6D+70-300 DO *vs* 70D+55-250 STM

[Ruined]

So, if you had to pick *only* between these two, strictly in terms of all aspects of image quality which do you believe would yield better results at 200mm equivalent FOV?

Canon 6D + EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
-or-
Canon 70D + EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

Online tests seem to favor the latter, but wanted to get thoughts of people.

 

[Loswr]

If you keep the ISO under 800 and you don't want to carefully convert RAW files, the 70D + 55-250 STM would likely yield better results.

If you properly sharpen and boost the contrast of the 6D + 70-300DO combo, it will likely yield better results at low ISO, and almost certainly at high ISO.

The DO isn't a bad lens, but it needs TLC in post to deliver good results. Even then, OOF specular highlights will look weird. It's also got about the worst zoom creep of any lens I've owned. I once tracked a bird that flew directly overhead, the extended barrel slammed down hard enough that the eyecup almost gave me a black eye.

If you're buying the DO, buy used not new.

Ignoring your constraints, the 6D + 70-300 L would deliver better IQ than either of your stated options.

 

[rcarca]

I don't know and haven't used most of the kid you reference here, apart from the 70-300DO. It was my first purchase after I bought my 7D with a 15-85. I was a total newbie. I now wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, and was delighted to flog it, replacing it with the L.

Doubt that helps much...

 

[Ruined]

I will explain

Lately there have been quite a few occasions I wished I had an unobtrusive telephoto zoom. I have a 70-200 f/2.8L II IS, obviously not unobtrusive
-70-300L nice, but big and white
-70-200 f/4 also big and white
-70-300 non-L ain't too bad, but has dated autofocus I'm not a fan of
-100-400 big and white
-135L cant zoom; though if Canon updated this lens I might go this route anyway

So that leaves 70-300 DO on full frame, or 55-250 STM on crop. I have two 6Ds but have been contemplating getting a 70D also for some time.

I do know the pros and cons of each route, was just looking for opinions of others.

Not buying anything until after photokina as I want to see what the 7D2 looks like (and it will probably push down price of 70D).

 

[Loswr]

70-300 non-L ain't too bad

Given that, I think you'd be fine with the 70-300 DO.

 

[Ruined]

70-300 non-L ain't too bad

Given that, I think you'd be fine with the 70-300 DO.

Probably, it just seems there is so much negative commentary about it (that is justified in some areas, not in others) and it is relatively expensive as well. Maybe I should just rent it, although the lens creep if it is as bad as you say would probably annoy me as well. I wonder if that is fixed in later runs of the lens?

This is a lens that needs an update, I think (or the 70-300 non-L). While the 70-300L is awesome, it is also very large and draws attention.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you want to shoot up to ISO1600, so 70D + 55-250 STM clearly wins. On the other hand, at ISO6400 and higher 6D + 70-300 DO have an advantage on the issue of noise, if you can settle for the ugly bokeh.

 

[luckydude]

So, if you had to pick *only* between these two, strictly in terms of all aspects of image quality which do you believe would yield better results at 200mm equivalent FOV?

Canon 6D + EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
-or-
Canon 70D + EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

Online tests seem to favor the latter, but wanted to get thoughts of people.

The 70-300 DO is crap. Worst Canon lens ever. I've got at least $20K tied up in Canon glass, there is a lot of good stuff there, but that 70-300, oh, my, what junk. You'd be better off getting the $400 70-300 consumer lens (which is an amazingly good lens for the price, a little soft but super light and sharp enough for a lot of stuff).

 

[Loswr]

If you want to shoot up to ISO1600, so 70D + 55-250 STM clearly wins.

The 70-300 DO is crap. Worst Canon lens ever. I've got at least $20K tied up in Canon glass...

I'd like to ask – is that based on personal experience with the 70-300 DO, or based on review sites (e.g. TDP's ISO 12233 crops)? I think a lot of bashing comes from those who have never used the lens. (Not that it means anything, but since counting seems important to luckydude, I own over $30K in Canon lenses... : )

The 70-300 DO doesn't fare well in standardized testing. It does produce softer images than other lenses, but I believe that's due to the nature of the optics, and I found that images actually take more sharpening than other lenses (analogous to the D800 vs. D800E, where standardized tests treating images from both identically show the -E as much sharper, but in practice you can apply more sharpening to the D800 before seeing artifacts, so they are not so different as testing would predict).

Similarly, the DO lens needs the contrast boosted in post. Nothing in post will help the odd bokeh, though.

