boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Thinking of getting this lens to increase my reach. Does any one have experience with this one. Great price at KEH

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This is a relatively old lens. For about the same price, I'd look at a new copy of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM. This review, near the bottom for comparison to other options, is a comment comparing to the DO. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I agree with this post. The lens you are looking at is quite old in tech. Even DO has come quite a ways since this was introduced.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Thanks. The IS-ll USM is about the same price , new as the DO used. I think will go for the IS-11 version. Truth is I mwould like the L version more, but the extra $ makes it too expensive.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I have version one of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS. It’s still available via the Canon refurb site for $520, when in stock. It’s actally more expensive than the 2nd generation and IMHO, a better value. Except for a little lens creep, it’s rock solid and an excellent reason to not go with the L version. Still shows up on the used market, eBay and Craigslist. Sweet!

Photocraig

I've ad both versions of the 70-300 and I like the II better. The focus is faster and I think the images are sharper. I considered the DO version and the "L" version and decided that for 1/2 the price and close to 1/2 the weight, I'd stick with the Ef version.
C

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

I agree. One of my favorites.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The EF 70-300mm "DO" is a pretty good lens. A friend of mine has used one for some years and has made some good shots with it (what I've seen have been mostly sports).

The "diffractive optics" allow the DO to be really compact... smaller than the EF 70-300mm IS USM "II". However, it's almost identical weight. When it was still in production, the DO was the most expensive of the Canon EF 70-300mm lenses.... it sold for $1400, which was more than even the "L" version sold for at the time.

The EF 70-300 "II" got upgraded IS and the new "Nano USM" autofocus (fast like USM, but quiet and smooth like STM... best of both worlds and usable for both action stills and video). It also uses that interesting LCD distance scale (which can be programmed to show other things... don't know if it can show depth of field, which is always a problem for zooms and would be good use of a digital readout, IMO).

The earlier, original EF 70-300mm IS USM is still a pretty good lens too, as 47greyfox noted.

There's also the more robust EF 70-300mm "L" IS USM.... primary difference being sturdier build and better sealing, a more "pro" oriented design, but also it's the only 70-300mm that can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting collar, which is a nice feature. It is significantly larger and heavier than the more "consumer oriented" 70-300s. The "L" is also around 1/3 stop faster than the consumer grade versions, is usable with the Canon teleconverters (which will not physically fit to the other 70-300s). The "L" also has the best image quality of the bunch at all focal lengths except for 300mm, where the two consumer lenses and the L are all very close... At 300mm the L actually has slightly more chromatic aberration than the "II" (but that's pretty easily corrected in post processing... or even in-camera with some models).

AVOID the EF 75-300mm "III"... it's really cheap, but has the worst image quality them all, uses slower and noisier micro motor autofocus, and lacks Image Stabilization. There are versions of the 75-300mm with USM and with both USM and IS.... but they all have some of the worst image quality of any of the Canon tele-zooms. If using a crop sensor camera, the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM is just a little more money than the "III", but is a much better lens in all respects. They are more expensive, but any of the Canon 70-300s are also better than the 75-300s. All the 70-300s and 75-300s are "full frame capable" (although the 75-300 III is most often sold in kit with the more entry-evel APS-C cameras).

See for yourself. CHG_CANON pointed out the review of the EF 70-300 IS USM "II" at The-Digital-Picture.com website. I recommend checking that out. Bryan's reviews are generally quite thorough and reliable. But you also can use the "image quality" tool he provides there to compare how any two lenses perform, side-by-side at different focal lengths and apertures. From the test shots you can see for yourself the strengths and weakness of each. Often there is choice of camera too. The default for newer lenses is the EOS 5DS-R.... which is very challenging for lenses, with it's ultra high resolution. If a lens has flaws and shortcomings, they will show up in the magnified test shots done with that camera! If you don't use a 5DS-R, you may want to see how the lens performed on other cameras, hopefully tests were done that's similar to what you'll be using (in most cases with the EF lenses, testing was done with at least one full frame and one APS-C camera, though they may be earlier camera models if it's an older, now-discontinued lens).

In addition to the image quality comparison tool (test targets, magnified quite a bit), there are other lens-to-lens comparisons possible at that site: detailed specifications, flare and distortion. He also has a small gallery of "real" shots done with most lenses that can be seen at fairly high resolution. Bryan has been at it for 10 or 12 years and has reviewed and tested most of the Canon cameras and Canon lenses produced during that time, as well as a few of the more prominent older models. He also has some, but less, third party lens and other manufacturer camera and lens tests and reviews. His primary focus is on Canon gear.