Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM 'DO' lens review with samples (Full-frame and APS-C)

[@AtomicArcherGuy]

I agree that the contrast is not great, but I really haven’t run into problems with this lens while using it in the studio. No regrets in buying this one used for just $300 Canadian. And now I don’t feel the need for a 70-200mm, I can wait and save up for the RF 2.8L version im drooling at. Meanwhile, my studio work has improved, so alls well that ends well.

[@Locke1981Germany]

Great review. Your actually nailing it to the point. Although all of the negatives you mention are true I still like this lens a lot. Got it for 109€ because it had some focus hunting problem that was easily repaired with cleaning the Focal length brush. It replaced an ancient 100-300mm Cosina lens in my stock and does so very well. It’s basically my weapon of choice when I don’t want to take out the big and heavy 80-200 f2.8 L or Sigma 135-400mm and for me still has acceptable image quality on my 7D or M50 (works also well with my Viltrox Speedbooster). One of the biggest positives for me is that it has almost no chromatic aberration, in some situations it even surpasses my two old L lenses that show a little bit of purple color fringing in high contrast situations. Image stabilization works very well and the compact size make it an ideal travel telephoto for my taste. If you can get it used and in good shape for around 200€ to 300€ I think it’s still worth it.

[@miguelpais9445]

I have this lens and I quite like it. I always work in raw, so contrast is easy to increase in post processing. What makes me like the lens a lot is its color rendition. It really has almost no chromatic aberration, and if you process a bit the raw files, you end up with fantastic colors, with exquisite skin tones. I quite like to do some portraits with it. I also used it some times for surf, and was quite pleased with the result. It is not a perfect lens, but can give you some very nice results. But it isn't a lens for all seasons and for all ocasions.

[@kishascape]

Yeah you don’t need RAW to bump contrast at all. Any DSLR puts out decent enough jpegs to go crazy on that and saturation without much quality loss.

[@diegoramirez6165]

Hi. The canon 70 300 do is works fine handheld on 300 mm sharpen images?

[@fencing1goat]

The lens is sharp. Ive been using this lens for years, never have i taken a photo and gotten a low quality image as the one in your video. The lens produces excellent images with nice sharp and rich colours. Its superfast, and the stabilization is incredible. However, it is a bit too expensive. But its much better than the newest 70-300 USM ii. which is also overpriced for 600 dollars.

[@KandiKlover]

Yes a lot of the new 2016 2018 mark 2 mark 3 versions. This is great but the diffractive optics don’t work well in strong light which is why he got those photos. Gotta keep the lens hood on.

[@fencing1goat]

@@KandiKlover Exactly, lens hood on, and fast shutter speeds. This is not the kind of lens you can take a couple of shots on a brick wall and come to a conclusion. Also, the bricks and mortar have tiny specs of reflective particles.which create distortion. This guys doesn't seem to be aware of this. Watched a couple of vids, dont know what his obsession with brick and mortar is, but its a horrible surface to test a lens on. Other than that, his reviews are ok. But, he needs to revisit this lens, spend a few days with it.

[@tridinh1011]

i mean, you can get a bloody 70-200L with that money, why buy this thing?

[@fencing1goat]

@@tridinh1011 If you wanna stand out with a huge white lense, without a greater reach, then get the white Cannon Barrel. The Canon 70-300DO was designed for not being spotted from a mile away, LOL, also it has a better zoom range. The DO is a great lense, he should review a brand new one. Probably got a used one. Many amateur photographers destroyed the zoom barrel on these lenses by pushing and pulling instead of using the ring. Truth is the zoom ring is tight when you first buy one, but you get used to it. Its an awesome lense. Its a little too expensive, but thats typical of canon on all their lenses.

[@tridinh1011]

@@fencing1goat yeah i do think the zoom ring is that lens' fault but if you do want the best image quality within that price range then the DO is clearly not the option. Yes if you need to be stealthy then yeah its good enough but i honestly need the image quality more (and i use a 70-200 f2.8 with a 400mm f2.8)

[@robin29991]

I saw the "70-300 DON' T" coming but still laughed pretty hard. Nice video, Chris!

[@ntstudio28]

its your voice man.. i will believe anything your voice tells me.. lol!

[@christopherfrost]

ntstudio28 Even I've liked this comment heh heh

[@shiwam_kaul]

very true

[@glossbaby2893]

TRUE! makes me want to buy every camera reviewed lol

[@JinMizushima]

ntstudio28 hahaha true that! When i hear his voice keep on watching

[@KandiKlover]

What about if he tells you to get the flammenwerfer?