I owned the 70-300 DO for several months, and in some testing I performed, while the images processed with a 'standard' workflow weren't great, proper application of sharpening and contrast enhancement gave images of nearly equivalent IQ to the 100-400L or 70-200/2.8L IS II + 1.4xII at several focal lengths in the overlapping range.

 

[candc]

If you want to shoot up to ISO1600, so 70D + 55-250 STM clearly wins.

The 70-300 DO is crap. Worst Canon lens ever. I've got at least $20K tied up in Canon glass...

I'd like to ask – is that based on personal experience with the 70-300 DO, or based on review sites (e.g. TDP's ISO 12233 crops)? I think a lot of bashing comes from those who have never used the lens. (Not that it means anything, but since counting seems important to luckydude, I own over $30K in Canon lenses... : )

The 70-300 DO doesn't fare well in standardized testing. It does produce softer images than other lenses, but I believe that's due to the nature of the optics, and I found that images actually take more sharpening than other lenses (analogous to the D800 vs. D800E, where standardized tests treating images from both identically show the -E as much sharper, but in practice you can apply more sharpening to the D800 before seeing artifacts, so they are not so different as testing would predict).

Similarly, the DO lens needs the contrast boosted in post. Nothing in post will help the odd bokeh, though.

I owned the 70-300 DO for several months, and in some testing I performed, while the images processed with a 'standard' workflow weren't great, proper application of sharpening and contrast enhancement gave images of nearly equivalent IQ to the 100-400L or 70-200/2.8L IS II + 1.4xII at several focal lengths in the overlapping range.

I have always been interested in the 70-300do but it gets a bad rap in reviews. I just ordered a 16-35 f/4 and want to get a lens in the 70-300 range to take along with it on backpacking and canoe trips. I already have the tamron 150-600, sigma 120-300, and a sigma 80-400. The first 2 (especially the sport lens) are too heavy and bulky for lightweight backpacking. The older 80-400 is pretty good to about 300 but its clunky and still a bit heavy for what i want use it for.i think the d.o. would be better? Certainly lighter and more compact. I would be using it mostly for landscapes. What would you suggest? Tamron has a new 28-300 but I think a 70-300 would be better in the overlapping range?

 

[old-pr-pix]

OP stated concern for AF on the 70-300 non-L; but isn't the AF on the DO version of similar vintage? I believe the DO version is actually older than the 70-300 non-L (2004 vs 2005 releases?).

I find the 70-300 non-L serves me well as a smaller/lighter/less obtrusive alternative to my 100-400L. Clearly not as excellent as the 70-300L version (by my testing more CA, about 1-1/2 stop less effective IS and some pixel-peeping IQ compromises) but its black and budget priced when Canon has a refurb. sale.

I was tempted by DO version at one point a while back; but, I decided to go with Olympus OM-D for much smaller total package.

 

[Loswr]

i think the d.o. would be better? Certainly lighter and more compact.

The DO is certainly compact, it's about the same size as the 24-105L, and about the same diameter but 1/2" shorter than your new 16-35/4L IS. It's pretty 'dense' and weighs ~4 oz more than the 16-35/4.

As a landscape lens, it would likely be a decent choice as the IQ improves quite a bit with stopping down. As I said, it needs TLC in post. Also as I said, buy it used! I bought it used, kept it for several months, then sold it...for the same price I had paid. Free, long term rental...

 

[Loswr]

OP stated concern for AF on the 70-300 non-L; but isn't the AF on the DO version of similar vintage?

The issue isn't really the age, it's the type of AF motor. The 70-300 non-L is USM, but it's not the ring USM of better lenses (including the 70-300 DO; the 135L is nearly a decade older and has ring USM and excellent AF). Rather, it uses micromotor USM which is slower and doesn't allow full time manual focusing. The front element of the 70-300 non-L also rotates with focusing, which makes it a pain to use a CPL.

 

[luckydude]

If you want to shoot up to ISO1600, so 70D + 55-250 STM clearly wins.

The 70-300 DO is crap. Worst Canon lens ever. I've got at least $20K tied up in Canon glass...

I'd like to ask – is that based on personal experience with the 70-300 DO, or based on review sites (e.g. TDP's ISO 12233 crops)? I think a lot of bashing comes from those who have never used the lens. (Not that it means anything, but since counting seems important to luckydude, I own over $30K in Canon lenses... : )

I own the 70-300 DO. Happy to sell it to you for far less than I paid for it. It sucks. It really really sucks.

