Thread: Lens Q: 70-300DO IS vs. 70-200 f/4 IS L

OK OK im almost done with my 3 LENS set up, i will be picking up a 17-40L f/4 soon, for wide angle needs, already have a 24-70L f/2.8 for standard zoom, and pretty soon i will have to decide on which TELEzoom lens to get to complete my set up...

i really really want a 70-200L f/2.8 IS, but its just out of my budget, with that in mind i am considering these 2 lenses
the Canon 70-300 DO f/4.5-5.6 IS lens

- for its longer range and compact body, but im not quite sure how it will hold up against its most similar L counterpart the 70-200L f/4 IS

- which has all the great "red ring" features including a fixed aperture all the way thru...so im torn

will the DO be just right, esp since im not a pro photog and would rarely use a tele zoom in the 1st place

please advise

thanx!

I have the 70-200 IS but I have heard that the f4 version is ridiculously sharp. I would say go for it.

70-200L f/2.8 IS L...not even in the same league as the other. Just watch out for a deal on a lightly used one or save up...

Why would you get the 17-40 f/4 when you have the 24-70 already? spending that much money for 7mm ? I would personally go with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 if you need a UWA lens and I don't really think you need anything to fill the 17-24mm gap... JMO.

^i was also thinking the same thing, but as far as resale value it seems the red rings are easier to sell and hold their value a lot better than 3rd party lenses

and maybe i will either wait or save up extra for 70-200 2.8 IS

keep the responses coming

thanx

AFAIK the Tokina 11-16mm is really highly regarded and a really nice lens. Resale value on the Tokina is really good, just check out the POTN forums. I love mine.

anyone have any experience with the DO lens?

Coi,

Very good lens choice, as I pretty have those lenses in my bag besides the DO.

Heres my opinion.

Currently I have in my bag a Tokina 12-24. Canon 17-40L, 70-200L 2.8, and a 100-400L (last 2 on long term loan from relatives)

When I first started I have always wanted the 17-40L as an upgrade from the kit lens but I opted for the cheaper Tokina 12-24 since I have always used the wider end for what I do. At first, quite frankly, I had a little buyer's remorse because of the stigma attached to 3rd party lenses and how its not an L lens. It bothered enough to the point where I went out and bought a 17-40L with plans to selling the Tokina.

However it ended up being the other way around. The 17-40L stayed in my bag most of the time. Despite the huge overlap, they are both completely different lenses so I cant sell the 17-40L off, even at a profit.

In response to how someone said that the 17-40L overlapped with the 24-70L, same thing, they are completely different as well. The 24-70L is an excellent lens for event shooting like weddings and ceremonies and it gives you the extra distance from the subject to give the picture a more candid feeling. You cannot do that with an wide angle zoom. Conversely, if you use the 24-70L as an all around lens and bring it to car meets or shoot landscapes, or group shots withing tight spaces, you will find yourself backing into walls or other people.

Don't even bother with that DO lens, especially for the price. All variations of the 70-200L are optically good. The only thing that differentiates them is either 2.8 or 4.0 (which really matters indoors like in a chapel) and whether it has IS or not. Just get the cheapest 70-200. Its a bargain for what it is.

^thanx for the sound advice, i will try and get my hands on a few the 70-200 variations to get a feel of it

and since the subject of wide angle came up again would the 17-40 be enough for group wide angle shots espcially cars, or would i need the 12-24 ????

Originally Posted by ThePerfectExposure

Don't even bother with that DO lens, especially for the price. All variations of the 70-200L are optically good. The only thing that differentiates them is either 2.8 or 4.0 (which really matters indoors like in a chapel) and whether it has IS or not. Just get the cheapest 70-200. Its a bargain for what it is.

Excellent advice! The only thing I'll add is the 2.8 is great for indoor 'action', (school gyms etc) and greater bokeh, and the 4.0 is MUCH MUCH MUCH lighter (and has 4 stops of IS which is one or two more than the 2.8) (obviously comments relating to IS relate to the IS specific lenses)