The Canon DO

[once2work]

Is anyone can tell me the different between DO or no Do on the Canon 70-300. without DO almost half less than the DO. Any picture quality different.

Thank you in advance for your advice.

[francois]

Is anyone can tell me the different between DO or no Do on the Canon 70-300. without DO almost half less than the DO. Any picture quality different.

Thank you in advance for your advice.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two different lenses. You can read Michael's review [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml]here[/url]. The DO model uses diffractive optic (more info here).
Try to Google to find other reviews and opinions.

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Is anyone can tell me the different between DO or no Do on the Canon 70-300. without DO almost half less than the DO. Any picture quality different.

Thank you in advance for your advice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The DO zoom is a really light,handy travel lens, If I want to hike and go really light, it and the 24-105  covers most of what I need.

The lens is not as good as the venerable - and venerated - 70-200 zoom, but it's much much lighter and has the extra reach. I wouldn't part with mine!

Bill

[stever]

the only reason to buy the DO vs the 70-300 is size.  it's convenient to pack and carry and relatively unobtrusive if that's a considration (which it is with me)

the 70-300 may be slightly sharper but that's probably within the range of lens-lens variation (the DO got a bad rep for some early production stinkers)

both lenses get pretty soft around 200mm (although not bad from 70 to 160 or so) and are not very good wide open

neither lens compares to the 70-200 or 100-400 in image quality

if you do a search of the board you will find lots of commentary

[Craig Arnold]

When the DO was released the other Canon was the 75-300, which was pretty horrible.

The new 70-300 came along some time after the DO and is very nice.

I have hung on to my DO though because it is nice and compact and I seldom need a telephoto lens, but don't mind carrying it because it's small and not terribly heavy and gives pretty decent images within its limits.

If I were buying new now I would go for the non-DO which is clearly much better value, or go for one of the L lenses if I planned on using the lens a lot.

[once2work]

If I were buying new now I would go for the non-DO which is clearly much better value,
[/quote]

Thank you to you all, its realy useful information and after reading the photozone.com review, sure plus all yours comments, I decide to go for the non-DO 70-300mm for better value.

Thank you to you all.

[jaclarkaus]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...omp=5&APIComp=3

The non-DO is better wide, the DO is better long.

If I was buying one for travel (with the 24-105 already) it would be the DO one, or for non travel consider the 100-400 IS

[once2work]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...omp=5&APIComp=3

The non-DO is better wide, the DO is better long.

If I was buying one for travel (with the 24-105 already) it would be the DO one, or for non travel consider the 100-400 IS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for your comments, from photozone.com review, seems to be non-DO is sharper and for better money value as told.

How's your 24-105 with you, this is the next lens I'm going to buy once the full-frame 7D come out (or any replacement for 5D).

Thank you!