As for counting, I have $20K in just two canon lenses - no idea what the total is, I've got a very understanding wife, she lets me buy glass. It's paying off, my younger son seems to be getting the bug. Nothing more fun than passing it on, he's the kid with the 70-300 you should own here:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/2014-08-09-coast/index.html

Maybe this will give some context, this is what I send to people who are trying to decide between Nikon and Canon and I try and get them to go to Canon since I can loan them glass:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-105 f4L IS USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM DO
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM
Sigma 30mm f1.4 (crop factor only)
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM
Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM macro mark 2
Canon EF 135mm f2.0L USM
Canon EF 200mm f2L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f4L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm DO f4L IS USM
Canon 600mm f4L IS II USM
Sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3
Canon 1.4x II teleconverter (works well on the 70-200, 200, 300, and 400)
Canon 1.4x III teleconverter
Canon 2.0x III teleconverter

Lenses I'd like to own (I think):

Sigma 35mm f1.4 (supposed to be fantastic, better than Canon L)
Canon 400mm f4L IS USM (doesn't exist but if it was similar to the 300mm, yeah)

Lenses I've sold or donated or just died:

Canon EF-s 60mm macro (too specialized, I like the 100mm better)
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro (died when I dropped it)
Tamron 18-200mm f3.5-5.6
Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-5.6
Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-5.6
All the Tamrons got red wrong.

Bodies I own:

40D
7D
5DIII

I'm not a great photographer, I just like having the right tool. Technically I'm better than your average consumer but compared to what I see here and elsewhere I suck, other people have a better eye for composition. I'm OK with that, I love taking pictures, it's documenting our lives, life is too short, have some fun.

Lots of people like the 600mm (I do too) but the 400mm is awesome. So light, you can literally shoot it with one hand. Fantastic lens. And with a 1.4x it's roughly the same as the 600mm.

Same love for the 300mm f4, very light, great lens, does macro so you can shoot bees.

I love how much effort Canon puts into glass, it's great. And there are many great lenses. But the 70-300 DO, no love for that lens, such crap.

I have writeups on my opinion on each lens, I'm no Dustin or any of the other reviewers so I didn't post those. If there is some place where less qualified people can post their reviews I'd be happy to do that.

 

[candc]

i think the d.o. would be better? Certainly lighter and more compact.

The DO is certainly compact, it's about the same size as the 24-105L, and about the same diameter but 1/2" shorter than your new 16-35/4L IS. It's pretty 'dense' and weighs ~4 oz more than the 16-35/4.

As a landscape lens, it would likely be a decent choice as the IQ improves quite a bit with stopping down. As I said, it needs TLC in post. Also as I said, buy it used! I bought it used, kept it for several months, then sold it...for the same price I had paid. Free, long term rental...

I checked on eBay and there is one for $769.00 with a heliopan polarizer. Seems reasonable. I looked at the comparison between it and the 70-300l on tdp. The latter looks a lot sharper straight away but it sounds like the d.o. lens takes well to sharpening in post?

 

[tomscott]

I have also owned the 70-300mm DO. For its original price it is not a great lens at all, in fact I skipped it all together. Then some years later I bought a great used version for £450 which is less than a 1/4 the original value. It performs IMO similar to the 24-105mm but is a little softer and bokeh isn't as nice and needs more PP to get the images to look as you would want. The fall off is also interesting, the Bokeh is also a little oniony, but in practice I found the Bokeh onion ring effect difficult to produce, the fall off is much more noticeable quite cluttered not smooth. It also produces the halo effect in high contrast situations.

But once you get over this fact and get one for a good price and do the extra work it is a marvellous lens. If you are traveling it will be a great companion. Compressed it is the same size as the 24-105mm, it is heavy for its size (720g) but it is tiny and black which is another great strength. I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 70-300mm L but going into countries that aren't quite as developed or fortunate and waving high end white lenses around is asking for trouble. The F4.5-5.6 is a little annoying but with a FF DSLR its not a bad compromise.

I actually really liked my copy but sold it as I needed more light gathering capability for events. Wish I hadn't sold it, it fills a niche and isn't the best performer but for its size weight nothing can compete with it. With IS 70-300mm range and its size it really is a great choice.

I have been looking for another copy as I am going traveling for 6 months in South america and US in October. Been looking at lots of sample images on FF as I owned the lens with a crop camera.

Untitled by Adam Perfect, on Flickr

If you have a look at the image closely or go on Flickr and download the full res the fall off at the bottom of the frame is interesting. But it is sharp where it needs to be, having a lens that is easily carryable will get much nicer shots than a lens left at home because of its size/weight.

 

[tomscott]

I dug this image out of my library from 2008. To demonstrate my personal experience.

