Which 70-300mm Canon Lens
Mar 18, 2016 20:22:17 #
Greetings Hedgehogs Finally received My Refurbished 7D MK II from Canon w 18-135mm kit lens .
Now I obviously need to add a longer lens :D will be Primary Used as Walk Around Shooting Birds/Nature
My local dealer has a:
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM For $350.00 or less
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM For $419.00 or less
Which lens would You rather shoot with, read good and bad reviews on both the or less part comes from the fact that the clerk mentioned he could be a little flexible on the price because I start their 5wk "Canon 101" class next Thursday
Now I obviously need to add a longer lens :D will be Primary Used as Walk Around Shooting Birds/Nature
My local dealer has a:
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM For $350.00 or less
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM For $419.00 or less
Which lens would You rather shoot with, read good and bad reviews on both the or less part comes from the fact that the clerk mentioned he could be a little flexible on the price because I start their 5wk "Canon 101" class next Thursday
Mar 18, 2016 20:35:29 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Greetings Hedgehogs Finally received My Refurbishe... (show quote)
The first gen DO lenses apparently had more flare issues than the current generation, but the standard (non DO) version is quite an old design and possibly due for replacement. The standard lens is quite good, although a little noisy. The DO is twice the price new. I would go play with them both, shoot the DO into the light, especially with light sources visible and see which you prefer. The price on the standard lens is OK but not great, I paid $275 for mine on ebay and have no problems...
Mar 18, 2016 21:02:00 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Greetings Hedgehogs Finally received My Refurbishe... (show quote)
I would go for the DO version if I had to make this decision.
I have used the non DO on my 6D and 7DII. On the 7DII it will do for Birds/Nature as long as things aren't too far away. It has pretty good IQ. The DO version has better IQ.
But, that said, I vastly prefer my 100-400 mkI for the extra 100 mm and it holds its IQ with the 1.4X on the 7DII and still does AF on the center point. Its over all IQ is better also. (You can probably find a used one for 700-900, I paid 740. Yes, I dream about getting a mkII)
The main advantage the 70-300 has is size/weight for carrying around. If I am using my 24-105L I will put the 70-300 in the bag, just in case. The 100-400 goes in the bag if I know I am going to needing the reach, I'll put up with the weight.
Mar 18, 2016 21:06:46 #
robertjerl wrote:
I would go for the IS version if I had to make thi... (show quote)
These are both IS lenses aren't they? Did I miss something?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0001G6U3Y
The 100 - 400 is in a very different price range.
For those prices I would be looking for a reason not to buy the DO lens....
This may be interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkBOsTVfpdA
Mar 18, 2016 21:20:56 #
[quote=robertjerl]I would go for the IS version if I had to make this decision.
Both are IS :) so which did you mean ?
(The price on the 100 to 400 would put me way over budget my "Won't Increase Financial Expenditure" otherwise known as WIFE would be a hard sell on that :lol:
Both are IS :) so which did you mean ?
(The price on the 100 to 400 would put me way over budget my "Won't Increase Financial Expenditure" otherwise known as WIFE would be a hard sell on that :lol:
Mar 18, 2016 21:38:51 #
Thanks to both of you for spotting my goof, I edited the entry.
I should not pet the dogs, watch for birds at the feeders and answer questions from my wife while I type.
I would pick the DO version because of the newer tech and better IQ. As corrected, I do own the non DO version.
I won't be buying the DO myself because I prefer the 100-400 in spite of size and weight. I bought mine for 740 including shipping from another hogger.
Ebay has several 100-400 mkI starting at $500 right now.
I should not pet the dogs, watch for birds at the feeders and answer questions from my wife while I type.
I would pick the DO version because of the newer tech and better IQ. As corrected, I do own the non DO version.
I won't be buying the DO myself because I prefer the 100-400 in spite of size and weight. I bought mine for 740 including shipping from another hogger.
Ebay has several 100-400 mkI starting at $500 right now.
Mar 18, 2016 21:43:15 #
robertjerl wrote:
Thanks to both of you for spotting my goof, I edit... (show quote)
This is what forums like the HOG are for. In days of yore we had copy editors to check that kind of thing!
I wrote a blog a couple of weeks ago and missed a typo. Mostly I was correct, with qubits, but I let a cubit slip through! :-D :-D
That said, we all seem to agree...
Mar 18, 2016 21:56:28 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
Greetings Hedgehogs Finally received My Refurbishe... (show quote)
I see you have the STM 18 -135 also, nice!
