Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2006, 11:33 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Good evening all!Thanks to everyone for putting up with another "help me decide" thread.I've read every know review on the Canon 70-300 IS USM and Canon 70-300 IS DO USM. I can afford either one. I have a Canon 70-200 f/4L, but I really want longer reach, and IS would be nice.This lens would be mostly for wildlife (whale watches, national parks, fairly close to the animals) and some aviation. With a lot of travel planned for the next year, I want something light and not taking up too much space in the camera bag (have some other lenses on my wishlist).I do use Circular Polarizers, but honestly I usually don't rotate them between each shot. It's a pain with the lens hood on.So now, a couple of questions - should I bother with the hood ? should I really worry about rotating the polarizer ? (would that rule out the non DO) I didn't see a huge difference when rotating.How worried should I be able flare on the DO ?Anyone who's used either (or both, even better) of these, I would really appreciate your comments. Thanks again for your time.Tim*
TMJ1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 18, 2006, 9:19 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I only had in store experience with both. But in terms of sharpness, both of them performed similarly.

At 70mm, the non-DO is longer, but the DO is fatter... In comparison to the DO, the non-DO felt very flimsy (poor build quality).

Most of the time, I'm too lazy to rotate my polarizer all the time. I usually turn it when I think it would absolutely help (I.E. reduce/eliminate glare off of a window).
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 3:03 PM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

My personal view is that the DO makes you work harder to get good results, but that it's probably worth the extra effort.

The lens is very compact, built to a higher standard, and I think it has better IS too.

It is a relatively low contrast lens and needs a bit of adjustment to make it pop, but the resolution is perfectly respectable.

It can be prone to flare, so you must use the hood. Also be very careful with UV filters, they can dramatically affect image quality.

I have never used it with a polarising filter, but because of the DO you may find the image quality suffers. Perhaps google can help there.

In summary my advice would be that if you prefer to shoot JPG and dial in all your settings in-camera then go for the non-DO. If you prefer to shoot RAW and have a good workflow that can add a couple of extra steps specific to the DO then get that lens instead.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2006, 3:50 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
My personal view is that the DO makes you work harder to get good results, but that it's probably worth the extra effort.

The lens is very compact, built to a higher standard, and I think it has better IS too.

It is a relatively low contrast lens and needs a bit of adjustment to make it pop, but the resolution is perfectly respectable.

It can be prone to flare, so you must use the hood. Also be very careful with UV filters, they can dramatically affect image quality.

I have never used it with a polarising filter, but because of the DO you may find the image quality suffers. Perhaps google can help there.

In summary my advice would be that if you prefer to shoot JPG and dial in all your settings in-camera then go for the non-DO. If you prefer to shoot RAW and have a good workflow that can add a couple of extra steps specific to the DO then get that lens instead.
Quote:
Excellent summing up. I have the DO and carry it when I need a single 'tourist' lens above 70mm. I always shoot in RAW anyway but it is necessary to do so with the DO. People who criticise it as lacking punch and claritydo so, I believe,out of ignorance of it's quirks.
Quote:
MeanGreeny is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:25 AM.