40D 70-300mm DO 160mm 1/100 F6.3 ISO100

Shot in high contrast situation, the bokeh in the bottom is not oniony neither is there any Halo (if you believe the reviews there should be significant amounts of both). The image is also really quite sharp it was sharpened selectively using Smart Sharpen - amount 140 (which is about double what I would usually use for the 40D) at a radius of 0.8.

Lowther Lambs, Lowther Castle, Penrith, Canon 70-300mm DO by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Can make some great images

 

[e17paul]

I will explain

Lately there have been quite a few occasions I wished I had an unobtrusive telephoto zoom. I have a 70-200 f/2.8L II IS, obviously not unobtrusive
-70-300L nice, but big and white
-70-200 f/4 also big and white
-70-300 non-L ain't too bad, but has dated autofocus I'm not a fan of
-100-400 big and white
-135L cant zoom; though if Canon updated this lens I might go this route anyway

So that leaves 70-300 DO on full frame, or 55-250 STM on crop. I have two 6Ds but have been contemplating getting a 70D also for some time.

I do know the pros and cons of each route, was just looking for opinions of others.

Not buying anything until after photokina as I want to see what the 7D2 looks like (and it will probably push down price of 70D).

I share your views about the 70-300L, and bought one despite the white paint. I have fitted a black lenscoat, which is partially successful in reducing the shoutiness of the big white look.

Before buying, I did try out a second hand 70-300 DO at a store. The sloppiness of the zoom did not even allow 300mm to be used when pointing the camera upwards. This was useless for me, because I prefer to zoom with my feet unless a jetpack would be required. A non-L 70-300 IS in the same shop was the same.

That did not bode well for long term ownership, so I swallowed my misgivings about the paint colour and invested in the L. The other downside of the non L is the rotating front element, making circular polarisers a chore, requiring a switch to manual focus to keep the front element from rotating.

If you already have the 70-200/2.8L IS II then I would veer towards the 55-250 STM and body to go with it. If the f/2.8 and FF serves its purpose for low light, the 400mm effective length of the 55-250 gives you twice the reach outdoors. That was a very close second choice to my eventual decision, even without already owning a big white zoom. You would also gain the third option of 70D + 70-200 with 320mm equivalent reach in reasonable light.

On the other hand, discounts and/or announcements are expected in a few weeks, if you have no immediate need.

 

[Ruined]

I am still undecided what to do. Will see what happens at Photokina.

On one hand, the 70-300 DO IS will likely deliver good enough quality for what I desire; I am not as concerned with sharpness as some. On the other hand, I do not want to be smashed in the eye with my camera because of lens creep lol! And I have heard this lens suffers from lens creep from multiple sources - any know if this was improved in future production runs of this lens?

One thing is for sure, the "new" price of the 70-300 DO IS needs to go down. It is nowhere in sync with the used price and if you do buy new currently you are guaranteed to take a significant loss if you sell the lens. This is one lens I would want to buy new in hopes that things like the lens creep were remedied over time.

Another concern with the 70-300 DO IS is the weird flare, though. It appears the DO technology at least in this lens results in flare that can actually ruin a picture as it creates a color cast. I saw a website that someone combat this by using a custom lens hood that was like 10" long - kind of defeats the purpose of this lens.

Because of these weird problems, the 55-250 IS STM in my opinion will offer more predictable and consistent performance, and I see few occasions where the 70-300 DO IS will greatly excel over the 55-250. Another issue, of my own doing, is that the 70-300 has an f/5.6 max aperture and my two 6Ds have Eg-S focusing screens to MF off center shallow DOF portraits. f/4 is usable, but f/5.6 on the Eg-S gets pretty bad in dim light. 70-200 f/4 is an option, but back to long white lens again, heh.

So right now I am leaning 70D + 55-250 STM. While the lens will be useless on my 6Ds, it is cheap and the 70D as a bonus offers improvements my 6D cameras do not have. I would not trade in my 6D for a 5D3 due to lack of focusing screen options (even with all the AF points of the 5D3, it is missing points where the eyes are for off-center portraits - using Eg-S I have become quite good at MF through viewfinder) and I can't justify the cost of the 1DX based on my revenue stream.

 

[Sporgon]

The 70-300DO has two advantages: firstly it is very compact, and secondly it sells for less than half it's new price used. Agree with those that say it responds to unsharp mask. It's weak at the 70mm mark and that is where the 70-300 non L is actually very good - unlike the rest of that lens's range where the performance is quite dire.

Can't imagine anyone buying a DO new when it is the same price as the 70-300L.