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

[Elvie]

I was wondering if anyone has this lens, I have a Canon 80D camera which has a crop sensor,
and I need a Lens to be a multi purpose use with a reasonable zoom .
As this lens is a Full Frame, I am hoping to gain more in this lens but concerned that I will
loose some depth or width with the crop sensor, So I would be great full for some feed back,
from anyone who has advise.
I have checked this lens because of its weight of 720g it seems the lighter weight of any other
for what it delivers.
I would appreciate any help , and thank you

[ameerat42]

Elvie. It doesn't matter at all that it's designed for a "full frame" camera.
It will cover the crop sensor more than adequately and you will lose nothing.
- In fact, you'll gain something: not having to buy a lens if you go FF :D

[nardes]

Hi Elvie

I have not used this lens so cannot offer any advice or feedback.

However, I usually have a look at this website for Lens Reviews (http://www.opticallimits.com/) before I consider purchasing a new lens. It used to be known as Photozone but has been re-named.

This is a link to a full frame test of the lens you mention.

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/540-canon70300f4556doisff

The lens seems to have a bit of a mixed review and if I were looking at it, I would try to identify how I might use this lens to determine if any of its potential short comings would affect it in how I planned to use it. For example, if on an APSC sensor and I only wanted the central region to be excellent, would it do?

For the "hard data" stuff, I usually draw up a table and list my key requirements and then score them out of 10 in terms of their importance.

So if lightweight is of critical importance, this lens would attract a high score.

But, if pure optical quality were critical, it looks like it might not score as high as I would like?

After I have done all the number crunching to see if the results tell me clearly to either "consider it" or "walk away from it", I look at the more subjective aspects such as can I live with any limitations, would I experience buyers remorse if I sold my requirements short and the lens did not perform to my expectations, etc.

Cheers

Dennis

[Elvie]

Hi Dennis, Thanks for your reply, I much value your opinion, I will certainly do as you suggest. This not a cheap lens, so I do need to be careful
I will keep you posted.
Elvie

[Tannin]

G'day Elvie.

The 70-300 DO is a first-generation DO lens and like the 400/4 DO Mark 1, it wasn't a success. Although it is small, very well made, and fairly light, it is not regarded as much good optically. It is very expensive indeed for its mediocre performance. If you are going to spend that sort of money on a lens in that focal length range, the excellent 70-300L is only 30% heavier and about the same price. Much better value. (I own a 70-300L and the only reason I don't use it as my go-to is that I also have a 100-400 II. Sometimes I think about selling it as unnecessary, given that I have its range covered by various other lenses, but I never quite go ahead because on those infrequent occasions when I do use it, I am always reminded of how sweet and usable a little thing it is.)

Then there are the four L Series 70/200s. You might consider the 70-200/4 IS which is an extra $200-odd and slightly lighter than the 70-300L, though I reckon you'd do better with the longer one, which is only one stop slower and 50% longer. The 70-200/2.8 models are very dear.

There are lots of cheaper 70(ish) to 300(ish) lenses. Most of them will be lighter than the DO but I don't know too much about them, other than the EF-S 55-250 USM which is around half the weight, $320ish instead of $1700ish, and easily superior optically. The trade-off is that it doesn't have the same tank-like build quality, and it is EF-S only. If you want a full frame lens in the lower price range, then you might look at the Canon 70-300 (non-L) which is said to be around about equal to the 55-250 and better built but costs nearly twice as much, or any of about 6 third-party lenses in this category. Avoid the Canon 75-300: it is much improved over the truly dreadful original, but so is a milk bottle.

First generation DO lenses are notorious for poor contrast, and the 70-300 DO is no exception. See here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=243&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1 I wouldn't be going there.

=======================================================================

A note re depth of field and width/length/field of view.

Depth of field is determined by (a) framing, and (b) aperture. Nothing else. (At least to a pretty good first approximation.) It makes no difference whether you use a 300mm lens and stand a long way away or a 50mm lens and stand close. If the subject is the same size in your viewfinder, the depth of field is the same. (Unless you use a different aperture.)

Any lens of a given focal length - 300mm let's say - behaves the same way on the same camera. At (e.g.) 85mm on an 80D, my friend's EF-S 15-85 (crop lens) and my EF 24-105 or my EF 85mm prime or my EF 70-300 (all three are full frame lenses) produce the same picture. There are differences of detail, of course: each lens has slightly different abilities, but these are slight differences. I'd expect the prime to be marginally sharper and more contrasty than either of the small zooms, for example, and probably marginally sharper than even the outstanding 70-300, but I'm talking differences so small that most people couldn't see them without carefully comparing them side by side. For practical purposes, 85mm is 85mm is 85mm.

[Brian500au]

Hi Elvie - I have to agree with Tony. If you are going to pony up for a 70-300 lens then I would strongly suggest the 70-300L. It is a stellar lens in every way - I personally own one, and like Tony, it does not see the light of day much (as I have it covered in other focal lengths). Where it does out do any other lens I own is as a tele walk around lens, and it is the first lens I pack when I am about to travel abroad.

