70-300 DO .v. 70-200 L

[IanWorthington]

Not withstanding the abuse sometimes directed at it, I'm a very happy user of the Canon 70-300 DO IS.  I try to take care to avoid issues that might cause flare, and at long lengths increase the amount of sharpening I apply.

Nevertheless I find myself looking at the 70-200 2.8 L IS (or whatever order that alphabet soup is meant to go in) with interest for the (assumed) higher quality and faster aperture.  I had assumed that my interest was purely a result of not having spent too much money on my hobby recently and would be best ignored, but I now notice that Michael R lays claim to owning both of these lenses.

At the risk of persuading me to spend that money, is there really any justification for owning both?

i

[DarkPenguin]

At the risk of persuading me to spend that money, is there really any justification for owning both?

i

Sure.  One is lighter and has longer reach (which means it might replace more than one lens in a lightweight kit) and the other is brighter and sharper.

[Wayne Fox]

I own both.  Typically the 70-300 is the "carry around" lens, especially when backing up the MF system.  If I'm traveling and can't take the MF system so the Canon is the primary system, then the 70-200 becomes the main lens for critical work, the 70-300 for more casual street shooting etc.

However, it's not the like the 70-200 is amazingly superior.  The real advantage is it's faster.  It's a little sharper but images taken with each side by side after working in LR aren't substantially different.

[Bob Peterson]

Not withstanding the abuse sometimes directed at it, I'm a very happy user of the Canon 70-300 DO IS.  I try to take care to avoid issues that might cause flare, and at long lengths increase the amount of sharpening I apply.

Nevertheless I find myself looking at the 70-200 2.8 L IS (or whatever order that alphabet soup is meant to go in) with interest for the (assumed) higher quality and faster aperture.  I had assumed that my interest was purely a result of not having spent too much money on my hobby recently and would be best ignored, but I now notice that Michael R lays claim to owning both of these lenses.

At the risk of persuading me to spend that money, is there really any justification for owning both?

i

I own both.

The 70-200 F2.8L (mine is non-IS 'cause the IS version wasn't announced in 2001 when I purchased it) offers better control of background blur/bokeh, as well as being a faster lens.  I shot a lot of equestrian (hunter/jumper) shows, many indoors or under a roof, and the faster lens certainly helped image quality by keeping ISO down.  When I wanted the reach I have, on occasion, used the 70-200 with the 1.4 extender, and found the image quality pretty good. Of course, the F2.8 versions aren't light or small, especially with the extender attached.

Compared to my 70-200, my 70-300 DO offers less weight, longer reach, and stabilization.  I consider size and weight the most significant advantages over either 70-200 F2.8L.  Also, some venues allow the 70-300, but disallow the 70-200 F2.8L.  For example, American Airlines Center in Dallas says, "Cameras with lenses over four inches are prohibited at all events in American Airlines Center unless accompanied by appropriate media credentials."  At 3.9" the 70-300 DO gets in, but obviously any of the 70-200's won't.

Finally, when traveling to remote locations, e.g., a cruise ship, an extended backcountry trip, Antarctica, etc., one needs backups.  These two lenses obviously provide redundancy with good quality.

Bob

[stever]

my excuse for owning the 70-300DO is that i bought it as a replacement for the 75-300 before the 70-300 or 70-200 f4 were available.  it's virtues are that it's compact and it's black - and it is acutally quite sharp between 70 and 160mm.  but by 200mm it's soft and get's worse.  there might be some subjects for which it's acceptable above 200mm but i haven't found one.

i finally gave it one more chance and sent it back to Canon.  they said they did something to the focus.  they didn't do anything to make it any sharper at long focal lengths

at that point i bought a 200 f2.8 which is black, reasonable sized, SHARP, and from my limited testing, happier with a 1.4x than a 70-200 f4

unfortunately, 70-200 is a really useful zoom range and i may still end up with a 70-200 f4 IS -- or get my head around the concept of a 70-160 DO

[sojournerphoto]

my excuse for owning the 70-300DO is that i bought it as a replacement for the 75-300 before the 70-300 or 70-200 f4 were available.  it's virtues are that it's compact and it's black - and it is acutally quite sharp between 70 and 160mm.  but by 200mm it's soft and get's worse.  there might be some subjects for which it's acceptable above 200mm but i haven't found one.

i finally gave it one more chance and sent it back to Canon.  they said they did something to the focus.  they didn't do anything to make it any sharper at long focal lengths

at that point i bought a 200 f2.8 which is black, reasonable sized, SHARP, and from my limited testing, happier with a 1.4x than a 70-200 f4

unfortunately, 70-200 is a really useful zoom range and i may still end up with a 70-200 f4 IS -- or get my head around the concept of a 70-160 DO

I had a 70-300DO and a 70-200 f4 Lis and I sold the 70-300. It's an easier walk around lens than the 70-200, but not without it's own issues such as zoom creep and worse handling, but overall I preferred the images I was getting from the 70-200. Plus, as stever said, I found the 70-300 fine up to the high 100s, but not really very good beyond 200mm.

Of course ymmv - I don't really like walking round with a great big dslr and long zoom anyway:)

Mike

[Gary Ferguson]

Not withstanding the abuse sometimes directed at it, I'm a very happy user of the Canon 70-300 DO IS.  I try to take care to avoid issues that might cause flare, and at long lengths increase the amount of sharpening I apply.

Nevertheless I find myself looking at the 70-200 2.8 L IS (or whatever order that alphabet soup is meant to go in) with interest for the (assumed) higher quality and faster aperture.  I had assumed that my interest was purely a result of not having spent too much money on my hobby recently and would be best ignored, but I now notice that Michael R lays claim to owning both of these lenses.

At the risk of persuading me to spend that money, is there really any justification for owning both?

i

Irwin Puts, the Leica guru and uber lens tester, has this to say, "the DO 70-300 performs impeccably in the range 90 to 200 at f/8 and smaller".

Tallies with my experience of the lens and is true of most if not all Japanese zooms. They produce a great product, but then competitive marketing pressures mean they feel obligated to add a little too much to the zoom's range, which compromises quality at the extremes. I use the 24-105 4.0 IS L as a convenient walk around/travel lens, but the essential piece of learning on this lens again comes from Irwin, "it's an outstanding 35-90mm lens at f5.6 or 8.0"...everything else is for emergency use only.

[Chris Pollock]

I had a 70-300DO and a 70-200 f4 Lis and I sold the 70-300. It's an easier walk around lens than the 70-200, but not without it's own issues such as zoom creep and worse handling, but overall I preferred the images I was getting from the 70-200. Plus, as stever said, I found the 70-300 fine up to the high 100s, but not really very good beyond 200mm.

I too was considering buying the 70-300 at one stage, but after a lot of research I decided to get the 70-200 F4 L IS instead. Your experience makes me think I made the right decision. Even the 70-200 is noticably inferior to a good prime lens (200 F2.8, 135 F2) towards the edges of the frame, but you can't expect miracles.

[marcmccalmont]

I too was considering buying the 70-300 at one stage, but after a lot of research I decided to get the 70-200 F4 L IS instead. Your experience makes me think I made the right decision. Even the 70-200 is noticably inferior to a good prime lens (200 F2.8, 135 F2) towards the edges of the frame, but you can't expect miracles.

I've owned the 70-300 DO, 70-200 2.8 and ended up with the 70-200 4.0
I too think it has the best combination of IQ and weight
Marc