[@Flightguy69]

Awesome Video! I know someone who owns one of these lenses and can honestly say for a Non- "L" Series Lens, this is rather expensive! Since the value of this lens is parked at about 250.00 US dollars, it is hard to fathom that they would mark it up to over 1000.00 US dollars. Its a great lens without a doubt, but in my opinion is only worth about 185.00 US dollars. I say for this price range, it is better to pay a few dollars more and get the 400mm lens.

[@JoeJacksonJr]

Another great review. This is why I have stayed away from that lens.. Canon is rumored to be reworking the 70-300, hopefully we will be seeing something from them about that around first of next year..

[@MohammadKhan-nb5xl]

Hi Chris, love to see your reviews. Thanks for your hard work. Your hard work helps many other beginner photographer like me to choose the correct equipment. Thanks again. One small request, would you be able to do a review of canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 is usm L lens. As because its probably the last 70-300mm lens need to get review by you. Again thanks for your hard work .

[@Archmage1809]

After some Google actions, this lens has the price of the legendary 70-200 2.8L (without IS) and the cheaper and lighter 70-200 f4L (with IS). 70-200 2.8L IS II is a different story. I would recommend 70-200 f4L (non IS) for better image quality (yeah L lens won't fail you), constantly aperture, half of price if you are using Full-frame camera. APS-C has the cheaper and better EFS 55-250 that I highly recommend if you are in low budget and want a telephoto.

[@JadenWhite]

Would this lens be worth on an EOS R for 250 USD?

[@btrdangerdan2010]

I got lucky and paid only $200 for this lens from a facebook market sale. Drove to newport Beach to pick it up. Came with original box and paperwork, along with all caps , hood and lens pouch.

[@pcbassy9404]

Hi! 5cm less in length isn't either "a litttle" or "slightly" . Comming from the "normal" 70-300 its 43% smaller and this is alot when you need every room in your pocket (It would also a lot if my salary rises 43% ;-) . It's not lighter. It's extraordinary expanisive. It's special. It's better than it's reputation when correctly aligned. There where a lot of them sold. I confirm that the 55-250 is the better choice for aps-c. For fullframe choose 70-300L when place and weight not matters.

[@jackwian6909]

Hey Christopher, I've been a subscriber for a couple of years now and love your videos. I was wondering if you would review/ have any thoughts on the tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 lens?

[@LinhNguyen-rz1ms]

Nice review as always Chris, look forward to see the new canon 50mm 1.8 lens review :)

[@boondoc001]

Thanks for the review. I just picked this lens up for a few dollars under $200 off eBay. Sucks that it's not good with APS-C but I mainly bought it to use with my 35mm SLR. I was hoping to sell my 55-250mm but I guess I'll keep it for my T5i

[@duncanoo]

why it is not good with APS-C?

[@kishascape]

@@duncanoo it’s fine. This guy is just an unrealistic photo snob who complains as a hobby. It’s perfectly fine on APS-C.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

One of the two Canon lenses with diffractive optics. The other one is the really small 400mm f/4. These kind of lenses have a green ring instead of the red or silver. Diffractive optics isn't a new technology. It permits lighter and smaller telephoto lenses. However the bokeh of lenses with diffractive optics is peculiar. It shows many thin circles which isn't very nice.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

This lens was introduced in 2004 and is quite old. The other canon lens with diffraction optics is the 400mm f/4 which is very sharp and small. This lens is certainly not sharp and its price has dropped to 700$. For its range 70-300 is a very small lens for full frame cameras. And that is the only advantage it has. I hope it will be updated by canon like the 400mm. It's a wonderful lens for travelers. But in 2004 the diffraction lens technology wasn't matured.

[@maculikurkin4544]

Worth buying it in 2022?

[@Token_Nerd]

@@maculikurkin4544 If you can get it for 200 bucks, yeah I'd say its a decent spare optic or street photography lens, much much more subtle than a 100-400, which is what this lens is competing with.

[@smaakjeks]

Ouch. Chris offers no mercy to the inadequate. However, it's hard to argue against the conclusion. Having to work at f8 on a crop sensor camera (equiv of f13) is pretty useless. If you need a lens with roughly that range, and you have that kind of money to spend, you should get the canon EF 70-200 f4 IS. It's better in every way, apart from size.

[@Xenol1997]

***** You do realise that the you'll still get the shame shutterspeeds from an F8 lens on crop and an F8 lens on FF? The only thing that changes is the DoF. Its not how much light per cm^3 that affects the exposure, it's the light intensity.

[@smaakjeks]

Emperor_Xenolius You're partially right. The same intensity of light hits each area of sensor. However, if the cameras have the same pixel count, then the crop sensor camera will collect less total light because of the surface area of each pixel. A smaller pixel picks up less total light than a larger pixel, if all else is equal. This difference corresponds to the crop factor, since the sensor - and therefore each pixel - is smaller in size by the crop factor. If you can provide a demonstration which shows me to be in error, please correct me.

