"DO" vs. "L"

Justiceiro

I have no direct experience with the higher grades of Canon glass, but am putting together a sort of "wish list" of the lenses I would eventually like to own.

I think this would pretty much cover me completely:

17-40 L
35-135 USM (which I have)

and something a bit longer. Does anybody ahve any experience with the 70-300 DO (diffractive Optics)? Is the resolution on this lense comparable to L glass? It seems awfully long, zoomwise, for the cost.

What is, in your opinion, the best canon lens to cover the 135-300 range, or the 40-200 range (or approximation).

Bystander

Justiceiro wrote:

I have no direct experience with the higher grades of Canon glass, but am putting together a sort of "wish list" of the lenses I would eventually like to own.

I think this would pretty much cover me completely:

17-40 L
35-135 USM (which I have)

and something a bit longer. Does anybody ahve any experience with the 70-300 DO (diffractive Optics)? Is the resolution on this lense comparable to L glass? It seems awfully long, zoomwise, for the cost.

What is, in your opinion, the best canon lens to cover the 135-300 range, or the 40-200 range (or approximation).

I have the Canon 100 - 400 L lens -- seems very good to me but I am not an overly critical photographer -- not particularly hungup on sharpness. That being said the lens seems sharp (to me) and fairly easy to use but it is on the big and heavy side. I looked at the 70-300 DO but read so much bad press I decided not to get it. If you read up on it you can decide for yourself. It is tempting tho because it is so small and light (not cheap I would have thought ~$1200 if I remember correctly)

Cheers,
Frank

cmason

There is a great lens comparison by fstopjojo that includes this lens against the 70-300 IS USM, the 70-200 f4L, and a Sigma model. Here is what he says about the DO:

Canon 70-300 DO: This lens is compact but HEAVY. It feels like a solid chunk of rock when you pick it up. The 70-300 DO is aesthetically nice (with build similar to the 24-70L), the AF is swift and silent with its ring USM and FTM, has an excellent IS unit, and its optics generally good (when there's enough light). However, I personally am not a fan of this lens. It costs a lot for what you get (especially vis-a-vis the new 70-300 IS). In medium-to-high contrast lighting, the lens tends to render displeasing "hazy" shots; when you mount a TC on the DO, IQ really dips. I am far from convinced that diffraction of light produces better IQ than refraction of light. IMO you are better off with the lighter 70-300 IS. I recommend this lens, but with reservations.

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/manytests