be very interested to hear you opinions if you do go for the DO, and if not your reasons.

cheers

Daniel

York_Tyke · #3 (**permalink**) 22-12-2006, 10:53 AM

I have this lens, haven't used it for wildlife photograrphy much, but took it on a year long travelling trip. I found it idea for this, it's compact enough to go in a small bag, IS excellant, as was picture quality and the focal range was ideal. It stood up to the knocks of travelling around asia, as well as hot and cold climates. Overall I found it to be a fantastic travel lens.

You wouldn't be able to add a Canon teleconvertor onto it, not sure about other makes.

John.

Words · #4 (**permalink**) 22-12-2006, 11:42 AM

John

Thanks for the feedback. At the moment my bird photography is as much for identification as anything else. If I get into it heavily I know I'll need a specialist lens (the 100-400). But I don't need that kind of reach for foxes (they're usually too close if anything). It takes the Extension Tube EF12 II apparently, so that's an option for extra reach.

I'm attracted by the portability of the lens. I tend to chuck a camera in a bag/car when I go out and something like this seems more portable and much more likely to get heavy use than the 100-400 (for me anyway). The alternative is the standard 70-300 IS (about 500 notes less).

I think it will come down to how I feel in the shop when I see them close up, plus minor issue of budget. I should know the result before the end of the year (heading up to Park Cameras next week).

danpen · #5 (**permalink**) 22-12-2006, 02:04 PM

Extension Tubes are not generally a good idea for bird photography as although the increase magnification you loose distance to the subject. I don't know if all 300mm lenses are the same but my 70-300 @ 300 with a 12mm extension tube gives only 0.04X magnification whilst reducing the max focal distance to under 8 metres.

eeyore · #6 (**permalink**) 22-12-2006, 02:39 PM

for my money at that price you would be better off with the 100-400 - you can always use it at 300mm if you want to and have the option of going to 400 should the situation require it.

I've never used the DO lens but you wouldnt see me paying that much for a 300mm lens anyway (unless it was an f2.8 of course

talking of which you might like to consider the f2.8 70-200 IS.)

if you are set on the 300mm option then i would be inclined to go with the standard 70-300 IS which is under 300 notes if you shop arround