Mar 18, 2016 22:00:50 #
yes I have only had it out for a 2 mile hike so far just miss the range slightly on my SX50 but I'll get used to it :)
Mar 18, 2016 22:20:22 #
NormanTheGr8 wrote:
yes I have only had it out for a 2 mile hike so far just miss the range slightly on my SX50 but I'll get used to it :)
But that's why you've gone for the DSLR with its much bigger sensor and more flexibility. Point is that the 18-135 STM is a very good lens, better than its predecessor.. You want more reach, and unless you find a reason not to do so, two people who have the standard 70 -300 IS USM are suggesting you take a very serious look at the DO.
Then, you need the EF-S 10-18 without question, unless you have already bought that!
I have other lenses, but my standard set is the EF-S 18 -135 STM, the EF-S 10- 22, and the EF 70 -300 IS USM. The new 100-400 L is on my list when I can justify the $. After that, a 7DII, 80D, or whatever fits that need when I'm ready.
You are on a good track...
Mar 18, 2016 22:48:42 #
I have/had the two lenses that you are looking at. I have had very sharp copies of the USM lens. Yeas I have bought and sold. Here on the desk I have the DO. 350 & 419 are great pricing for both lenses. I believe that the DO is better buy. I have not shot my DO much as I have had some health issues and have not used the length. If it is half way decent condition you can play with it and then re-sell if not happy.
There are those detractors of the DO 70-300. Some say slow to focus etc. Also for the price you could go 70-200 f/4.
The DO is light and works well in a pack with the 24-105 L and my UWA.
J. R.
There are those detractors of the DO 70-300. Some say slow to focus etc. Also for the price you could go 70-200 f/4.
The DO is light and works well in a pack with the 24-105 L and my UWA.
J. R.
Mar 18, 2016 22:52:44 #
I would look for a used version II of the 70-200mm IS f2.8 if your budget can stretch that far. Great lens, and you have a crop factor in your favor, it also takes either the 1.4x or 2x if you wish more reach. Shooting birds you need the lowest f stop you can afford as so many shots are either dark or need a very high shutter speed. With higher f stops, the camera has a hard time focusing.
Mar 19, 2016 05:40:02 #
mikegreenwald
Loc: Illinois
I've had the DO IS lens for several years, and I'm very happy with it. It is slightly less sturdy than "L" lenses, but so far no issues with mine. It is lighter than the non-DO version, easy to carry and use, and IQ is ore than satisfactory.
In my mind it's a no-brainer to choose the DO.
In my mind it's a no-brainer to choose the DO.
Mar 19, 2016 06:28:50 #
I've used all 4 of Canon's 70-300 lenses. I'd discount the bottom of the range, but the next one up is a reasonable performer.
My sister has the D.O. lens and it's quite good. Although I've never noticed it I'm told the D.O. can produce a sort of circular effect to out of focus areas.
For myself I was recently able to afford the 'L' series and I'm quite pleased with it. Many UH'ers suggested the 100-400 as being a better lens but I already had a 400.
It's really a budget question. Loaded, get the 'L', less so (or early days) I'd probably go for the 70-300 USM, but that price seems a lot compared to the D.O. (unless thats been around the block a few times). The USM I used was my neighbours (bought of EBAY) and was quite good.
Note that neither the D.O. or 'L' can be used with extenders and both are heavier than the USM. Add a lens clamp to the 'L' to make hand held shots easier.
My sister has the D.O. lens and it's quite good. Although I've never noticed it I'm told the D.O. can produce a sort of circular effect to out of focus areas.
For myself I was recently able to afford the 'L' series and I'm quite pleased with it. Many UH'ers suggested the 100-400 as being a better lens but I already had a 400.
It's really a budget question. Loaded, get the 'L', less so (or early days) I'd probably go for the 70-300 USM, but that price seems a lot compared to the D.O. (unless thats been around the block a few times). The USM I used was my neighbours (bought of EBAY) and was quite good.
Note that neither the D.O. or 'L' can be used with extenders and both are heavier than the USM. Add a lens clamp to the 'L' to make hand held shots easier.
Mar 19, 2016 07:20:21 #
robertjerl wrote:
Thanks to both of you for spotting my goof, I edit... (show quote)
I had the 70-300 non DO. It was OK but gave it to my daughter when I got the 100-400mI. Substantial difference in quality. I do not know the DO version but if rated better then I would go that way.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.