[@Xenol1997]

But by that logic, a full frame camera with a different pixel count to another full frame camera would get different results? I use my 60d as a meter for my film camera (the metering battery has ran out) The grains of ISO400 film are probably much smaller than the pixels on my DSLR, and so each gets less light - yet my results are perfectly accurate. as sound as your logic sounds, if a APS-C camera set to exactly the same aperture and ISO as a full frame and gets the same shutter-speed, it's a pointless argument?

[@TravelingBibliophile]

Hello Chris, congratulations on your upcoming marriage. One of the reasons I enjoy your reviews is because you show how the lenses work on both full frame as well as crop sensor cameras. I have looked at this lens off and on for the past two years and now, having seen your great review I am glad I didn't buy it.

[@haythamfpv]

Hi Christopher, would you rather choose a Tamron 700-300 f/4-5.6 VC or this Canon 700-300 f/4-5.6 IS DO?

[@christopherfrost]

The Tamron, any day

[@haythamfpv]

@@christopherfrost I also choose the tamron and I'm quite happy with it. Although the autofocus seems a bit slow and imprecise to the point that it behaves like a cheap contrast based autofocus. I'm using it on a canon M100 which has dual pixel autofocus with both the Viltrox Speedbooster and a Meike adapter.

[@MrPatdalton]

I've seen picture samples of this lens that look sharp. Do you do lens calibrations before the tests ? Regards

[@alkevinzmedia]

Awesome!!! I was wondering if you had reviewed this lens :D so I digger around your video list and couldn't find it. I came back today and it popped up! Yay!! Than you. I also happen to find an old but food sharp lens. Its the Canon 28-70mm f3.5 -4.5 version II macro lens. Its from 1988 but delivers nice sharp images in stunning performance for such lens. The value has gone up on eBay. I got kind thankfully for 23$ u.s dollars. Its a hype that stays true to itself.

[@sokoli989]

Did you receive your 50mm 1.8 stm? What do you think of image quality stopped down? Review soon?

[@gramps6718]

Well thanks Chris, I bought this lens with my 400D kit lens camera not knowing much about cameras or lenses but thinking Canon was the best. Over the years I’ve got more and more despondent with Canon gear with their over inflated prices and meagre specs. This review proves my point. I'm off to find an ice cream van!

[@kaanaksoy2599]

Dear Christopher, this one is one of the reviews about which I wondered most. Diffractive optics are quite interesting indeed. But 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS performs not very different that 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. A bit disappointing. I would rather buy a 70-200 f/4 L IS or 400 f/5.6 L with that money. : ) Thanks a lot for this review.

[@williammetzger1992]

Christopher Frost Photography would you choose this or the Tamaron 70-300mm, if you had to choose based on image quality.

[@christopherfrost]

***** I'd choose the Tamron 70-300 VC USD

[@williammetzger1992]

Thank you sir. Just picked it up.

[@williammetzger1992]

Mikhail Campbell​ How does this make me a newb? Congratulations this is what you do with your life! 🌟 

[@williammetzger1992]

BTW thank you Chris. I recently replaced this lens with the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Phenomenal lens! Though the 70-300 ended me up with a gig shooting for Nahko medicine for the people at electric Forrest, I owe part of that to you Mr. Frost!

[@vudoodaddie]

I trust your expertise 100%. Thanks.

[@akashj6071]

Hi Christopher does your Canon 6D grip is peels off or being loosen like the Canon 60D ??

[@christopherfrost]

Akash J Not yet, thankfully. My 60D is really bad now

[@kishascape]

The aperture is definitely not “less than normal for this class”. The 70-300 L lens zoom is exactly the same. So unless you trying to shoot in the dark with film it’s not an issue.

[@eliasflash3771]

Hey Chris I'm looking for a 70-300mm Telephoto lens for my 6d and still stuck between the DO, the Tamron and The Canon Is USM II , what do you think? I found the DO for 240€ on eBay and the other Two one's are more or less the same price.

[@christopherfrost]

If you check out my reviews, you'll see that the Canon IS USM ii is the best of those :-)

[@jaxw2628]

Found it on Craigslist for $450. My second lucky CL find, the first one being my canon SL2+18-55mm lens for $350.

[@geofff6671]

I had one of these back in the day. Not great optically and pretty expensive even second hand. And while smaller than non DO lenses the space saving was not great. And it was heavy.

[@mike969696]

Fascinating. I'd always heard that these weren't very good, but what really strikes me from this review is how inferior to the often-derided el-cheapo 75-300 this lens is.