The only other lens I would consider in this focal range would be one of the three available 70-200L lenses - with the advantage of being constant F4 aperture.

If $$$ are playing a role in your decision - keep an eye on both Ebay and Gumtree, although the latter is less safe unless you are personally inspecting and picking up the lens before you pay.

[Elvie]

G'day Elvie.

The 70-300 DO is a first-generation DO lens and like the 400/4 DO Mark 1, it wasn't a success. Although it is small, very well made, and fairly light, it is not regarded as much good optically. It is very expensive indeed for its mediocre performance. If you are going to spend that sort of money on a lens in that focal length range, the excellent 70-300L is only 30% heavier and about the same price. Much better value. (I own a 70-300L and the only reason I don't use it as my go-to is that I also have a 100-400 II. Sometimes I think about selling it as unnecessary, given that I have its range covered by various other lenses, but I never quite go ahead because on those infrequent occasions when I do use it, I am always reminded of how sweet and usable a little thing it is.)

Then there are the four L Series 70/200s. You might consider the 70-200/4 IS which is an extra $200-odd and slightly lighter than the 70-300L, though I reckon you'd do better with the longer one, which is only one stop slower and 50% longer. The 70-200/2.8 models are very dear.

There are lots of cheaper 70(ish) to 300(ish) lenses. Most of them will be lighter than the DO but I don't know too much about them, other than the EF-S 55-250 USM which is around half the weight, $320ish instead of $1700ish, and easily superior optically. The trade-off is that it doesn't have the same tank-like build quality, and it is EF-S only. If you want a full frame lens in the lower price range, then you might look at the Canon 70-300 (non-L) which is said to be around about equal to the 55-250 and better built but costs nearly twice as much, or any of about 6 third-party lenses in this category. Avoid the Canon 75-300: it is much improved over the truly dreadful original, but so is a milk bottle.

First generation DO lenses are notorious for poor contrast, and the 70-300 DO is no exception. See here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=243&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1 I wouldn't be going there.

=======================================================================

A note re depth of field and width/length/field of view.

Depth of field is determined by (a) framing, and (b) aperture. Nothing else. (At least to a pretty good first approximation.) It makes no difference whether you use a 300mm lens and stand a long way away or a 50mm lens and stand close. If the subject is the same size in your viewfinder, the depth of field is the same. (Unless you use a different aperture.)

Any lens of a given focal length - 300mm let's say - behaves the same way on the same camera. At (e.g.) 85mm on an 80D, my friend's EF-S 15-85 (crop lens) and my EF 24-105 or my EF 85mm prime or my EF 70-300 (all three are full frame lenses) produce the same picture. There are differences of detail, of course: each lens has slightly different abilities, but these are slight differences. I'd expect the prime to be marginally sharper and more contrasty than either of the small zooms, for example, and probably marginally sharper than even the outstanding 70-300, but I'm talking differences so small that most people couldn't see them without carefully comparing them side by side. For practical purposes, 85mm is 85mm is 85mm.

Hi Tony, Thanks for going to all that detail explaining all of the above, I think I best go back and re think my options and move toward the 70-300L I do really appreciate the message of avoiding the mistake of Purchasing the 70-300 DO though, so Thanks
Regards Elvie

[Elvie]

Hi Elvie - I have to agree with Tony. If you are going to pony up for a 70-300 lens then I would strongly suggest the 70-300L. It is a stellar lens in every way - I personally own one, and like Tony, it does not see the light of day much (as I have it covered in other focal lengths). Where it does out do any other lens I own is as a tele walk around lens, and it is the first lens I pack when I am about to travel abroad.

The only other lens I would consider in this focal range would be one of the three available 70-200L lenses - with the advantage of being constant F4 aperture.

If $$$ are playing a role in your decision - keep an eye on both Ebay and Gumtree, although the latter is less safe unless you are personally inspecting and picking up the lens before you pay.

Hi Brian,
Thanks for your reply to my help for selecting the right lens. I think I am going for the 70-300L I will check out all the details again then make my order.
Regards Elvie

[Tannin]

A great choice, Elvie. Compare the two here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=243&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

[Elvie]

To, Dennis, Am, Tony and Brian,

Thank you all for the advise re the purchasing of a new lens for my 80 D camera,
Through the week just gone, I ventured into the Ted's Camera store so I could try the lens
on the camera to check the weight combined, as with my weak arthritic wrists I have problems holding
the camera still. The 70-300 was too heavy so ended up settling for the 70-200f4L IS USM. So far I am very
happy with it though I have not had much time to play with it.
I just want to Thank you all for your in put it was much appreciated.
Regards, Elvie

[nardes]

Congratulations Elvie, the 70-200 F4L IS USM is an outstanding lens.:):th3:

Cheers

Dennis