[@doctorheart]

dear sir, in your opinion, this lenses a lower price , as I see about U$ 350,00 is great ? or even, Isnt accetable ? best regards,

[@christopherfrost]

Even for that price, I personally wouldn't bother

[@NewWalls98]

Chris hope you do a review of Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM soon . Thanks

[@RynaxAlien]

Any more diffractive telephoto lens?

[@eier3252]

B-but it has a green ring instead of a red one and is wonderfully weird... I'd take one if I find it cheap anywhere

[@hansd1024]

You know, ive seen people manually attach coloured rings to the end of their lenses. Ive seen red rings on 55-250s and an 18-135. nothing really weird. if you just want a green ring just stick one yourself

[@raj9035375640]

hello, should i go for canon 70-300mm is usm or tamron 70-300mm di vc usd

[@JadenWhite]

I have an 80D and want a lens with some distance. A few people are selling this lens for 450-400. Is it worth it? Or should i just look for a used L lens?

[@christopherfrost]

Watch the review, and you'll find out how (awfully) it performs on an APS-C camera

[@alexanderwong1608]

Thought you sold your 70D :p Could you also do the Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO?

[@vanillawafers1131]

Just got one for $60

[@RyuBlaze24]

Vanilla Wafers lol where!?

[@gopropublicrelation5619]

@@RyuBlaze24 From BLM movement.

[@KandiKlover]

@@gopropublicrelation5619 yes from the looting and riot movement

[@ignacioconde2219]

By the way, is that your house? The building you always take a picture of.

[@adammills8612]

Could be divided into apartments

[@charlesfisher2134]

Great Job I have the 55 to 250 it's a crackerjack glamour bottle tack Sharp.

[@wildbill9919]

Not a good choice for me. You can fix vignetting and distortion in post, but you can't fix lack of sharpness.

[@Magnetron692]

Thank you very much, Chris, for this Video! Canon should launch a newer, improved version of this lens. Best, Magnetron

[@eier5472]

Green ring, enough reason to buy it

[@jamesowler1526]

It would be great if you could review the L-series version of this lens!

[@jasonkim4076]

How much would it be rn cuz I have one and trying to sell

[@izik791]

Would love to see a review of the sigma 85mm 1.4!

[@ArianOby]

DO, Don't, Won't ....... gochya!

[@JarBro5555]

what do you think now that prices have dropped on the used market?

[@zegzbrutal]

Worth it.

[@zegzbrutal]

It's cheap as RF100-400 iny local 2nd hand market.

[@lb7144]

$140.00 U.S. in 2024

[@christianschmeer]

This lens or the 70-300 Nano?

[@TjeuthjeugjaXl]

This lens has 2 anti-shake modes. In what cases is it used, can anyone explain it to me?

[@vijetmulay4691]

Want to see a Canon 50mm f/1.8 stm review

[@chaudown5]

Congratulations on your marriage! Are you going to take your own wedding photos? Just kidding :)

[@polusio]

congrats!

[@vanhoannguyen7440]

I think this 1000$ lens isnt as good as 55-250 stm

[@KandiKlover]

Right it’s better and also actually 300$ on eBay,

[@squashvids1032]

Closing down the aperture of the lens will provide more depth of field but not sharpness. Hence the best lenses are equally sharp wide open or stopped down.

[@ilidenstrmrege987]

How is this for $400?

[@christopherfrost]

Maybe it might just be worth it, if you desperately wants something smaller than usual. Honestly though the new Canon 70-300 USM II is much better

[@sony2k0]

I scored one for 320 EUR. And the size is one of the reasons why I bought it.

[@thomascarlsson7722]

For the price it is very unsharp. Really bad. Mostly like the orginal 70-300mm. They sell them here used for 379€. The EOS 40D and 55-250mm EF-S is quite good for the price. I paid 100€ for a like brand new 40D and mostly I use L lenses. The 55-250mm EF-S may work. It's very cheap and plasticy.

[@ignacioconde2219]

Not first!

[@RobWilmotUK]

This is quite a poor lens. Even the basic very sigma or canon ones are about the same sharpness. I cant believe they charge so much

[@smartoff4417]

Это самый неудачный мой объектив, кроме компактности и хорошей сборки у него нет никаких больше плюсов.

[@Chilled_Wombat]

Those old Canon lenses are horrible. All those colors. Green, yellow, red, white - awful look. The designer back than was a colorful man. All that wrighting too. So many fonts and words ..

[@jeffreymliss]

Three thumbs down.

[@bhaskarjs]

$1300... end of video for me. Bye

[@TheMetalButcher]

They go used often for between $100-200 if you know where to look.